THE ADIT(IT)-3(2), MUMBAI V. M/S. BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING, MUMBAI

ITA 999/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 99919914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS MALATI SRIDHARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DHANESH BAFNA; KANCHAN KAUSHAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.999/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) APPELLANT BY :MRS. MALATI SRIDHARAN, CIT (DR). RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANCHAN KAUSHAL & DHANESH BAFN A. DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.12.2011 O R D E R. PER B.R. MITTAL, J.M. DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, DATED 29.11.2007 ON FOLLOWING GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS. 4,14,62,866/- ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETENTION MONEY ACCRUES ONLY WHEN THE CONTRACT IS COMPLETED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CO NTRACTEE AS PER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING AND THE AMOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT FROM THE LOANS AND ADIT (IT)-3(2), SCINDIA HOUSE, R.NO. 132, 1 ST FLOOR, N.M. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 038. VS. BALLAST NADAM DREDGING, RUNWALA CHAMBERS, 1 ST FLOOR, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 071. PAN: AABCB1700E (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING ADVANCES RECEIVABLE ALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 3,09,418/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WITH BOOK PROFIT, ONLY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MSEB (77 ITJ 3 3), WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT HAS STATED THAT PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS REPRESENTS A RESTATEMENT OF VALUE OF ASSETS AND NOT A LIABILITY, IGNORING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT PROPERLY DRAFTED AND AS SUCH THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS AS TO WHETHER LD. CIT (A) ON THE FACT S AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE RETENTION MONEY OF R S. 4,14,62,866/- ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RAISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE NETHERLANDS. THE ASSES SEE WAS INVOLVED IN EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BREAKWATERS AND THE ASSOCIATED DREDGING AND LAND RECLAMATION WORKS AT KARWAR, KARNATAKA AWARDED BY T HE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE REDUCED AN A MOUNT OF RS.4,11,42,846/- ON ACCOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY DURING THE YEAR. HE STA TED THAT ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PER CLAUSE 38(I)(1) OF TH E CONTRACT, THE EMPLOYER (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NAVY) WITHHELD RETENTION MON EY @ 5% FROM WORKS EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE RETENTION MONEY WITHHELD DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTED TO RS. 4,11,42,846/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER STATED THAT ON PERUSAL OF SCHEDULE 7 TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT BALANCE OF RETENTION MONEY DECREASED FROM RS.4,35,62,352/- TO RS.4,32,42,332/-, WHILE DURING THE YEAR RS.4,11,42,846/- WAS DEDUCTED AS RE TENTION MONEY FROM THE BILLS RAISED DURING THE YEAR. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE EMPLOYER 3 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING I.E., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RELEASED RS. 4,14,62,866/ - AGAINST BANK GUARANTEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN RELEVANT DETAILS OF RET ENTION MONEY OF PRECEDING YEARS AND ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE-2 IN PARA 4.3 AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AY 2001-02 AY 2002-03 AY 2003-04 AY 200 4-05 OPENING BALANCE - 4,80,72,345 6,76,22,698 4,35,62,352 ADD: AMOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY DEDUCTED BY EMPLOYER FROM BILLS 4,80,72,345 4,02,81,786 1,74,02,520 4,11,42,846 LESS: RELEASE OF RETENTION MONEY AGAINST THE BANK GUARANTEE - 2,07,31,433 4,14,62,866 4,14,62,866 CLOSING BALANCE 4,80,72,345 6,76,22,698 4,35,62,352 4,32,42,332 IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT AS PER CONTRACT ENTERE D INTO, RETENTION MONEY @ 5% HAD BEEN WITHHELD. THE AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER RETENTION MONEY REACHES 2% OF THE CONTRACT PRICE, CONTRACTOR COULD ASK FOR RELEASE OF 1% OF THE CONTRACT PRICE BY FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE. ACCOR DINGLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.4,14, 62,866/- TOWARDS RELEASE OF RETENTION MONEY AGAINST BANK GUARANTEE. 4 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER THE SAID AMOUN T OF RS. 4,14,62,866/- FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD BECOME TAXABLE IN THE YEAR WHEN CONTRACTOR SATISFAC TORILY COMPLETED THE WORK AND REMOVED DEFECTS IF ANY IT WOULD BE TAXABLE AT THAT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX ON THE GROUND THAT I T HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND IS, THEREFORE, TAXABLE. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECISION OF HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. ASSOCIATED CABLES PVT. LTD. 286 ITR 596 AND ALSO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SPIRAX MARSHALL LTD. 109 TTJ 593 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YATINDRA AND CO. 149 TAXMAN 281 HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT ANY ABSOLUTE RIGHT OVER THE AMOUNT PAID AGAINST BAN K GUARANTEE OUT OF RETENTION MONEY AND AS SUCH THE SAID AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ASS ESSED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THIS A PPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN HER SUBMISSION REFERRED CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH ARE STATED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES-2 & 3 AND SUBMITTED THAT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RELEASED 1% OF THE CONTRACT PRICE OUT OF THE RETENTION MONEY WITHHELD BY IT BY FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE A MOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YE AR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO IT. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALRE ADY CLAIMED EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT EXECUTED AND, THERE FORE, WHEN THE AMOUNT IS 5 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING RELEASED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS TO BE TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DCIT VS. AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. 88 ITD 381, AND HELD THAT AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM RUNNING BILLS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT AN D IT WAS RELEASED TO ASSESSEE ON FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE, THE SAID AMOUNT HAD ACCR UED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH BILLS WERE RAISED. THE CO NTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED TILL SATI SFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE CASE SQUARELY APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND, THEREFORE, THE RETENTION MONEY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST BANK GUARANTEE, IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CABLES PVT. LTD (SU PRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IN THAT CASE NO RETENTION MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E BUT A PART OF THAT RETENTION MONEY WAS WITHHELD BY CONTRACTEE AND, HENCE, IT WAS HELD THAT NO INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS RETAINED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE ASSOCIATED CABLES PVT. LTD. ( SUPRA ) WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS. DCIT 87 TTJ (CHD) 440. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 100% OF PURCHASE PRICE BUT THE AS SESSEE WAS TO GIVE PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PURCHASER FOR AN AMOUNT OF 5% OF CO NTRACT VALUE WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF BANK GUARANTEE. THE ASSESSEE REDUCED 5% O F THE SALE PRICE ON THE GROUND 6 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING THAT IF THERE WAS ANY DEFECT OR THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATION LIABILITY TO MEET OUT WARRANTY OBLIGATION THE PURCHASER WAS ENTI TLED TO RECEIVE THE MONEY OUT OF THIS BANK GUARANTEE. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED 100% SALE CONSIDERATION, IT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SALE AND THE INCOME STOOD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT BECAUSE UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE PURCHASER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETAIN PAYMENT TILL EXPIRY OF WARRANTY PERIOD. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE WHICH HE MIGHT INCUR FOR MEETING OUT THE OBLIGATIONS AS GIVEN TO THE PURCHASER BY WAY OF WAR RANTY WHEN ANY LIABILITY UNDER THE WARRANTY CLAUSE MIGHT ARISE, THE EXPENDITURE I N RESPECT OF SUCH OBLIGATION WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE IN THAT YEAR. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME WHICH HAS ACTUALLY ACCRUE D CANNOT BE REDUCED WITH THE PROBABLE OBLIGATIONS WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THE WARR ANTY CLAUSE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OUT OF RETENTION MONEY AS THE SAID IN COME HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. HOWEVER, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RETENTION MONEY ON FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE. THEREFORE, RELEASE OF R ETENTION MONEY AGAINST BANK GUARANTEE DOES NOT RESULT IN CONFERRING AN UNFETTER ED RIGHT ON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS FINA NCING ARRANGEMENT FOR SMOOTH COMPLETION OF THE WORK BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE EVENT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FULFILL OBLIGATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTEE HAS 7 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING RIGHT TO RECOVER THE RETENTION MONEY FROM THE BANK ON THE BASIS OF THE BANK GUARANTEE GIVEN BY ASSESSEE. THE BANK HAS ALSO UND ERTAKEN UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRRECOVERABLY TO PAY THE CONTRACTEE ON DEMAND BY IN VOKING BANK GUARANTEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PARTI CULAR INCOME ACCRUED UNCONDITIONALLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ASSESSEE RECOGNIZED THE RETENTION MONEY AS INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE S AID FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 3.3 (II) OF PA GE 4 OF THE ORDER. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SI MILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT (TM) IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED C ABLES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 48 ITD 141. THEREAFTER HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT CONSIDERE D THE ABOVE DECISION OF ITAT (TM) AND CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHI CH IS REPORTED AT 286 ITR 596. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE DECISIONS CITED BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE NOT RELE VANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS IN THOSE CASES THE BANK GUARANTEE WAS GIVEN TO FULF ILL WARRANTY OBLIGATIONS ONLY AND WHEREAS ASSESSEE RECEIVED FULL AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT A CASE OF RETENTION MONEY AND WHERE HE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE AMOUNT. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASES (SUPRA) CITED BY LEARNED REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH PARTIES.. WE OBSERVE THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT (TM) IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CABLES PVT. LTD (SUPRA) AS UNDER: 8 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING 90 PERCENT OF VALUE OF ASSESSEES GOODS WERE BILLED ON DISPATCH, AND 10 PERCENT WAS PAYABLE UPON COMPLETION OF WARRANTY PER IOD. THIS AMOUNT RETAINED WAS CONDITIONAL ON FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO CUSTOMERS. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERE D INTO WITH THE CUSTOMERS, AMOUNT RETAINED WAS RELEASED AGAINST FUR NISHING BANK GUARANTEE BY A SCHEDULED BANK. THE THIRD MEMBER HELD OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS F OLLOWS: AS THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE REMAINS AND IS ENFO RCEABLE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME FROM THE RETENTI ON MONEY CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED. CONSEQUENTLY, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF 10% HAS TO BE EX CLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNTIL THE PERIOD OF GUARANTEE IS OVER. WE OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF SAME ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE ABO VE DECISION OF ITAT AND AFFIRMED THE SAID DECISION. IT WAS HELD THAT RETEN TION MONEY WITHHELD BY THE CONTRACTEE PENDING COMPLETION OF CONTRACT WORK DOES NOT ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE/CONTRACTOR IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT IS RETAINED. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY ITAT IN T HE CASE OF SPIRAX MARSHALL LTD ( SUPRA ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RECEIPT OF RETENTION MON EY AGAINST FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE CANNOT PARTAKE CHARACTER OF INCOME SINCE IT CANNOT BE APPORTIONED UNTIL GUARANTEE PERIOD WAS OVER. THE RETENTION MONEY MAY BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE; IT CANNOT BE APPORTIONED UNTIL EXPIRY OF WARRANTY P ERIOD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YATINDRA AND CO. (SUPRA) HELD THAT AN AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST BANK GU ARANTEE WAS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT T O RECEIVE THE AMOUNT AT THAT STAGE VESTED. 9 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING 9. FURTHER WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A PART OF RETENTION MONEY AGAINST BANK GUARANTEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 2 AND ALSO MENTI ONED HEREIN ABOVE IN PARA 3 AT PAGE 3 OF THIS ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLO WING CONSISTENTLY TO OFFER FOR TAXATION THE PART RELEASED OF RETENTION MONEY AGAIN ST BANK GUARANTEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAID RELEASE OF RETENTION MONEY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE UNCONDITIONALLY. THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DID NOT DISPUTE THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND DECISIONS, AND PART ICULARLY THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CABLES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.C IT (A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND REJECT THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTM ENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (B. R. MITT AL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI,DATED: 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. *OKK 10 ITA NO. 999/M/2008 BALLAST NEDAM DREDGING COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, -BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI