DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Lloyd Electric & Engineering, New Delhi

ITA 877/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61660 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MISHRADR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGGARWALAR
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI D BENC H BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.877/DEL./2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI V/S . M/S LLOYD ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING LTD., B-10/1, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-20 [PAN :AAACL 0484 G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI YOGESH AGGARWAL,AR REVENUE BY SHRI D.K. MISHRA,DR DATE OF HEARING 19-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 -05-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 03.03.2010 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 19.01.2010 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT TO ` ` 41,86,762/- AS AGAINST ` ` 2,93,28,800/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DELIBERATELY SHOWN HIGHER INCOME BY NOT CLAIMING PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES FROM KALA-AMB UNIT ONLY TO INCREASE ITS PROFIT OF THIS UNIT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` `4,61,46,000/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS & BOOK P ROFITS OF ` 31,82,26,119/- IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.115JB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FILED ON 29.11 .2006 BY THE ASSESSEE, MANUFACTURING PARTS AND COMPONENTS FOR AIR CONDITIO NING AND REFRIGERATION INDUSTRY AND TRADING IN METAL SHEETS, AFTER BEING P ROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOT ICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, ISSUED ON 1.11.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TWO MANUFACTURING UNITS- UNIT 1 AT A-146 (B&C) RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA BHIWADI, RAJ ASTHAN, ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSERS AND EVAP ORATOR COILS AND ALSO ROOF MOUNTED ACS FOR RAILWAYS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS WHIL E THE OTHER, A NEWLY ESTABLISHED UNIT MANUFACTURED AIR CONDITIONING EQU IPMENTS, WINDOWS AS WELL AS SPLITS AT PLOT NO.16-17, TRILOKPUR ROAD, KALA AMB, HIMACHAL PRADESH W.E.F 30.6.2004 AND THUS, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE SECOND YEAR OF THE OPERATION OF THIS UNIT AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 801C(2)(A)(II) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ACCOUNTS REVEALED THAT THE PROFIT PERCENT AGE IN THE NEW UNIT WAS HIGH WHILE EXPENDITURE WAS LOWER, THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR LOWER EXPENDITURE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS OF TURNOVER AND EXPENDITURE IN THE TWO UNITS:- EXPENSES AS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AS ON 31.3.2006 BHIWADI KALA-AMB GROSS TURNOVER 162.63,12,566 52,02,23,092 117,44,32,932 TURNOVER % 100% 30.70% 69.30% GROSS PROFIT 33.02% 24.28% NET PROFIT 9,.91% 22.71% MANUFACTURING EXPENSES 2,99,37,831 2,14,69,982 84,67,849 ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 3 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 3,64,03,267 3,01,57,964 62,45,303 SELLING EXPENSES 1,09,04,306 1,05,21,760 382,546 FINANCE EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF 5,43,78,868 3,11,69,283 26,35,302 16,42,557 16,42,557 - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SEPARATE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED IN BOTH THE UNITS AND THERE WAS NO MIXIN G OF THE EXPENDITURE OR THE INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION, AUDITORS FEE, DIRECTORS TRAVELING WERE DEBITED ONLY IN THE ACCOU NTS OF BHIWADI UNIT WHILE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF ONLY ` 62.45 LACS WERE DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF KALA-AMB UNIT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF ` `364.03 LACS AND SUBSTANTIAL STOCK OF 5,34,61,396/- WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BHIWADI UNIT TO KALA AMB UNIT. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXPENSES RELATING TO KALA-AMB U NIT HAD BEEN BOOKED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BHIWADI UNIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-1C READ WITH SUB SECTION (5) AND SUB SEC TION (7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80- 1A OF THE ACT, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT EXPENSES FOR A N AMOUNT OF ` ` 2,93,28,800/- UNDER FOLLOWING HEADS HAD BEEN CLAIMED LESS IN THE KALA-AMB UNIT. MANUFACTURING EXPENSES ` 64,99,340 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ` 1,89,82,139 SELLING EXPENSES ` 28,85,617 FINANCE CHARGES ` 9,61,637 CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ALLOCATED THE AFORESAID EXPENS ES TO KALA AMB UNIT AND REDUCED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-1C OF THE ACT TO ` `22,36,65,253/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF A SSESSEE SUBSTANTIALLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE AY 2005-06,HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHAL F OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO PER USED THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR-IN-OFFICE IN APPEAL NO.122/07-08 VID E ORDER DATED ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 4 05.02.2009 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005- 06 WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ABOVE BY THE APPELLAN T. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP IN THE APPELLA NT COMPANYS OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ON PAGES 16, 17,18 & 19 OF THE SAID ORDER, MY PREDECESSOR-IN-OFFICE HAS HEL D AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT TH E EXPENSES CLAIMED AT KALA-AMB UNIT ARE LOWER AT EXEMPT UNIT A S COMPARED TO OLD UNIT AT BHIWADI. BUT I ALSO FIND F ORCE IN THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. A) THAT THE PRODUCT MIX AT EXEMPT UNIT IS DIFFERENT TH AN THE BHIWADI UNIT AND THEREFORE THE COST STRUCTURE A T THE TWO UNITS DIFFERENT. B) THAT COST OF PRODUCTION ALSO INCLUDED COST OF MATER IALS, WHICH WAS HIGHER AT EXEMPT UNIT AND THE COMBINED RATE OF COST OF MATERIALS AND EXPENSES TOGETHER AT EXEMPT UNIT WAS ALMOST SAME TO NON-EXEMPT UNIT. C) THAT THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF TUR NOVER CANNOT BE APPLIED SELECTIVELY OVERLOOKING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING THAT MANUFACTURING EXP ENSES AT BHIWADI UNIT INCLUDED EXPENSES RELATED TO KALA-AMB. BUT SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPENSES DEFINITE LY HAVE SOME COMMON EXPENSES SUCH AS DIRECTOR REMUNERATION, TRAV ELING AND AUDIT FEES WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE INCURRED FOR BOTH THE UNITS. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, VARIOUS EXPENSES CL AIMED AT THE TWO UNITS CAN BE TREATED AS UNDER:- MANUFACTURING EXPENSES: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED EXCISE D UTY AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSE. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE OTHER EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED WHEN THE TWO UNITS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS, WH ICH ARE LOCATED 300 KMS APART AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INDICATED ANY MIXING OF EXPENSES. HENCE, NO AMOUNT S NEED TO BE ALLOCATED TO KALA-AMB UNIT. ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 5 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES THERE ARE SOME EXPENSES LIKE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION AND AUDITORS FEE WHICH NEED TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE RATI O OF TURNOVER- DIRECTORS REMUNERATION 720,000 AUDIT FEE 275,000 25.73% OF ABOVE 995,000 256,014 THE AO HAS FOUND THAT TWO PERSONS VINOD PRABHAKARAN AND BS BHARDWAJ WERE ALSO WORKING FOR KALA-AMB UNIT. THEIR SALARY EXP- ENSES NEED TO BE ALLOCATED TO KALA- AMB UNIT. 147,535 PF RELATED TO ABOVE 10,368 THE FOREIGN TRAVEL OF VINOD PRABHAKARAN WILL ALSO BE ALLOCATED 377, 689 IT IS OBSERVED THAT DOMESTIC TRAVELING AT BHIWADI INCLUDES TRAVEL TO KALA-AMB 352,98 6 THE OTHER EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED AT THE TWO UNITS SEPARATELY AND EXPEN- SES SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BHIWADI UNIT ARE INCURRED FOR BHIWADI UNIT. HOWEVER, EXPENSES OF ` ` 21,45,774 552,108 ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF HEAD OFFICE DELHI CAN BE SAID TO BE USED COMMONLY FOR THE TWO UNITS.(25.73% OF ` ` 21,45,774) TOTAL: 1,696,699 MARKETING & SELLING EXPENSES ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED COMMISSION AND CARRIAGE OUTWARD. . DISCOUNTS AND BAD DEBTS ARE ALSO RE- LATED TO SALES EFFECTED FROM BHIWADI UNIT AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 6 ALLOCATED. .. ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY ` `880,106 AND BUSINESS PROMOTION ` ` 677,733 CAN BE SAID TO BE COMMON EXPENSES AND NEED TO BE ALLOCATED, WHICH COMES TO ` ` 400,832. OF THIS ` ` 15,776 IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF KALA-AMB AND THEREFORE, BALANCE AMOUNT NEED TO BE ALLOCATED 383,056 TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENSES TO BE ALLO- CATED TO KALA-AMB UNIT 2,081,755 3. THE NEW UNIT BECAME OPERATIONAL W.E.F. 30.06.20 04 AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB FILED WITH THE RE TURN. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE UNIT WAS PRACTICALLY O PERATIVE ONLY FOR A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS COMPRISED OF DECEMBER 2004 TO MARCH, 2005 AND THEREFORE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED FOR 4 MONTHS ONLY AS AGAINST A PERIOD OF 10 MONTHS AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN MY OPINION, SOME EXPE NSES ARE ALSO REQUIRED BEFORE A UNIT BECOMES COMMERCIALLY OPERATI ONAL OR COMMENCES TRIAL PRODUCTION. THE DATE OF COMMENCEME NT AS SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT CAN BE FAIRLY RELIED UPON . I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT EVEN AS PER THIS DA TE THE ALLOCATION NEED TO BE MADE FOR 9 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 10 MONTHS A S TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON PRO-RATA ALLOCATION FOR 9 MONTHS, THE CLAIM U/S 80-IC SHALL STAND REDUCED BY ` `15,16,316/- AS AGAINST THE REDUCTION OF ` `71,06,795 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.1 THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY ON THE BAS IS OF THE METHOD ADOPTED BY MY PREDECESSOR-IN-OFFICE. ACCORD INGLY, THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WOULD BE AS UNDER: - ADDL. EXPENSES TO BE ALLOCATED TO KALA-AMB UNIT. MANUFACTURING EXPENSES: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED EXCISE DUTY AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSE. ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 7 THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE OTHER EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED WHEN THE TWO UNITS MAINTAIN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE LOCATED 300 KMS APART AND THE AO HAS NOT INDICATED ANY MIXING OF EXPENSES. HENCE, NO AMOUNTS NEED TO BE ALLOCATED TO KALA-AMB UNIT. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES THERE ARE SOME EXPENSES LIKE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION AND AUDITORS FEE WHICH NEED TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER- DIRECTORS REMUNERATION 7,20,000 AUDIT FEE 4,20,900 69.30% OF ABOVE. 11,40,900 790,644 THE OTHER EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED AT THE TWO UNITS SEPARATELY AND EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BHIWADI UNIT ARE INCURRED FOR BHIWADI UNIT. HOWEVER, EXPENSES OF 29,85,646/- ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF HEAD OFFICE DELHI CAN BE SAID TO BE USED COMMONLY FOR THE TWO UNITS (69.30% OF 29,85,646) 20,69,053 TOTAL 28,59,697 MARKETING & SELLING EXPENSES AO HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED COMMISSION & CARRIAGE OUTWARD. DISCOUNTS & BAD DEBTS ARE ALSO RE- LATED TO SALES EFFECTED FROM BHIWADI UNIT AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ALLOCATED. - ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 8 ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY- ``880,106 AND BUSINESS PROMOTION ``677,733 CAN BE SAID TO BE COMMON EXPENSES AND NEED TO BE ALLOCATED, WHICH COMES TO ``400,832. OF THIS ``15,776 IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF KALA-AMB AND THEREFORE, BALANCE AMOUNT NEED TO BE ALLOCATED 13,.27,065 TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENSES TO BE ALLO- CATED TO KALA-AMB UNIT 41,86,762 AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE DISALLO WANCE FOR AY 2006-07 ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT( A) WORKS OUT TO ` 41,86,762/- AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,93,28,800/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE APPELLANT IS ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IC TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24,88,07,291/- INSTEAD OF ` 25,29,94,053/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.AS A RESULT, THE APPELL ANT GETS A RELIEF OF ` 2,51,42,038/- AND AN AMOUNT OF ` 41,86,762/- IS CONFIRMED. THUS,GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TH E DECISION DATED 23 RD JULY, 2010 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2005-06 IN I.T.A. NO.2305/DEL./09 ,SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 10.3.2011 IN I.T.A. NO.483/2011. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE AFORESAID DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HIS PRED ECESSOR IN THE AY 2005-06 IN REALLOCATING THE EXPENSES AND CONSEQUENTLY, REWORKI NG OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THEIR DECISION DAT ED 23.7.2010 IN THE AY 2005- 06 UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR & CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAD RELIED ON THE FACT THAT ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 9 THE PRODUCT MIXED AT EXEMPT UNIT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BHIWADI UNIT AND, THEREFORE, THE COST STRUCTURE AT THE TWO UNITS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. THAT COST OF COMBINED RATE OF COST OF MATERIAL, WHI CH WAS HIGHER AT EXEMPT UNIT AND THE COMBINED RATE OF COST OF MATERI ALS AND EXPENSES TOGETHER AT EXEMPT UNIT WAS ALMOST THE SAM E TO NON- EXEMPT UNIT. THAT THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES IN TH E RATIO OF TURNOVER COULD NOT BE APPLIED SELECTIVELY OVER LOOKING THE C OST OF MATERIAL AND OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE. HE ALSO NOTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURING EXPENSES AT BHIWADI UNIT INCLUDED EXPENSES RELATED TO KALA AMB UNIT. HOWEVER , HE HAD IDENTIFIED CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPEN SES, WHICH WERE COMMON TO BOTH THE UNITS. THESE EXPENSES RELATED T O REMUNERATION, TRAVELING, AUDIT FEE, SALARY EXPENSES OF TWO PERSONS, NAMELY VINOD PRABHAKARAN AND V.S. BHARDWAJ, OTHER H EAD OFFICE COMMON EXPENSES, PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENS ES. HE IDENTIFIED THESE EXPENSES AND ALLOCATED IN THE RATI O OF 25.73 PER CENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE EXEMP T UNIT BECAME OPERATIONAL WITH EFFECT FROM 30 TH JUNE, 2004. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE UNIT WAS PRACTICALLY OPERATIVE ON LY FOR FOUR MONTHS COMPRISED OF DECEMBER, 2004. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE UNIT WAS PRACTICALLY OPERATIVE ON LY FOR FOUR MONTHS COMPRISED OF DECEMBER, 2004 TO MARCH, 2005 A ND, THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL EXPENSES COULD HAVE BEEN ALLO CATED FOR FOUR MONTHS AS AGAINST 10 MONTHS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, TOOK THE PERIOD OF NINE MO NTHS FOR ALLOCATION OF PRO-RATA EXPENSES AS THE UNIT STARTED OPERATIONS ON 30 TH JUNE, 2004. THIS IN OUR OPINION IS QUITE REASONAB LE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NO EVIDENCE WAS LED CONTRARY TO FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ALLOCATING THE EXPENSES RELAT ABLE TO EXEMPT UNIT. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED A SPEAKI NG ORDER ANALYZING EACH AND EVERY EXPENSE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS TO BE UPHELD. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A). 5.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECI SION DATED 10.3.2011 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA 483/2011 . 5.2 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WHILE THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANC ES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE, INDISPUTABLY, PARALLEL TO THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE LD. DR HAVING NOT PLACED B EFORE US ANY MATERIAL ITA N O.877 /DEL./2010 10 CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF FACTS RECOR DED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION, WE HAV E NO BASIS TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS.2 AND 2.1 IN THE APPEAL ARE D ISMISSED. 6. .GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NA TURE ,DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND H AVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL, ACCOR DINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), NEW DELHI. 2.. M/S LLOYD ELECTRIC & ENGG. LTD., B-10/1, OK HLA INDL. AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-20. 3.CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT,D BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT