M/s Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 977/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0019 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 201; 37; 10

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEFORE AND S HRI S.S.GODARA ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PSEB HEAD OFFICE, THE MALL, PATIALA T AN /PAN : AABCP 7651 E (APP ELL ANT) ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 ACIT, CIRCLE - PATIALA T AN /PAN : (APP ELL ANT) / ASSESSEE BY: /REVENUE BY: ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SHERAN WALA GATE, PATIALA PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PSEB HEAD OFFICE, THE MALL, PATIALA T AN /PAN : AAFCP 5120 Q (APP ELL ANT) , B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH B BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE-PRESIDENT HRI S.S.GODARA , JUDICIALMEMBER ITA NO. 977 - 979 /CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12 PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PSEB HEAD OFFICE, V. ACIT, CIRCLE - PATIALA AABCP 7651 E (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1028-1029 & 1030/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9-10 TO 2011-12 V. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PSEB HEAD OFFICE, THE MALL, PATIALA (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.P.BAJAJ, ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY: SHRI G.S. PHANI KISHARE, CIT ITA NO. 980 & 1236/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 -12 & 2014-15 CORPORATION LTD., CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SHERAN CORPORATION LTD., PSEB HEAD OFFICE, THE MALL, PATIALA V. V. ACIT, CIRCLE - PATIALA DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA AAFCP 5120 Q (RESPONDENT) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHRI K.P.BAJAJ, ADVOCATE KISHARE, CIT - DR PAGE 2 OF 13 ITA NO.1023 & 1209-1210/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12, 2013-14 TO 2014-15 ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE - PATIALA V. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SHERAN WALA GATE, PATIALA T AN /PAN : AAFCP 5120 Q (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJIV SALDI, CA / RE V EN UE BY: SHRI G.S. PHANI KISHARE, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 21 0 5 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 0 5 201 9 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THE INSTANT BATCH OF ELEVEN CASES PERTAIN TO TWO AS SESSEES M/S PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP ORATION LTD. THE ABOVE LATTER ASSESSEE CAME INTO BEING AFTER FORMER S RESTRUCTURING. THE FORMER ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE FILED THEIR CR OSS-APPEALS ITA NO.977 TO 979/CHD/2018 AND ITA NO.1028 TO 1030/CHD/ 2018 AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-PATIALAS SEPARATE ORDER(S) DATED 03.05.2018, 08,05,2018 AND 10.05.2018 PASSED IN CASE NOS. T- 47-266/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/11-12, 1888/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/11-1 2 & 28/IT/ CIT(A)/PTA/14-15; RESPECTIVELY. FIVE CASES PERTAIN TO LATTER ASSESSEE. IT HAS FILED TWO CASES ITA NO.980 & 1236/CHD/2018 ALON GWITH REVENUES CROSS-APPEALS ITA NO.1023 AND 1210/CHD/2018 IN ASSE SSMENT YEARS PAGE 3 OF 13 2011-12 AND 2014-15 AS WELL AS ITA NO.1209/CHD/2018 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AGAINST THE VERY CIT(A)S ORDERS DATED 10.05.2018 IN FIRST AND 02.07.2018 IN LATTER TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) IN CASE NOS.29/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/14-15, 10238/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/17- 18; RESPECTIVELY, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT MOS T OF THE ISSUES SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN THE INSTANT BATCH ARE IDENTICAL / INTER- CONNECTED. THE SAME ARE THEREFORE DISPOSED OF VIDE OUR COMMON ADJUDICATION FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVIT Y. 3. A COMBINED PERUSAL OF THE INSTANT CASE FILE(S) REVE ALS THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEA LS IS THAT OF CORRECTNESS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANC E MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENTS AND PARTLY CONFIRMED IN THE CIT(A)S RESPECTIVE ORDERS BY ADOPTING NETTING METHOD AGAINST THE CORRESPONDING P RIOR PERIOD INCOME. WE TREAT THE FORMER ASSESSEE M/S PUNJAB STATE ELECT RICITY BOARDS FIRST APPEAL ITA NO.977/CHD/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RAISING FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS THE LEAD CASE IN THIS REGARD. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES INCURRED ON ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES AND INT EREST AND FINANCE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.665,74,705/-. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING MOBILE FACILITY TO ITS EMPLOYEES. 4. THERE IS NO QUARREL BETWEEN THE PARTIES ABOUT THE F ACT THAT IT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TOTAL PRIOR PERIOD PAGE 4 OF 13 EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.127,95,27,809/- THAT CA LLS FOR OUR ADJUDICATION SINCE BOTH THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITI ES ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME TO HAVE CRYSTALLIZE D DURING THE RELEVANT IMPUGNED PREVIOUS YEAR. THERE ONLY CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, IT O UGHT TO HAVE RAISED CLAIM IN ISSUE IN THE YEAR OF ACCRUAL GOING BY MERC ANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEH EMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RA THER ERRED IN PARTLY RESTRICTING THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE TO RS.65,74,70 5/- ONLY AFTER NETTING OF ABOVE GROSS CLAIM AGAINST THE ASSESSEES PRIOR PERIOD INCOME. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT. HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURTS DECISION IN TAX APPEAL NO.566 OF 2016 PCIT VS. M/S ADANI ENTERPRISE HOLDS THAT THIS IS A REVENUES NEUTRAL ISSUE IN CA SE THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED IS ASSESSED AT THE SAME RATE IN BOTH YEARS I.E. THE YEAR OF ACCRUAL AND CRYSTALLIZATION. THIS IS NOT TH E REVENUES CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED AT THE SAME RATE IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. COUPLED WITH THIS, IT HAS FURTHER COME ON RECORD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ITSELF ASSESSED ASSESSEES PRIOR PERIOD INCOME IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT DISALLOWED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. WE SEE NO REASON TO EXPRESS OUR CONCURRENCE WITH SUCH AN I NCONSISTENT METHOD OF ASSESSMENT OF PRIOR PERIOD INCOME AND PRIOR PERI OD EXPENDITURE. WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE IMPUGNED PRIOR PERIOD OUTGO AS ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR GOING BY THE ABOVE STATED LEGAL POS ITION. THIS ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND, REVENUES SEC OND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN CROSS-APPEAL NO.1028/CHD/2018 AS WELL AS FIRST AND SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN FORMER CASES PERTAINING TO T HREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE GOING A SIMIL AR ANALOGY. WE ACCEPT THE LATTER ASSESSEES IDENTICAL FIRST SUBSTA NTIVE GROUND IN BOTH OF PAGE 5 OF 13 ITS TWO APPEALS AND DECLINE THE REVENUES FIRST SUB STANTIVE GROUNDS IN ITS THIRD CROSS-APPEALS (SUPRA). 5. WE CONTINUE TO PROCEED ISSUE-WISE. THE FORMER ASSES SEES IDENTICAL SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IN ITS FIRST TWO APPEALS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 SEEK TO DELETE M OBILE FACILITIES EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,08,895/- AND RS.10 ,04,856/-; RESPECTIVELY MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND A FFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUS SION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER:- 04. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.23. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HA D MADE AN EXPENDITU9RE OF RS./7,82,202/- ON ACCOUNT OF SATELL ITE CHARGES FOR V SAT EXPENSES AND ASKED APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUS E AS TO WHY THE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT AN EQUIPM ENT WAS PLACED ON PUNJAB WIRELESS SYSTEM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI CALLED V-SAT SATELLITE FOR PROVIDING COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO THE BOARD AND THAT THE SAME WAS VIEWED BY THE LD CIT AP PEALS AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LD A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT T HE SUBMISSIONS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE L D AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 27.09.2 010 DECLARING THEREIN LOSS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AT RS./11043,24,96,868/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN IN SCRUTI NY AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS MADE BY THE LD. ACIT , CIRCLE, PATIALA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A.O ., ON NET LOSS OF RS.728,72,47,770/- BY MAKING ADDITIONS AGGR EGATING TO RS.314,52,48,698/- ON FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS:- SATELLITE EXPENSES 7,82,202 BAD DEBTS BY TREATING THE SAME AS PROVISION13,03,31 9 COST OF MOBILE SETS PROVIDED TO STAFF FOR CONNECTIVITY 10,04,856 PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES 190,41,26,739 IMPACT OF AUDIT OBSERVATIONS 21,70,00,000 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 102,10,31,582 304,52,48,698 IN WORKING OUT THE ASSESSED LOSS, THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE CERTAIN ACCOUNTING MISTAKES INASMUCH AS PER FINDING IN THE PAGE 6 OF 13 OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUDITOR, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS A RESULT OF NOT MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENT THE DEFICIT DECLARED IN THE BOOKS WILL G O UP FROM 13011.52 CRORES TO 1323.22 CRORES. THE LOSS TO THAT EXTENT SHOULD HAVE, THEREFORE, BEEN ADDED TO THE RETURN LO SS. SIMILARLY, OUT OF THE TOTAL LOSS DECLARED FROM BUSI NESS, A PART THEREOF BEING RS.102,10,31,582/- HAS BEEN TREATED A S INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HAVING DONE SO, THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN O UT FROM THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESS ION. ALL THESE ACTIONS OF THE LD. A.O. HAVE BEEN CONTEST ED IN APPEAL. GROUND NO.2: SATELLITE EXPENSES OF RS.7,82,292/-:- AN EQUIPMENT WAS PLACED ON PUNJAB WIRELESS SYSTEM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI CALLED V-SET SATELLITE FOR PROVIDING COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO THE BOARD. IT IS USED FOR C OLLECTING DATA FOR SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATE ACQUISITION. THE AMOUNT PAID WAS OPERATIONAL &*& USAGE CHARGES OF TH E V- SATE SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS WHICH WERE INC IDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE PSEB. NO SUCH SATELLITE OF I TS OWN WAS INSTALLED BY THE BOARD OR AN ASSET OF ENDURING BENEFIT CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAID WAS NOT MADE FOR ACQUISITION OF ANY ASSET BUT FOR USE THERE OF. MOREOVER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED BY COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND THE SAME WAS NOT POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF AUDIT. FURTHER , WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL NO. 129/IT/CIT/PTA/08-09 DATED 28.10.2009 FOR AY 2006-07 AND APPEAL NO. 337/IT/CIT/PTA/09-10 DATED 231.02.2011 FOR AY 22007 -09 VIEWED THAT PAYMENT MADE FOR USAGE OF SATELLITE ARE OF REVENUE NATURE. THE VIEW TAKEN HAS BEEN UPHELD BY T HE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IT IS THEREFORE, REQUESTED THA T THE ADDITION MADE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. I HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE ON THE SAME ISSUE FOR AY 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 MY PREDECESSOR HAS WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL NO. 129/IT/CIT/PTA/08-09 DATED 28.10.2009 FOR A Y 2006- 07 AND APPEAL NO. 337/IT/CIT/PTA/09-10 DATED 21.02.2011 FO R AY 2007-08 HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT MADE FOR USA GES OF SATELLITE ARE OF REAVAENUE NATURE. THE VIEW TAKEN H AS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08. RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING PAGE 7 OF 13 THE ABOVE DECISIONS, I DIRECT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.7,82,202 BE DELETED./ APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE FOR SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF ITS WORK-FORCE COMPRISING OF SENIOR OFFICERS OFF ICIALS IN ORDER TO ENSURE BETTER CONNECTIVITY WITHOUT BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW ASSET FORMING PART OF CORRESPONDING BLOCK OF ASSETS AND ALSO THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE REVENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED MOBILE SETS FOR ITS WORK-FORCE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS CREATED A NEW ASSET(S) IN T HE NATURE OF CAPITAL ASSET GIVING ENDURING ADVANTAGE AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME AS CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE. 6. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEES DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS R EGARDING THE IMPUGNED MOBILE FACILITIES TO ITS WORK-FORCE FORMIN G PART OF CASE FILE AT PAGES 91 TO 96 OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM TIME TO TIME MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT HAS NOT PURCHASED EVEN A SINGLE MOBILE SET BUT R EIMBURSED A FIXED AMOUNT TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES DRAWING VARIOUS PAY-SCALES. THIS CLINCHING FACT HAS GONE UNREBUTTED AT THE REVE NUES BEHEST DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NOT PURCHASED EVEN A SINGLE MOBILE SET. NO NEW ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE IN ITS BOOKS. WE ARE RATHER DEA LING WITH A FIXED AMOUNT REIMBURSEMENT FROM EMPLOYEE-TO-EMPLOYEE NOT PARTAKING THE CHARACTER OF MOBILE SET PURCHASES. WE CONCLUDE IN T HESE FACTS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASS ESSEES SAID REIMBURSEMENT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS PAGE 8 OF 13 IDENTICAL SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THE TWO FORE GOING APPEALS. THESE TWO APPEALS ITA NO.977 AND 978/CHD/2018 RAISING THE SE TWIN GRIEVANCE(S) ARE ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 7. WE NOW MOVE ON TO REVENUES CROSS-APPEALS IN THE SE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ITA NO.1028-1029/CHD/2018. FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ITA NO.1028/CHD/2018 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009- 10:- 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A), PATIALA IS LEGALLY CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,72,803/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), PATIALA IS LEGALLY CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.127,29,53,104/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES/LOSSES. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A). PATIALA IS LEGALLY CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.116.28,00,000/-- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES POI NTED OUT IN C&AG REPORT. THE REVENUES IDENTICAL FIRST SUBSTANTIVE PLEADS TH AT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REVERSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS PROVISION OF RS. 16,72,803/- AND RS.13,03,319/-. SUFFICE TO SAY, IT TRANSPIRES DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION I N ITA NO.1127 & 1130/CHD/2009 FILED AT REVENUES AND ASSESSEES BEH EST IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DECIDED ON 31.03.2013 HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS S TATED TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM AFTER DUE FACTUAL VERIFICATION. THER E IS NO DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW PIN-POINTED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES I N THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE THEREFORE ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSIS TENCY TO RESTORE THE INSTANT ISSUE AS WELL BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATION IN LIGHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE PAGE 9 OF 13 REVENUES INSTANT FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISING PRIOR PERIOD DISALLOWANCE ISSUE ALREADY STANDS DECLINED IN BOTH THESE TWO APPEALS (SUPRA). 9. THE REVENUES THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THESE TWO APPEALS SEEKS TO REVERSE THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS DELETING ADD ITIONS OF RS.116,28,00,000 AND RS.21,70,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER NOTICING VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT IN CAGS (COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL)S REPORT. BOTH THE LEARNED REP RESENTATIVES POINT OUT HEREIN AS WELL THAT THIS TRIBUNALS FINDINGS IN THE CORRESPONDING ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 (SUPRA) HAD RESTO RED THE VERY ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN NO DISALLOWAN CE HAS BEEN MADE IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE FOLLOW JUDI CIAL CONSISTENCY TO RESTORE THE INSTANT ISSUE AS WELL BACK TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR AFRESH FACTUAL VERIFICATION TO BE DECIDED IN THESE WITH HI S FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THESE TWO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARE ACCE PTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.1028/CHD/2018 RAISI NG THESE TWO ISSUES ONLY ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES I N ABOVE TERMS. 11. NEXT COMES REVENUES FOURTH SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING THE ASSESSEES INCOME DERIVED FROM VARI OUS SOURCES I.E. INTEREST ON STAFF LOAN AND ADVANCES, STAFF WELFARE ACTIVITIES, FIXED DEPOSITS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO PAGE 10 OF 13 RS.1,02,10,31,582/- AS BUSINESS INCOME THAN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. IT TRANSPIRES THAT CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.59,59,89, 053/-FROM RS. 1,02,10,31,582/-. IT FURTHER EMERGES THAT THIS TRIB UNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.1024 & 1022/CHD/2018 DATED 15.04.2019 IN ACIT VS. M/S PUNJAB STATE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD . ( GROUP CONCERN AFTER RESTRUCTURING ) HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN LIGHT OF YET ANOTHER CO-ORDIN ATE BENCHS DIRECTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.446/CHD/2009 DECI DED ON 22.01.2004. WE ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY HEREIN AS WELL THEREFORE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATION AS PER LAW. THIS FOURTH SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THE INST ANT REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THEREFORE. THE MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.1029/CHD/2018 FILED AT THE REVENUES BEHEST IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. NOW COMES ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE S REMAINING SECOND SUBSTANTIVE IN APPEAL ITA 979/CHD/ 2018 GROUND SEEKS TO TREAT ITS INCOME FROM VARIOUS SOURCES OF RS.675, 29,993/- RESTRICTED TO RS.76,41,997/- AS BUSINESS INCOME THAN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SUFFICE TO SAY, WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE VERY I SSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. WE ADOPT THE SAID DIRECTIONS MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ACCEPT THE INSTANT SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. 13. WE ARE LEFT WITH REVENUES THIRD APPEAL ITA NO.1030/CHD/2018 WITH FIRST AND THIRD ISSUE OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND AS TO WHETHER THE TAXPAYERS INCOME OF RS.599,2 4,012/- AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE MAKE IT CLE AR THAT WE HAVE PAGE 11 OF 13 ALREADY DECLINED SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS (SUPRA). IT IS FURTHER NOTI CED THAT WE HAVE ALSO RESTORED THE REVENUES IDENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GROUND OF BAD DEBTS AND RESTORED THE LATTER ISSUE OF HEAD OF INCOME BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. WE ADOPT T HE SAID DETAILED DIRECTION HEREIN AS WELL. THE REVENUES FIRST GROU ND OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND STAND RESTORE BA CK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITS MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.1030/CHD/2018 IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. 14. NOW COME THE REMAINING FIVE CASES PERTAINING TO LATTER ASSESSEE WHEREIN WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR (SUPRA). THE FIRS T ASSESSMENT YEAR HEREIN AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. WE REITERATE THA T MOST OF ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL / INTER CONNECTED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.980/CHD/2018 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RAISES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND OF PRIOR PERIOD EX PENDITURE DISALLOWANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED (SUPRA). NE XT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEK TO TREAT ITS INCOME OF RS.939,506,622/- FROM VARIOUS HEADS AS IN FORMER ASSESSEES CASE AS BUSINESS INCOME THA N INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE ADOPT OUR PRECEDING DETAILED DIRECTIONS MUTATIS MUTANDIS AS AGREED UPON BY BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AND RESTORE BACK INSTANT SECOND ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AS WELL AS 2014-15 INVOLVING ITA NO.1236/CHD/2018 FOR NECESSARY FACTUA L VERIFICATION. THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NO.980 AND 1236/CH D/2018 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DELETE D PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE FORMING SUBJECT-MATTER OF FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. PAGE 12 OF 13 15. WE ARE NOW LEFT WITH REVENUES THREE APPEALS IN ITA NO.1023, 1209 AND 1210/CHD/2018; ISSUE-WISE. ITS FIRST IDENT ICAL GROUND RAISES PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE WHICH HAS ALR EADY DECLINED (SUPRA). THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ALL THESE CASES QUA TERM OF ASSESSEES RECEIPT FROM VARIOUS HEADS AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN BUSINESS INCOME. SUFFICE TO SAY, WE HA VE ALREADY FOLLOWED OUR DIRECTION IN FORMER ASSESSEES CASE (SUPRA) WHI LST RESTORING BACK THESE ISSUES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ADOPT THE SAID DIRECTIONS MUTATIS MUTANDIS AND LEAVE THE ISSUE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATION. THE SECOND SUBSTANT IVE GROUND IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 16. THE REVENUES THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO REVERSE CIT(A) S IDENTICAL ACTION IN ALL THESE THREE CASES ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.76,38,36,74,320/-, RS.1837,44,46,607 & RS.1253,6 6,86,523; RESPECTIVELY. ITS CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOL LOWED ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR APPORTIONMENT OF ITS LOSSES. CASE FILE(S) SUGGEST THAT THE VERY ISSUE IN ASSESSEES CASE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15 IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S PUNJAB STATE T RANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.(SUPRA) INVOLVING ITA NO.1023 TO 10 27/CHD/2018 FILED AT THE REVENUES BEHEST AND DECIDED ON 15.04.2019 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATION. WE FOLLOW THE SUIT HEREIN AS WELL AND RESTORE THE LAST ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ABOVE TERMS. THESE THREE REVEN UES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE T ERMS. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 17. TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.977-978/CHD /2018 ARE ALLOWED AND ITA 979, 980 AND 1236/CHD/2018 PARTLY A LLOWED FOR PAGE 13 OF 13 STATISTICAL PURPOSE; REVENUES APPEALS ITA NO.1028- 1030, 1209-1210 & 1023/CHD/2018 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. A COPY OF THIS ORDER BE PLACED IN RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/2019. SD/ - SD/ - [ N.K.SAINI ] [ S.S.GODARA ] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER !'#$% DATED:24/05/2019 *DKP ! ' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. *+*,- . !'#$% / CONCERNED CIT CHANDIGARH 4. .- !'#$% / CIT (A) CHANDIGARH 5. 23$ 44,-, ,- , !'#$% / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. $#7 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ : , /TRUE COPY/ ; * ,- , <