Asian Oilfield Service Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1), Baroda

MA 115/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1456 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Additional depreciation
• Section: 43; 22; 32

Judgement Text

MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI A BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)] MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 144/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD. .APP LICANT UNIT NO. 1110, 11 TH FLOOR, JMD MEGAPOLIS, SOHNA ROAD, SECTOR 48, GURGAON [PAN: AABCA 7958 F] VS THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(1), ..........RE SPONDENT BARODA APPEARANCES BY DHARMESH SHAH & DHAVAL SHAH FOR THE APPLICANT AVNEESH TIWARI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 14, 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : DECEMBER 03, 2020 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP: 1. BY WAY OF THIS RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 12 TH APRIL, 2018, THE ASSESSEE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2017, THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITA NO.L266/AHD/2012 THEREBY DISMISSI NG VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPLICANT. THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS E NCLOSED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE A. THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SUFF ERS FROM MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS FILING THE PR ESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH HUMBLE PRAYER TO RECTIFY THE SAID ERROR. 2. THE MAJOR ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I S WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,12,79,355/- IN RESPECT OF VAR IOUS ASSETS AGGREGATING TO RS. 7,09,31,184/-. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, VARIOUS IS SUES WERE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 11 THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO REPRODUCED BY THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL IN PARA 2, PAGE 1 -2 OF ITS ORDER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, SUBMISSIONS WERE P UT-FORTH IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED. THEREAFTER, WITH THE LEAVE OF THE BENCH, WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 27.09.2017. THE COPY OF THE SAID SUBMI SSION IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE B. 4. WE SUBMIT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF HEARING AS WELL AS THE FACTS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE L ETTER DATED 27.09.2017 HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 (I) AND L(II) THEREBY HOLDING THAT (I) PART OF THE EQUIPMENTS DID NOT CROSS THE CUSTOMS BORDER TILL 31.03.2008 AND THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECI ATION ON THESE ASSETS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; AND (II) THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION DID NOT REPRES ENT THE COMPUTER AND THEREFORE THE DEPRECIATION AT A HIGHER RATE AS CLAIMED BY THE APP LICANT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 5. THE APPLICANT SUBMIT THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM THE FOLLOWING MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD. 6. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS DATED 27.09.2017 COMPRISED OF CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT ON ALL THE GROUNDS. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT INADVERTENTLY THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE OVERLOOKED AND THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED HOLDING THAT OTHER GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE HON' BLE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE LEFT TO BE ADJUDICATED:- A) IN THE GROUND NO. L (III), THE APPLICANT HAD CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION EVEN ON THE ASSETS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED AND PUT TO USE PRIOR TO 31.03.2008, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE DA TE OF 'PUT TO USE' WAS ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSETS USED FOR THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE OIL INDIA LTD AT MIZORAM. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS USED FOR THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN FOR THE ONGC LTD WHICH WERE INSTALLED AT NAGALAND. THE SAID ISSU E WAS ALSO EXPLAINED AT PARA 9-10 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. B) IN GROUND NO.3, THE APPLICANT HAD CLAIMED THAT ASSETS INSTALLED AND USED DURING THE YEAR QUALIFIED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 OF THE ACT. THE SAID ISSUE WAS ALSO EXPLAINED AT PARA 23 - 25 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION . C) IN GROUND NO.4, THE APPLICANT HAD MADE AN ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT THE DEPRECIATION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED @ 60% SINCE THE APPLICAN T WAS A MINERAL OIL CONCERN AND THAT THE PLANT USED BY THE MINERAL OIL CONCERNS ARE ENTITLED FOR THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION OF 60%. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO SAID CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WERE MADE AT PARA 17 - 22 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. D) IN GROUND NO.5, 5.1 AND 5.2, THE APPLICANT HAD CHALLENGED THE DENIAL OF DEPRECIATION @. 60% IN RESPECT OF GEOPHONE STINGS A ND SEISMIC CABLES. THE SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID ISSUE WERE MADE AT 26 - 29 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 7. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT VARIOUS GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAVE THEREFORE LEFT TO BE DECIDED AND ADJU DICATED UPON IN THE ORDER. MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 11 8. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPLICANT SUBM ITS THAT THE SAID NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS REPRESENTS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND T HEREFORE SAME MAY KINDLY BE RECTIFIED. 9. THE APPLICANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE AP PEAL DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY BE RECTIFIED AND THE ORDER OF THE HON'BL E TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED SO AS TO ADJUDICATE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SH ALL EVER PRAY. 2. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION . 3. WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN QUESTI ONS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD, SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US (I.E., THE VICE PRESIDEN T), OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 4 VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE, WE HAVE REJECT ED SIMILAR GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- '3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS A RE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED CERTAIN 'SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT' FROM A CANADIAN COMPANY BY THE NAME OF A RAM SYSTEMS LTD, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7,09,31,184, CLAIMED TO HAVE PUT IT TO USE ON 13.03.2008 AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION @ 60%, TRE ATING THE EQUIPMENT AS A COMPUTER, AMOUNTING TO RS.2,12,79,355. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, HOWEVER, ALSO NOTED THAT THE EQUIPMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY DIFFEREN T PACKAGES AND FIVE OF THESE PACKAGES CONTAINING TWO ITEMS WERE CLEARED BY THE C USTOM AUTHORITIES AT IGI AIRPORT ON 08.04.2008. ONCE A PART OF EQUIPMENT WAS NOT EVEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE EQUIPMENTS BEING PUT TO USE IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. A COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY (B/E), CERTIFIED BY THE C USTOM AUTHORITIES AND EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF PART OF EQUIPMENT ON 08.04.20 08, WAS PLACED IN, AND MADE PART OF, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. AS REGARDS AS SESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SUCH A RATE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY FOR COMPUTERS AND NOT FOR EQUIPMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S PLE A THAT THE EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS COMPUTER AS THE EQUIPMENT HAS THREE CRUCIAL COMPONENTS WHICH QUALIFY THE MACHINE TO BE TERMED AS COMPUTER - INPUT CONSOLE, PROCESSING CONSOLE AND OUTPUT CONSOLE. THIS PLEA WAS ALSO REJE CTED. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- (5.3) BY DEFINING THE EQUIPMENTS AS ABOVE, THE ASSE SSEE IS TRIED TO CLAIM THAT THE ASSET FALLS IN CLASSIFICATION OF COMPUTER & SOFTWARE. THE ARGUMENTS OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE ON FOLLO WING GROUND: (I) THE ITEMS I.E. PLANT & MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SEISMIC & GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PURPOSE IS TOTALL Y DIFFERENT ALTOGETHER FROM THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. (II) THE COMPUTER IS DEVICE WHICH COMPUTES OR PROCE SS THE DATA BASED ON SOFTWARE. THE SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT RECEIVES SIGNALS / FREQUENCY MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 11 FROM THE EARTH. THE SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS FORM AN ASSET BY ANALYZING THESE SIGNALS FROM ITS EQUIPMENTS. (III) NOW A DAY, ALL THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES WORK S ON BASED ON COMPUTER, IT DOES NOT MEANS THAT THE PLANT & MACHIN ERY CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPUTER SYSTEM. IT CAN BE SEEN AT POWER DISTRIBUTION, MEDICAL/ SURGICAL EQUIPMENT. TV/VIDEO MISSILES, AER O PLANES, MOBILE ETC ALL ARE COMPUTERIZED, HUT THE ASSET DOES NOT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF COMPUTER. (IV)THE ASSESSEE ITSELF BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AUTHORIT Y DECLARED THE ITEMS AS SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND PAID DUTIES ONLY TO GE T HIGHER DEPRECIATION ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING EQUIPMENTS AS COM PUTER. (V) IN THE BILLS, INVOICES, SHIPPING INVOICES NOWHE RE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EQUIPMENTS AS COMPUTER. (VI) THE DEFINITION & ANALYSIS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AB OVE; IT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EQUIPMENT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF COMPUTE R. (VII) SIMILAR SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS ASSETS, ALR EADY TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PLANT & MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION CLAI MED ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THE CLASSIFICATION OF SEISMIC SURVEY EQU IPMENT TREATED BY ASSESSEE AS COMPUTER IS REJECTED AND DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY EN TITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @15% ALLOWABLE FOR PLANT & MACHINERY FOR THE PERIOD (BELOW 180 DAYS) PUT TO USE AN AMOUNT OF 15% OF (RS.7,09,31,18 4 - RS. 63,09,207)/2 WHICH COMES RS.48A6,448/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT ANY SUCCESS. IN A VERY WELL REASONED AND DETAILED ORDER, LEARNED CIT(A) JUSTIFIED AND APPROVED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF HIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- '2.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE, APPELLAN T'S SUBMISSIONS, AO'S REPORT AND APPELLANT'S FURTHER COMMENTS. THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT SERVICE O F SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 9.9.2010. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, MATTER NEEDS TO BE DECIDED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT MERIT S OF APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS INTO ACCOUNT. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGL Y ADJUDICATED HEREUNDER. AS PER THE 'BILL OF ENTRY FO R HOME CONSUMPTION ' ISSUED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, ALL THE ITEMS IN RES PECT OF SALE ORDER NO.209904 TOTALLING TO US $ 10,94,186 WERE CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY TWO ITEMS CONSISTING OF 5 PACKAGES OF THE VALUE RS.63,09,207/ - WERE CLEARED ON 8.4.2008; HOWEVER, AS PER 5 BILLS OF ENTRY (ON PAGE S 4-10 OF THE PAPER BOOK), ENTIRE CONSIGNMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94,1 86 IN RESPECT OF SALE ORDER NO. 209904 MENTIONED IN COMMERCIAL INVOICE IN THIS REGARD OF ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. WAS CLEARED ON 8.4.2008 BY THE CU STOMS AUTHORITIES. APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EV IDENCES TO CONTEND THAT INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT IMPORTED FROM ARAM S YSTEMS LTD. WAS COMPLETED ON 13.3.2008/27.2.2008; HOWEVER, APP ELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY WORTHWHILE EXPLANATION REGARDIN G DATE OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF EQUIPMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94,186 TO BE 8.4.2008 IF THE MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 11 DATE MENTIONED I.E. 8.4.2008 IN THE BILLS OF ENTRY WAS A MISTAKE, AS CONTENDED, APPELLANT COULD HAVE OBTAINED A CORRIGE NDUM OR CLARIFICATION TO THIS EFFECT FROM CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE DATE OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE WAS N OT 8.4.2008 BUT WAS PRIOR TO 31.3.2008 WAS SQUARELY OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. IN THIS SITUATION, THE DATE MENTIONED I N BILLS OF ENTRY HAS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT. WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTIO N WAS CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008, THERE IS NO POSSIB ILITY OF ITS INSTALLATION IN MIZORAM OR NAGALAND BEFORE 31.3.2008 AS CONTEND ED. FURTHER, APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTI ON WERE IMPORTED IN RESPECT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED BY OIL & NATURAL GAS C ORPORATION LTD. (ONGC) AND OIL INDIA LTD, (OIL) AND WERE INSTALLED AT NAGALAND AND MIZORAM RESPECTIVELY BEFORE 31.3.2008 IS NOT PROVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, AS DISCUSSE D HENCEFORTH. THE INVOICES ISSUED BY ARAM SYSTEMS LD., CANADA DO NOT CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE ONGC OR OIL CONTRACTS, N EITHER THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE EQUIPMENT I MPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. THE AIRWAYS BILLS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY D ESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS SENT TO NAGALAND OR MIZORAM. APPELLANT HAS RE FERRED TO CORRESPONDENCE WITH ONGC (ANNEXURE 5 OF PB) TO CONTEND THAT EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION HAD REACHED PROJECT SITE AND WAS PUT TO USE. THE LETTERS REFERRED TO BY APPELLANT DO NOT, IN ANY WAY , PROVE THAT THE ARAM SPM LIFE EQUIPMENT HAD REACHED NAGALAND OR WAS INST ALLED, AS THERE IS NO SUCH AVERMENT IN THESE LETTERS. IN FACT, THERE I S NO EXPLICIT OR OBLIQUE REFERENCE TO THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION IN THESE LET TERS WRITTEN BY APPELLANT'S STAFF, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY APPELL ANT MOREOVER, THE CORRESPONDENCE FILED ARE LETTERS FROM APPELLANT TO ONGC ONLY. COPY OF NOT A SINGLE LETTER FROM ONGC TO APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD IS FILED. AUTHENTICITY OF CORRESPONDENCE FILED, WHICH DOES NO T BEAR ANY RECEIPT STAMP OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM ONGC IS ALSO NOT ESTA BLISHED. FURTHER, ONGC/OIL IN THEIR COMMUNICATIONS DATED 13.3.2008 (P APER BOOK PAGE 147)/27.2.2008 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 154) RESPECTIVELY H AVE 'ONLY COMMUNICATED THAT MOBILIZATION AGAINST THE C ONTRACTS WAS COMPLETED; HOWEVER, THESE LETTERS DO NOT IN ANY WAY PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION. THE FACT THAT APPELLANT RAISED INVOICE FOR MOBILIZATION CHARGES AS PER CONTRACTS WITH ONGC & O IL ALSO DOES NOT PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION IN NAGALAND OR MIZORAM, WHEN MAJOR PART OF THE SAME WAS CLEARED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON 8.4.2008, DEMARCATION DONE BY APPELLANT OF THE EQUI PMENT OF THE VALUE RS.7,09,31,184/- BETWEEN ONGC & OIL PROJECTS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND CANNOT THEREFORE, BE RELIED UPON. MO REOVER, AS MENTIONED, APPELLANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE, WHIC H COULD PROVE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT CONCERNED AT PROJECT SITES FOR EXECUTION OF ONGC/OIL PROJECTS IN NAGALAND/MIZORAM. THE INSTALLA TION ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE SIGNED BETWEEN ARAM SYSTEMS LTD AND APPELLANT ON 28.2.2008 CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN VIEW OF THE BIFF S OF ENTRY DATED 8.4.2008 ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY I.E. CUST OMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THIS INSTALLATION A CCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EVEN INDICATE THE PLACE, WHERE IT WAS SIGNED MA JOR PART OF THE EQUIPMENT OF THE VALUE US $ 10,94,186 IMPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. CANADA WAS CLEARED BY INDIAN CUSTOMS ON 8.4.2008 AN D APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF IT S CLAIM ABOUT INSTALLATION HAVING BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31.3.2008 , AO'S ACTION IN DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,12,79,355 /- IS CONFIRMED. MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 6 OF 11 2.2.1. GROUND NO.1 1 OF APPEAL THAT WITHOUT PREJUDI CE, CORRECT RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS 60% INSTEAD OF 15% IS NOW TAKEN UP . THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION IMPORTED FROM ARAM SYSTEMS LTD., CANADA WE RE SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS, AS PER INFORMATION AVAILAB/E ON INTERNE T, ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF SEISMIC RECORDING SYSTEM AND ALSO OFFERS NETWORK TELEMETRY RECORDING SYSTEMS. ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS NOT A MANUFACTURER OF COMPUTERS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE. MAIN FUNCTION OF SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENTS MANUFACTURED BY ARAM SYSTEMS LTD. IS TO ACQUIRE ANA LOG SYSTEMS DATA FROM GEOPHONES AND TO TRANSMIT THE DATA DIGITALLY T O THE CENTRAL EQUIPMENT, LINE TAP UNIT ETC., WHICH INTERCONNECTS BASELINE CABLE FROM THE RECORDING TRUCK TO MULTIPLE RECEIVER FINES ETC. IN THIS PROCESS, COMPUTERS MAY ALSO BE USED AS A PART OR TOOL; HOWEVER, OVERAL L FUNCTIONALITY OF SOPHISTICATED SEISMIC SURVEY EQUIPMENT CANNOT BE SA ID TO BE OF A COMPUTER. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EQUIPMENT AS PER I NVOICES ITSELF INDICATES THAT IT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPUTER AND ITS MAIN FUNCTION WAS TO CARRY OUT SEISMIC SURVEY. APPELLANT'S CONTEN TION THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOTHING BUT COMPUTER CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE CLASSIFICATION BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IS ALSO R ELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN NOT TREATIN G THE EQUIPMENT AS COMPUTERS/COMPUTER SOFTWARE PER-SE, ELIGIBLE FOR 60 % DEPRECIATION AND INSTEAD ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 15% IS UPHELD. THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEAR, DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED @ 60% IS NOT A BAR O N TAKING A DIFFERENT AND CORRECT VIEW, WHEN FACTS OF THE CASE SO WARRANT . RESJUDICATA IS NOT A MAXIM TO BE FOLLOWED COMPULSORILY IN INCOME TAX MAT TERS. GROUND 1 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS LAID A LOT OF EMPHASIS UPON THE TEST REPORT DATED 27.02.2008 SIGNED BY THE PSU CLIENTS WHO WERE RENDE RED SEISMIC SURVEY SERVICES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE DATE ON THE BILL OF E NTRY IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ONCE T HE GOVT OFFICIALS CONFIRM THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS DULY INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONAL ON 27.02.2008, NOTHING REALLY TURNS ON THE BILL OF ENTRY. THIS PLEA, HOWEVER, DOE S NOT IMPRESS US. ONCE THERE IS A REASONABLE EVIDENCE, AS IN THIS CASE, THAT A PART OF EQUIPMENT DID NOT EVEN CROSS THE CUSTOMS BEFORE 31.03.2008, THE DEPRECIATI ON ON SUCH EQUIPMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IF THE DATE GIVEN IN THE BILL OF ENTRY IS INCORRECT, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAI N NECESSARY CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. THIS DATE CANNOT BE IGNORE D ON THE BASIS OF A RATHER VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CONFIRMATION THAT 'EXPERI MENTAL SHOOTING COMPLETED AND PRODUCTION SHOOTING COMMENCED ON 27.0 2.2008 AND IN ANY CASE, IT DOES NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE RELATED SPECIFI C EQUIPMENT WAS ACTUALLY USED ON 27.02.2008 LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VERY WELL ANALYZED ALL THESE ASPECTS AND WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH HIS REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POINT SIMILARLY, LEARNED CIT(A)'S STAND ABOUT ADMISSIBILI TY OF 15% DEPRECIATION ALSO MEETS OUR APPROVAL. JUST BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT HAS AN ELEMENT OF DATA PROCESSING, WHICH IS PRESENT IN MOST MODERN EQUIPME NTS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPUTER THE VISUALS SHOWN TO US BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL DO NOT HELP US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS NOTHING BUT A HIGH E ND COMPUTER. UNDOUBTEDLY, IT DOES INVOLVE FEEDING THE INFORMATION THROUGH VAR IOUS INPUT CONSOLES AND PROCESSING THE SAME BUT THEN ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIPM ENT IS A SEISMIC SURVEY MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 7 OF 11 EQUIPMENT AND PRESENCE OF PROCESSING WOULD NOT ALTE R ITS CHARACTER. ON THIS POINT A/SO, WE APPROVE THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE M ATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE THUS DISMISSED. 6. COMING TO GROUND NO.3, NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENT WAS RAISED IN SUPPORT OF THIS GRIEVANCE AND, THEREFORE, THIS GRIEVANCE IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. ON A PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FACTUAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE APPLICANT TO BE CORRECT. THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY WAY OF WRITTEN NOTE INDEED REMAINED UNDISPOSED OF. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RECALL THE MATTER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF DISPOSING OF THESE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL NAMELY GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3. ORDERED, ACCORDINGLY. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX T HE APPEAL FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES AS ABOVE, ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2020, ISSUE NOTICE. 5. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY ADD THAT WHILE HEARING OF THIS APPLICATION WAS CONCLUDED ON 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2020, THIS ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED ON 3 RD DECEMBER, 2020. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF CO-ORDINATE BE NCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. (116 TAXMANN.COM 565), AND EXCLUDING THE P ERIOD IN TERMS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS DIRECTIONS SET OUT THEREIN, THE TIME L IMIT REQUIREMENT DOES NOT COME IN THE WAY IN THIS ORDER. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS FOL LOWS: 7. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MUST DEAL WITH ONE PROCEDURAL ISSUE AS WELL. WHILE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED ON 7TH JANUARY 2020, THIS ORDER THEREON IS BEING PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2020, MU CH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. WE ARE ALSO ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963, WHICH DEALS WITH PRO NOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: (5) THE PRONOUNCEMENT MAY BE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWIN G MANNERS :-- (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY U PON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (B) IN CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS NOT PRONOUNCED IMMED IATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A DATE FOR PRONOUNCEM ENT. ITA NO. 6103 AND 6264/MUM/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013- 14 MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 8 OF 11 (C) IN A CASE WHERE NO DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IS GIV EN BY THE BENCH, EVERY ENDEAVOUR SHALL BE MADE BY THE BENCH TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER W ITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS CONCLUDED BUT, WH ERE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE SO TO DO ON THE GROUND OF EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BENCH SHALL FIX A FUTURE DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORD ER, AND SUCH DATE SHALL NOT ORDINARILY (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US NOW) BE A DAY B EYOND A FURTHER PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND DUE NOTICE OF THE DAY SO FIXED SHALL BE GIVEN O N THE NOTICE BOARD. 8. QUITE CLEARLY, 'ORDINARILY' THE ORDER ON AN APPE AL SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED BY THE BENCH WITHIN NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLU DING THE HEARING. IT IS, HOWEVER, IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ORDINARILY' HAS BEEN USED IN THE SAID RULE ITSELF. THIS RULE WAS INSERTED AS A RESULT OF DIRECTIONS OF HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSAGAR VEG RESTAURANT VS ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 43 3 (BOM)] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD, INTER ALIA, DIRECTED THAT 'WE, THEREFORE, DIRE CT THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO FRAME AND LAY DOWN THE GUIDELINES IN THE SIMILAR LI NES AS ARE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL RAI (SUPRA) AND TO ISSUE APPROPRIA TE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIONS TO ALL THE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT BEHALF. WE HOPE AND TRUST THAT SUITABLE GUIDELINES SHALL BE FRAMED AND ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WITHIN SHORTEST REASONABLE TIME AND FOLLOWED STRICTLY BY ALL THE BENCHES OF THE TRI BUNAL. IN THE MEANWHILE (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US NOW), ALL THE REVISIONA L AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ARE DIRECTED TO DECIDE MATTERS H EARD BY THEM WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE CASE IS CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT'. IN THE RULED SO FRAMED, AS A RESULT OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE EXPRESSION 'ORDINARILY' HAS BEEN IN SERTED IN THE REQUIREMENT TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER THE PASSING OF THIS ORDER, BEYOND NINETY DAYS, WAS NECESSITATED BY ANY 'EXTRAO RDINARY' CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TOOK THE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COVID 19 EPIDEMIC, A ND THIS LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVEN BEFORE THIS FORM AL NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEV ERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN BY THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT, AND ON ACCO UNT OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH ADVISORIES WITH A VIEW OF CHECKING SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE EPIDEMIC SITUATION IN MUMBAI BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING D ISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ORDER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA AND VIDE ORDER DATED 6.5.2020 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LOCKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO A FEW MORE DAYS PRIOR TO, AND AFTER, THE LOCKDOWN BY OBSERVING THAT 'IN CASE THE LIMITATION HAS ITA NO. 6103 AND 6264/MUM/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 EXPIRED AFTER 15.03.2020 T HEN THE PERIOD FROM 15.03.2020 TILL THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOCKDOWN IS LIFTED IN THE JURISDI CTIONAL AREA WHERE THE DISPUTE LIES OR WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES SHALL BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN'. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER D ATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HAS, BESIDES EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS A LSO OBSERVED THAT, 'IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT WHILE CALCULATING TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY', AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT 'ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30TH APRIL 2020 SHALL CO NTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020'. IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA B UT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19TH FEBRUARY 2020, TA KEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONAVIRUS 'SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AND FMC (I .E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAYBE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE...'. THE TERM 'FORCE MAJEURE' HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, AS 'AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 9 OF 11 ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLLED' WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITI ON, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC HAS B EEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005, AND ALS O IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN B E ANYTHING BUT AN 'ORDINARY' PERIOD. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS IN L OCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHI CH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. THE TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRA GMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSI GNED BY US IS NOT ONLY IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A P RAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TIME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBT EDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)], HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 1 5TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED 'WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE T IME- BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY'. THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP S TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DU RING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHO UT THE WORDS 'ORDINARILY', IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIO D DURING WHICH ITA NO. 6103 AND 6264/MUM/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT O F ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINET Y DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO, AND THERE CAN NOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEC AUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 6. IT IS IN THESE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PRONOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN DELAYED. IT MAY ALSO BE ADDED THAT ONE OF US WAS FURTHER ON TWO MONTH MEDICAL LEAVES, WHICH IS YET ANOTHER FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO THIS INADVERTENT DEL AY. HOWEVER, GIVEN THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, THAT MUST NOT COME IN THE WAY OF PRONOUNCING OUR OR DER NOW. 7. IN THE RESULT, RECTIFICATION PETITION IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE . DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- AMARJIT SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) MUMBAI, DATED THE 3 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 MA NO. 115/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 10 OF 11 ROSHANI, SR. PS COPIES TO: (1) THE APPLICANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI