DDIT, New Delhi V. Mitchell Drilling International Pty. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 874/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86560 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT ARORA CA SURAJ NANGIA
• Keywords: Presumptive income; Rule of consistency
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, VS MITCHELL DRI LLING INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., CIRCLE-3(2), C/O N ANGAI & CO., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SUIT 4A, PLAZA M-6 , JASOLA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AADCM9904H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AMIT ARORA CA, SURAJ NANGIA C A RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIVEK KUMAR, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XXIX, NEW DELHI DATED 10.12.2012 IN APPEAL NO. 118/ 11-12 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CTT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE TAX B EING A STATUTORY LIABILITY, WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF SERVICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 44BB AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME COU LD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR DETERMINING THE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME IGNORING THEREBY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF THE TAXABLE INCOM E AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF THE 'GROSS RECEIPTS' AND ALSO I GNORING THE ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 2 FACT THE SECTION 44BB BEING BENEFICIAL PROVISION IN ITSELF, IT DOES NOT ENVISAGE ANY FURTHER CONCESSIONS TO THE AS SESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN AUSTRALIA AND IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING EQUIPMENT ON HIRING AND MANPOWER ETC. FOR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OIL AND NATURAL GAS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE EARNED GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 21,05,89,855 F ROM VARIOUS CLIENTS AND OFFERED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,12,90,261 IN ITS RE TURN OF INCOME IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 44BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE ASSESSED U NDER THE SAID SECTION IN SO FAR AS THE RECEIPTS FROM M/S ARROW ENERGY, M/S ESSAR OIL L IMITED, M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, M/S GREAT EASTERN ENERGY PTY. L IMITED ARE CONCERNED. THE AO HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,57.20,779 /- COLLECT ED AS SERVICE TAX BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS CUSTOMER IS TO BE ADDED TO ITS GR OSS RECEIPTS TO BE TAXED U/S 44BB OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE AO ASSESSED THE TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,38,62,338/-. 4. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NOW, THE AG GRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE SOLE GROUND AS REPRODUCED HE REINABOVE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, INTER ALIA, IMP UGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL APPEA RING FOR THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 3 SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT E BENCH, NEW DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE I.E. ITA NO. 698/DEL/2012 FOR AY 2008-09 O RDER DATED 31.8.2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF FOR TH E ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009-10 BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). LD. D R FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT ITAT E BENCH, NEW DELHI DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2008-09. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 31.8.2012 IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.689/D/2012 (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL UP HELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROS E BEFORE G BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SEDCO FOREX IN TERNATIONAL DRILLING INC. VS. ADDL. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) IN ITA NO.5284/DEL./2011, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION, WHIC H HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER AS UNDER: 4. ..REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICE TAX, THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE ITAT DELHI B ENCH IN THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT (INTERNATIONAL TA XATION) VS. TECHNIP OFFSHORE CONTRACTING BV,29 SOT 33(DELHI) CO NCLUDED THAT SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING DI RECTLY IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR SUPPLY SP ECIFIED U/S 44BB OF THE ACT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONGC, H AVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF D ETERMINATION OF PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT U/S 44BB, SUBSEQUENTLY, HONB LE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 24TH JULY, 20 09 IN THE CASE OF DIT & ANR. VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES L TD. ,317 ITR 156(UTTARAKHAND) CONCLUDED THAT REIMBURSEMENT O F CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FORM PAR T OF AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFITS U/S 44BB U NLIKE THE ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 4 OTHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT. FOLLO WING THE VIEW IN THIS DECISION, MUMBAI BENCH IN THEIR DECISI ON DATED 20.4.2011 IN I.T.A.NO.8845/MUM/2010 IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES VS. DCIT,2011-TOII- 77- MUM-INTL, HELD THAT SERVICE TAX BEING A STATUTORY L IABILITY, WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFIT AND A SERVI CE PROVIDER HAVING COLLECTED THE AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERN MENT, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR DETERMINING THE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME, TH E LD. AR ADDED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSOTHE AFORESAID DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE LD. AR. WE FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES IN C. (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICATING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT & TRANSPORT CHARGES IN RES PECT OF EQUIPMENT, CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 5. SEC. 44BB PROVIDES THAT THE DEEMED PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER SUBS.(1) SHALL BE @ 10 PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUB-S.(2). WE PROCEED TO ANALYZ E SUB-S. (2). CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-S. (2) REFERS TO THE AMOUNTS , (A) PAID TO THE ASSESSEE (WHETHER IN OR OUT OF INDIA) ON ACCOUN T OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ON HIRE USED, OR TO B E USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF , MINERAL OILS IN INDIA, AND (B) PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE (WHE THER IN OR OUT OF INDIA) ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVIC ES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT A ND MACHINERY ON HIRE USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR , OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS IN INDIA. CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-S. (2) REFERS TO THE AMOUNTS, (A) RECEIVED BY A SSESSEE IN INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND F ACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY O N HIRE USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXT RACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS OUTSIDE INDIA, AND (B) DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPP LY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ON HIRE USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE P ROSPECTING FOR, OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OILS OU TSIDE INDIA. ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 5 6. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PERUSAL OF S. 44BB TH AT ALL THE AMOUNTS EITHER PAID OR PAYABLE (WHETHER IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE INDIA) OR RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED (WHETHE R IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE INDIA) ARE MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE. THIS AMOU NT IS THE BASIS OF DETERMINATION OF DEEMED PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE @ 10 PER CENT. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL FELL INTO ERROR IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT AND THE INCOME. AMOUNT PAID OR RECEIVED REFE RS TO THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE OR PAYABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS INCO ME HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER S.2(24) OF THE IT ACT AND S. 5 A ND S. 9 DEAL WITH THE INCOME AND ACCRUED INCOME AND DEEMED INCOM E. SEC. 4 IS THE CHARGING SECTION OF THE IT ACT AND DEFINIT ION AS WELL AS THE INCOMES REFERRED IN SS. 5 AND 9 ARE FOR THE PUR POSE OF IMPOSING THE INCOME-TAX UNDER S. 143 (3). SEC.44BB IS A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF. IT PROVIDES BY A LEGAL FIC TION TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE NON-RESIDENT ASSESSEE ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF OIL EXPLORATION @ 10 PER CENT OF THE AG GREGATE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUB-S. (2). IT IS NOT IN DISPUT E THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. T HEREFORE, THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE NON- RESIDENT COMPANY RENDERING SERVICES AS PER PROVISI ONS OF S. 44BB TO THE ONGC AND IMPOSED THE INCOME-TAX THEREON . 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. AR ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION WHILE NO OTHER CONTRARY DECI SION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE NOR THE LD. AR PLACED ANY MAT ERIAL BEFORE US, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE DRP AND THE AO, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE FIND INGS OF THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP IN PARA 3. 2 OF THEIR ORDER DATED 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 IN RESPECT OF REIMB URSEMENT OF AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF FUEL RECHARGE. IN VIEW THER EOF, GROUND NO. 2 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. AS REGARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SERVICE TAX, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR, THE ITAT DELHI B ENCH IN THEIR DECISION IN TECHNIP OFFSHORE CONTRACTING BV(SUPRA) CONCLUDED THAT SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSE E BEING DIRECTLY IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR SUPPLY SPECIFIED U/S 44BB OF THE ACT PROVIDED BY THE ASSES SEE TO ONGC, HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THE ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 6 PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT SECTION 44BB OF TH E ACT IS A SPECIAL PROVISION, TREATING 10 PER CENT OF THE AGGR EGATE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUB-S. (2) OF S.44BB AS DEEMED PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH NON-RESIDENT ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SERVICES OR FACILITIES IN CON NECTION WITH, OR SUPPLYING PLANT AND MACHINERY ON HIGHER USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXTRACTION OR PROD UCTION OF, MINERAL OILS. THE AMOUNT REFERRED IN SUB-S.(2) OF S . 44BB ARE THE AMOUNTS (A) PAID TO THE ASSESSEE (WHETHER IN OR OUT OF INDIA) ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY O N HIGHER USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXT RACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS IN INDIA, (B) PAYABLE T O THE ASSESSEE (WHETHER IN OR OUT OF INDIA) ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ON HIGHER USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS IN INDIA, (C) RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDI A ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONN ECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ON HIGHER USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS OUTSIDE INDIA AND (D) DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SE RVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT A ND MACHINERY ON HIGHER USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING F OR, OR EXTRACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS OUTSIDE I NDIA. THE SERVICE TAX IS A STATUTORY LIABILITY LIKE CUSTOM DU TY. HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN SCHLUMB ERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.(SUPRA) CONCLUDED THAT REIMBURSEM ENT OF CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FORM PAR T OF AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFITS U/S 44BB U NLIKE THE OTHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT. FOLLO WING THE VIEW IN THIS DECISION, MUMBAI BENCH IN THEIR DECISI ON IN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES(SUPRA)HELD THAT SERVICE TAX BEING A STATUTORY LIABILITY, WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFIT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME COULD N OT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR DETERMINING THE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI BE NCH, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. DR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERI AL BEFORE US, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER NOR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 7 SERVICE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FORM PAR T OF AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFITS U/S 44BB UNLIKE T HE OTHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT. 9. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY EARLIER DECISION OF ITAT, G BENCH, DELHI, WHICH IS ON SIMILAR POINT AND NO CONT RARY OR ANY HIGHER COURTS PRECEDENT HAS BEEN CITED, THEREFORE, WHILE FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. FROM OPERATIVE PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2009- 10, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF F OR THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING DETERMINATION:- DETERMINATION: 4.0 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE APPELLANT ON AND FOR BEHALF OF CEN TRAL GOVERNMENT BY ITSELF CAN NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED IN RETURN OF PROVIDING ANY SERVICES OR FACILITIES IN T ERMS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN AY 2008-09 AND THEN C IT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE S AID ORDER OF CIT(A) HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE IT AT DE LHI VIDE ORDER DATED 31-08-2012 IN ITA NO. 698?DEI/2012. I H AVE GONE THROUGH SAID APPELLATE ORDERS FOR AY. 2008-09. SINC E THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE SAME AS IN AY 2008-09, I FIND NO RE ASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, 1 HOLD THAT SER VICE TAX IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES O F COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT T HE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIE F FOR THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.8.2012 (SUPRA) F OR AY 2008-09 AS SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN RETURN OF P ROVIDING ANY SERVICES OR ITA NO.874/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 8 FACILITIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE SAME ISSUE W HICH IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.8.2012 (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 WHICH IS ON SIMI LAR POINT AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY CONTRARY VIEW OF ANY H ONBLE HIGHER COURT. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 31.8.2012, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RIGHTLY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOI D OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01.2015. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GAR G) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 09TH JANUARY 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR