ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI V. DELTA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 944/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 94419914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA VIJAY
• Assessee Lawyers: I A SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 944/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) ACIT 12(1), MUMBAI APPELLANT VS. M/S. DELTA ENTERPRISES, 1 ST FLOOR, TAMARIND LANE, CRESCENT CHAMBERS, FORT, MUMBAI - 400023 RESPONDENT PAN: AAAFD5147R /BY APPELLANT : SHRI CHANDRA VIJAY, D.R. /BY RESPONDENT : MS. I. A. SINGH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2015 ORDER ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 2 PER ASHWANI TANEJA, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-21, MUMBAI, DATED 03.11.2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 PASSED AGAINST TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 24.12.2009. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN T HE APPEAL MEMO: (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 80I WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1991 W.E.F. 1.4.1991. IN THIS SECTION LEGISLATURE INCLUDED GENE RATION OF POWER OR TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF POWER A LSO. IF GENERATION OF POWER COULD BE PLACED IN THE AMBIT OF THE TERM 'ARTICLE' THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF SPECIFYING SEPARATELY THE SAME IN THE SECTION. FURTHER, POWER GENERATION FALLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'AR TICLE' IS NOTHING BUT THE OVERSTRAINING OF THE LANGUAGE BE YOND ITS NORMAL AND ORDINARY MEANING. THE EXPRESSION 'MANUFACTURE' AND 'PRODUCE' ARE NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH MOVABLE ARTICLES OR GOODS, BIG AND SMALL BUT T HEY ARE NEVER EMPLOYED TO DENOTE THE ACTIVITY OF THE GENERATION OF POWER. AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY THE WO RD 'ARTICLE' IS DEFINED AS A 'COMMODITY', A PIECE OF G OODS OR PROPERTY. POWER GENERATION DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD ARTICLE. (II) THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE CITATION SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CONTENT OF THE LANGUAGE OF PARTICULAR STATUE AS SUC H THIS MEANING CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. VS. ELECTRICITY INSPECTOR P.E.I.O. 2007 (3) CTC 273 (SC ) SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THE SALES TAX LAW. AS PER TH E SUPREME COURT ORDER THE ELECTRICITY HAS BEEN CONSID ERED AS 'GOODS' AND NOT SPECIFICALLY AS 'ARTICLE' OR 'TH INGS'. ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 3 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS . M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD, IT WAS HELD THAT ELECTRICIT Y CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS 'GOODS' FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF GOODS ACT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIAT ION TO ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE GENERATION OF POWER HAS BEEN ADDED IN SECTION 32(1) (IIA) ONLY AFTER 1/4/2013. THEREFORE, EVEN IF FOR THE SA KE OF ARGUMENT IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF POWER EVEN THEN ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO 1/4/2013. 4. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAI SED BY THE REVENUE IS PURELY LEGAL GROUND AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FRESH FACTS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO ADMISSION OF THIS GROUND. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS CIT 229 ITR 3 83 (SC), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. DURING COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT WITH REGARD TO BOTH OF T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE WITH THE APPEAL MEMO, HE WOUL D SIMPLY RELY UPON ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS TO BE CONTESTED SERIOUSLY BY THE REVENUE. WE NOW PROCE ED TO ADJUDICATE ALL THE GROUNDS, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONA L GROUND, AS ADMITTED ABOVE. ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 4 6. IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE REVENUE HAS CONTES TED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT, GENERATION OF POWER HAS B EEN ADDED IN SECTION 32(1)(IIA) ONLY AFTER 01.04.2013. THEREFOR E, EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF POWER, EVEN THEN, THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO 01.04 .2013. 7. DURING COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIG IBLE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, BECAUSE IT FALLS PRIOR TO 01.04.2013. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION OF RS.1,54,80,000/-, BEING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE WIND MILL. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IN A DDITION TO THAT SHE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREIN ASSESS ING OFFICER AFTER MAKING DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. FURTHER, IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM, SHE HAS PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CHENNAI BENCH IN CASE OF ACIT V S. M. SATISHKUMAR [2013] 33 TAXMANN.COM 396 (CHENNAI TR IB.). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES AS WELL AS ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 5 MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. T HE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A WIND MILL DIVISION. THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDED DEPRECIATION OF WIND MILL @ 80% AND ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% AS PER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW M ACHINERY OR PLANT INSTALLED AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. AS PER A.O., THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY B Y USE OF WIND ENERGY, COULD BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE REGAR DED AS ANY 'ARTICLE OR THING' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID SECTION. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEE'S CO NTENTION THAT ELECTRICITY IS PRODUCED AND COMMERCIALLY TRADABLE A ND THEREFORE, IT WAS 'ARTICLE OR THING' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 32(1)(IIA). HE HELD THAT ONLY MATERIAL THINGS CAN QUALIFY FOR B EING 'ARTICLE OR THING', IT SHOULD BE TANGIBLE. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIEL D COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE 'ARTICLE OR THING' AND THAT IT SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF STORAGE AND THE ELECTRICITY COULD NOT BE STORED. HE HELD THAT THE WIND MILL COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE INDIRECTLY USED I N MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THUS THE WINDMILL WAS NOT P RODUCING AN 'ARTICLE OR THING', EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION AMOUNTING TO RS. L,54,80,000/ - CLAIMED U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 6 8.1. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD GENERATED ELECTRICIT Y BY HARNESSING WIND ENERGY AND EARNED INCOME FROM SALE OF THE ELEC TRICITY SO GENERATED, IN THE STATES OF MAHARASHTRA AND RAJASTH AN. THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED WAS MEASURED AND TRADED IN UN ITS KNOWN AS 'KIIOWATTS'. THE ELECTRICITY IS AN ACTIVELY TRADED GOOD, AND THERE WAS EVEN AN EXCHANGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF A.O. THAT ELECTRICITY WAS NOT AN 'ARTICLE OR THING' THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS, TO SH OW THAT THIS CONTENTION WAS ERRONEOUS: - CIT VS GEO TECH FOUNDATIONS & CONSTRUCTIONS 241 I TR 90 (KER) - AIRFREIGHT LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1999) 6 S CC 561 - ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD. VS. CIT 251 ITR 323 - GANGADHAR NARASINGDAS AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (1967) 1 MLJ 197 - SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. VS. EL ECTRICITY INSPECTOR AND E.T.I.O. 2007 (3) CTC 273 (SC) - COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. MADHYA PRADESH ELEC TRICITY BOARD (1969) 1 SCC 200 - STATE OF A.P. VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORA TION LTD, (2002) 5 SCC 203 BY RELYING ON ABOVE DECISIONS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRICITY AND THE ELE CTRICITY SO GENERATED WAS 'ARTICLE OR THING' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA). THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IT WAS ENTITLE D TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND THE SAID CLAIM HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, AND THERE BEING NO ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 7 CHANGE IN FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS-A-VIS EARLIER YEARS, THE AFORESAID FINDING COULD NOT BE D ISTURBED BY THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 AND OTHER DE CISION AS MENTIONED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LEARNED CIT(A) CO NSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS CORRECT POSITION OF LA W, WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT HIS FINDINGS ARE CORRECT A S PER LAW AND FACTS, AND THEREFORE WE CONCUR WITH THE SAME. IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW ALSO, THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE APPELLA NT IS AN 'ARTICLE OR THING' WHICH CAN BE TRADED, WHICH CAN BE MEASURE D AND WHICH CAN BE STORED AND ALSO IT CAN BE EXCHANGED. I N THE CASE OF SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., THE SUP REME COURT HELD THAT THE ELECTRICITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ( GOODS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF SALES TAX LAWS. IN THE CA SE OF STATE OF A.P. VS NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. (20 02) 5 SCC 203, M. P. CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2004) 2 SCC 249 REFERRED TO IN TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES VS. STATE OF A.P. (2004) 271 I TR 401, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ELECTRICITY WAS CAPABLE OF ABSTRACTIO N, CONSUMPTION AND USE WHICH, IF DONE DISHONESTLY WAS PUNISHABLE U /S 39 OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910. IT WAS HELD THAT ELEC TRIC ENERGY COULD BE TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DELIVERED, STORED AND POSSESSED, ETC., IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER MOVABLE PROPERTY. IT W AS HELD THAT ELECTRICITY WAS THUS 'GOODS' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SALES TAX ACT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD COUNSEL, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY TH E ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO PRODUCTION OF AN 'ARTICLE OR THING' WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT AND THEREF ORE, THE ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 8 ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION @ 20%. 8.2. IT IS FURTHER SEEN BY US THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED THIS CLAIM TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED BY HIM FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I. E. A.Y. 2006- 07 IN THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE RELEVANT PARA OF SAID AS SESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AS UNDER: 3. THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN 'ARTICLE OR THING' WHICH CAN BE TRADED, MANUFACTURED, STORED AND EXCHANGED, RELYING UPON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SO UTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., THE SUPREME COUR T HELD THAT THE ELECTRICITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS (GOODS ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF SALES TAX LAWS. IT WAS FU RTHER HELD IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. VS. NATIONAL THERMAL PO WER CORPORATION LTD. (2002) 5 SCC 203, M.P. CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADE SH (2004) 2 SSC 249 REFERRED TO IN TATA CONSULTANCY SE RVICES VS. STATE OF A.P. (2004) 271 ITR 401, THAT THE ELECT RICITY WAS CAPABLE OF ABSTRACTION, CONSUMPTION AND USE WHICH, IF DONE DISHONESTLY WAS PUNISHABLE U/S. 39 OF THE INDIAN EL ECTRICITY ACT, 1910. IT WAS HELD THAT ELECTRIC ENERGY COULD B E TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DELIVERED, STORED AND POS SESSED, ETC. IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER MOVABLE PROPERTY. IT WAS HELD THAT ELECTRICITY WAS THUS 'GOODS' WITHIN THE M EANING OF SALES TAX ACT. 4. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, ELECTRICITY IS AN 'ARTICLE OR THING' FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALES TAX. THE SAME DEFINITION IF APPLIED TO INCOME TAX M AKES THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION U/S . 32(1)(IIA). 5. THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WE RE DULY CONSIDERED AND WERE FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIAL TO QUALIFY PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY AS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCT ION OF ARTICLES OR THINGS AND HENCE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION U/S.32(1)(IIA). ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 9 8.3. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED BY US THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN MANY JUDGMENTS PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, AS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNS EL, DURING COURSE OF HEARING. WE CAN TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE JU DGMENTS OF ACIT VS. M. SATISHKUMAR (SUPRA), WHEREIN SIMILAR CL AIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE AMENDMEN T MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2012, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN GR OUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ANOTHER CASE BY HONBLE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. MALLOW INTERNATIONAL IN ITA NO.152/MDS/2014 DA TED 19.12.2014 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 6. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. HI TECH ARAI LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS SET UP WINDMILL IN ADDITION TO SOME OTHER EXISTING BUSINESS, AND IS ENGAGED IN THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY, TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID DECISIONS O F THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER. 8.4. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CLEAR POSITION OF LAW , WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AND THEREFORE SAME IS UPHELD. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. ALL OF THE ITA NO.944/MUM/12 A.Y. 07-08 [ACIT VS. M/S. DELTA E NTERPRISES] PAGE 10 GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 09 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: DATED 09/10/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 12 %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3/4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #8 1 9: ;% 1 '( 12 %&<