ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Millennium Software Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 327/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5179 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR; N CHANDRASEKAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M.) M.A. NOS. 327/MDS/2009, 144 TO 147/MDS/2010 [IN I.T.A. NOS.1854, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/MDS/20 08] ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I (4), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. MILLENNIUM SOFTWARE PRODUCTIONS (P) LTD., NO. 1, KUPPUSAMY STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 17. [PAN: AACCN3040M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR & SHRI N. CHANDRASEKAR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. BY MEANS OF FIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE DE PARTMENT SEEKS TO GET RECTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.06.2009 IN I.T.A . NOS. 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857 AND 1858/MDS/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2 006-07 RESPECTIVELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80HHE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM EXPORT OF SOFTWARE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1998-99 TO 2001-02, WHICH WAS EARLIER ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS C OMMON ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REGISTERED WITH SOFTWARE TECHN OLOGY PARKS OF INDIA (STPI, CHENNAI VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. STPIC/G-830/2000-01/3 725 DATED 20.03.2001 AND SUBSEQUENT TO ITS REGISTRATION WITH THE STPI THE AS SESSEE COMPANY OPTED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03, WHICH FINDING IS TOTALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE APPROVAL WAS EARLIER REQU IRED BY THE COMPANY TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT FOR ITS STPI OPERATION AND SE PARATE BALANCE SHEET WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR THE STP UNIT. SECTION 10A D EDUCTION HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 2 CLAIMED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFITS OF ITS PRE-EX ISTING UNIT IN T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, WHICH WAS NOT LOCATED IN THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK AND WAS ACCORDINGLY NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. STPI DID NO T APPLY TO THE OLD PRE-EXISTING UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BUT THE FACTS WERE DELIBERATE LY MISREPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ITAT, TO OBTAIN BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10 A TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE F ACTUALLY INCORRECT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT NEEDS R ECTIFICATION. 1.1 THE DISPUTED FACT IN THE ORIGINAL APPEALS WAS C LAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A. HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S BEFORE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAHAVIR SP INNING MILLS LTD. 303 ITR 353 (P&H) AND M/S. BRIGADE CORPN. INDIA PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. N O. 2368/MDS/2006 OF ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH DATED 04.01.2008, WHICH WERE RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AND THE ISSUES BEFORE THOSE JUDIC IAL AUTHORITIES HAD BEEN DECIDED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.1 OF 2005 DATED 06.01.2005. SINCE THERE IS A BASIC DIFFERENCE IN THE SCHEME OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 10A AS COMPARED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 10B, THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A AND 10B ARE NOT PARI MATERIA . TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS BASED ON THE ASSES SEES CLAIM OF PARITY ON THE PRESENT ISSUE BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AND 10B AND THE RESULTANT MISAPPLICATION OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE C BDT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B, THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS B ASED ON AN ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF THE M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 3 TRIBUNAL DATED 05.06.2009 WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIE D BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. WHILE ARGUING THE APPLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT , THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE APPLICATION, BUT WHEN SPEC IFICALLY ASKED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HE JUST RELIED UPON THE APPLICATION WITHOUT REPLYING TO THE QUERY RAISED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED DETAILED AND ELABORATE ORDE R GIVING PROPER AND VALID REASONING AND BASIS AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO P OINT OUT ANY MISTAKE OR INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER AND IF THE REQUEST IS ACCEPTED, THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPLICATIONS OF T HE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED FOR ALL THE YEARS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 05.06.2009, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID GROUND, WHICH COULD PROMPT US TO REC TIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS NO APPARENT OR OTHER MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OU T BY THE LD. DR OR NOTICED BY US AND IF THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THAT WOU LD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE AC T BECAUSE, THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION AND USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING: 3.1 THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T & ANOTHER VS. I.T.A.T AND ANOTHER (198 ITR 188) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POWERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POWER TO RECTIFY ITS ORDER TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT ARBITRATI ON EXPENSES NOT ALLOWABLE AS A SEPARATE ITEM AS FIXED PERCENTAGE OF AWARD MONEY TAKEN AS PROFIT OF CONTRA CT M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 4 BUSINESS TRIBUNAL CANNOT ALLOW ARBITRATION EXPENSE S IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDING INCOME TAX ACT 1961. SEC 254(2). 3.2 YET IN ANOTHER CASE, THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOKUL CHAND AGARWAL (202 ITR 14), HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME AND O PINED AS UNDER: SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, EMPOWE RS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. THE JURISDIC TION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER THUS DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IF, IN ITS ORDER, THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHIC H IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTI ON BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE WORST, LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDING UND ER SECTION 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREAT URE OF THE STATUTE AND, UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORIT Y CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IMPLY PROCEEDINGS WHERE A PARTY, AS OF RIGHT, CAN APPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, ALREADY DECIDED UPON , AFTER A FRESH HEARING ON THE MERITS O THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SUCH REMEDY IS CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.3 IN SIMILAR SITUATION, WHILE DEALING WITH THE RE CTIFICATION, THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PREDESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOR VS. I.T.A.T AND ANOR (206 ITR 126 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEING A CREATURE OF THE ST ATUTE, HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION TO THE ENABLING OR EMPOWERING TERMS OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NO INHERENT POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE, IN CASES WHERE SPECIFIC PROVISION DELINEATES THE POWERS OF THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL, IT CANNOT DRAW UPON ITS ASSUMED INHERENT JURISDICTION AND PASS ORDERS AS IT PLEASES . THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE EXERCISED IN TERMS OF THAT PROVISION. IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED ON ANY ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT AN INHERENT POWER OF RECTIFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISI ON. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT SUCH POWER OF REVIEW OR REVISION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED. UNLESS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PATENT, OBVIOUS AND CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAKE, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REC ALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE WHICH COULD BE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY A PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, IT I S NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 5 3.4 FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BR. P. LTD. (176 ITR 535) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DUTY TO CONSIDER CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND TOTALITY OF FACTS NO NEED TO STATE SO IN APPELLATE ORDER SPECIFICALLY INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961, SEC. 254 FURTHER IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER S OME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE J UDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT M ATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH , UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE . IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOW S THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT- VS- RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (203 ITR 497) .IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD.. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED S AN OBVIOUS AND PA TENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH RE QUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS O F REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIO N. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENTS M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 6 3.5 WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT HERE FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HI GH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF T HE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW T HE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR WHAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR O N THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN T HE NAME OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION , THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOE S NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DO ING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAK ES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBI T OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRI CTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE OR DER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORD ER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY GLARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED AN D HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATI ON. 3.6 FURTHER, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT EXPOSITION ON THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) AS REPORTED IN TH E CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2007) 293 ITR 365:- SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITU TE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY, FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING A T A CONCLUSION, IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ALLOWED A D EDUCTION, EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG, WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING A N APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & 327/MDS/09 & M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144 M.A.NOS. 144- -- -147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 147/MDS/10 7 RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SECT ION. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE L IGHT OF THE DISCUSSION HELD ABOVE AND RATIO OF THE DECISIONS AS CITED ABOVE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE, AS SUCH, WE DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS O F THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL THE YEARS BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 12.11.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED :. 12.11.2010. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.