M/s VBC Industries Ltd., Hyderabad V. The ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

MA 42/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4724 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS.37 TO 42/VIZAG/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.390/VIZAG/2010, 121/VIZAG/2 007, 391/VIZAG/2010, 122/VIZAG/2007, 537/VIZAG/2008 & 392/VIZAG/2009 RESPECTIVELY) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY M/S. VBC INDUSTRIES LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAACV7352F APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 15.2.2010 WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANC E OF EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TH E FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDIT URE AND INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES, AFTER HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE RE LEVANT DETAILS RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURES WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIB UNAL IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE IT DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING, A NECESSARY RECTIFICATION IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL. 2. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE HEARING OF THESE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ITO IN THIS OFFICE INTIMATING THAT THE CASES RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN TRANSF ERRED TO ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD. THROUGH THIS LETTER NO REQUEST FOR TRAN SFER OF THESE CASES WAS MADE BY THE ITO. THE REGISTRY HOWEVER INTIMATED TH E ITO THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT WANTS THE TRANSFER OF THESE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATIONS IN THE 2 ABOVE CASES FROM THIS BENCH TO ITAT, HYDERABAD BENC H, A REQUEST IS TO BE MADE TO THE HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD. BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT WHETHER THEY HA VE TAKEN ANY ACTION IN THIS REGARD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES HAS HOWEVER INVIT ED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR TRANSPORT 101 TTJ (VISAKHA) 840, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL DEPENDS UPON THE LOCAT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. IT WILL NOT BE SHIFTED ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING OF JURISDICTION IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS IS NOT A HEARING OF A REGULAR A PPEAL. IT IS ONLY THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS OR DER AND AS PER SECTION 254(2), MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SHOULD ORDINARILY BE HEARD BY THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE PASSED THE ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT TILL THE APPEALS OR THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE T RANSFERRED FROM ONE BENCH TO OTHER, THE ORIGINAL BENCH HAS A JURISDICTION TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS OR THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, OR IGINAL APPEALS WERE DECIDED BY THIS BENCH AND AGAINST THAT ORDER, PRESENT MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED. AS PER SECTION 254(2), THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATIONS ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SAME BENCH WHO HAS PASSED THE OR DER UNLESS THEY ARE TRANSFERRED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN THE INST ANT CASE, THIS OFFICE WAS SIMPLY INTIMATED BY THE I.T.O. THAT CASES RELATING T O THE ASSESSEES WERE TRANSFERRED TO HYDERABAD BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN INFOR MED ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. MOREOVER, THI S OFFICE HAS ALSO INFORMED THE ITO THAT IN CASE THEY WANT TO GET THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATIONS TRANSFERRED TO HYDERABAD BENCH, THEY MAY APPLY TO H ONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD. BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. WE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE I S NO JUSTIFICATION TO KEEP THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL. A CCORDINGLY, WE PROCEEDED WITH THE HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. 3 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES HAS INVITED O UR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN ALL THESE APPEALS WITH THE SUBM ISSIONS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONSOLIDATE D CHART DEPICTING VARIOUS ISSUES IN THE APPEALS AND WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO.2(B) AND 4 IN ITA NO.122 OF 2007 AND GROUND NO.2(B) & 3 OF REMAINING APPEALS WHICH RELATE TO THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, I T WAS CONTENDED THAT DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES WERE FILED IN ALL THESE APP EALS. IN ITA NO.390 OF 2009, 391 OF 2009 AND 392 OF 2009, THE DETAILS OF E XPENDITURES WERE FILED THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PG.25 & 27 OF THE RELEVANT COMPILATION. IN ITA 122 OF 2007 & 121 OF 2007, THE SE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE AT PG. 31 TO 35 AND 13 TO 15 OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPILA TION. IN ITA NO.537 OF 2008, THESE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS.29 TO 33 OF THE COMPILATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES, AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL THE NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE INCOME EARNED CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE CAN BE DISPOSED OFF HERE INS TEAD OF SENDING IT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THA T TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT AS POINTED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE. MOREOVER, THE PROPOSED RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE I. T. ACT. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS VIS--VIS THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS THROUGH A COMMON ORDER AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSOLIDA TED CHART POINTING OUT THE COMMON ISSUES FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO.2(B) & 4 IN ITA NO.122 OF 2 007 AND GROUND NO.2(B) & 3 IN ITA NOS.390 OF 2009, 391 OF 2009, 392 OF 200 9 AND 537 OF 2008, THE DETAILS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BUT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISS UE IT ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE NEXUS. WHEREAS FROM THESE DETAILS, THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE CAN BE VERIFIED AND APPROPRIATE DECISION CAN BE TAKEN. WE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT BY NOT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GIVING A FINDING WHICH IS C ONTRARY TO THE RECORD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN ITS ORDER WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. WE THEREFORE SUBSTITUTE THE PARA 5 & 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.2.2010 BY FOLLOWING PARAS: 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS PLACED A HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEF ORE THE CIT(A). THE NATURE OF RECEIPT OF INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJUDI CATED BY US IN ITA NO.502 OF 2005 AND 121 OF 2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.6.2009 IN WHICH WE HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE NATURE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY A BUSINESS INCOME. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IS A BUSINESS INCOME, THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN EARNING THAT I NCOME CERTAINLY BE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND THE DEDUCTION OF THE SAME ARE TO BE ALLOWED. IN OTHER APPEALS, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OU R ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES FILED THROUGH THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO PLACED ON RECOR D IN ALL THESE APPEALS. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THESE DETAILS OF EXPENDIT URE, WE FIND THAT MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED TOWARDS SALARY PAYMEN T TO EMPLOYEES/STAFF COST, RENT, TAXES & LICENSES, POSTAGE & TELEPHONE, PRINTING & STATIONERY, TRAVELING EXPENSES, LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, A NNUAL LISTING FEES, COMPANY REGISTRATION EXPENSES, DIRECTORS FEES & EXPENSES, AUDIT FEES AND DEPRECIATION. THE NATURE OF THESE EXPENDITURES CLE ARLY SPEAKS THAT THEY ARE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALIVE AND THESE ARE THE BARE MINIM UM EXPENSES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE US THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY ASSESS EE AND WE FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE ARE NOT PLACED BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO HOLD THE NATURE OF THOSE EXPENDITURES OF WHICH DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IN ITA NO.390, 391 & 392 OF 2009, THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.51,99,845/-, RS.36,37,587/- & RS. 42,73,769/- RESPECTIVELY 5 AND THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ARE AVAILABL E AT PAGE NOS.25 TO 27 OF THE COMPILATION. IN ITA NO.537 OF 2008, THE TOTAL E XPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED AT RS.81,88,847/- AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE NOS.29 TO 33 OF THE COMPILATION. IN ITA NO.122 OF 2007 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE CLAIMED AT RS.52,26,436/ - AND THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 31 TO 33 OF THE COMPILATION. IN ITA NO.121 OF 2007 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED AT RS.49,69,698/-. THE DET AILS OF EXPENDITURES ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.13 TO 14 OF THE COMPILATION. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE TABULATE THE TOTAL CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.390/ V/2009 2001-02 ITA NO.121/ V/2007 2002-03 ITA NO.391/ V/2009 2003-04 ITA NO.122/ V/2007 2004-05 ITA NO.537/ V/2008 2005-06 ITA NO.392/ V/20092 006-07 TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED 51,99,845 49,69,698 36,37,587 52,26,436 81,888,847 42,73,769 DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE (HEADWISE) PAYMENTS & BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES/STAFF COST -- 9,29,670 -- 5,87,664 7,71,355 -- RENT 30,000 -- 54,000 54,000 54,000 64,800 TAXES & LICENSES 1,15,957 93,263 71,879 1,55,438 3,65,803 60,252 INSURANCE 45,686 -- 29,258 34,506 21,321 27,319 POSTAGE & TELEPHONES 4,60,986 1,78,746 2,41,258 2,54,192 4,30,738 2,25,275 TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE -- 3,54,715 -- 4,44,128 1,86,854 -- ANNUAL LISTING FEES 1,07,000 1,06,690 1,07,000 86,000 1,00,000 30,000 COMPANY REGISTRARS EXPENSES 3,89,384 3,63,379 2,93,349 2,64,461 2,32,414 1,98,072 PRINTING & STATIONERY 3,36,107 1,71,266 1,61,904 2,70,044 4,41,199 3,71,735 LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES -- 2,16,635 -- 1,63,746 19,07,817 -- 6 ITA NO.390/ V/2009 2001-02 ITA NO.121/ V/2007 2002-03 ITA NO.391/ V/2009 2003-04 ITA NO.122/ V/2007 2004-05 ITA NO.537/ V/2008 2005-06 ITA NO.392/ V/20092 006-07 STATUTORY ANNOUNCEMENT & OTHER ADVT. EXPENSES -- -- -- -- -- 2,28,724 ELECTRICITY CHARGES -- -- 2,26,979 1,83,817 2,95,552 1,78,750 VEHICLES MAINTENANCE -- -- -- 5,509 2,795 -- DIRECTORS FEES AND ALLOWANCES 3,21,744 2,96,280 3,23,755 3,11,056 3,52,924 3,55,149 AUDITORS REMUNERATION TOWARDS 1,27,500 1,03,050 55,875 61,265 2,72,874 1,01,378 BAD DEBTS 54,740 -- -- 10,00,000 -- 67,804 TOTAL 19,89,104 28,13,694 15,65,257 38,75,826 54,35,646 19,09,258 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPEND ITURE CLAIMED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE COMPLETE DETAIL S OF ENTIRE CLAIM. BUT WHATEVER DETAILS ARE FILED, HAVING PERUSED THEM WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURES HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSES AND DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. WE THEREFORE ALLOW AFOR ESAID EXPENDITURES OF WHICH DETAILS ARE FILED. SO FAR AS THE REMAINING E XPENSES FOR WHICH DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION TO OBTAIN THE DETAILS FROM ASSESSEES AND VERIFY THE NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEES SUCCEEDS IN PROVING THE NEXUS OF THESE EXPENDITURES WITH THE BUSINESS INCOME, IT MAY BE AL LOWED. WE ALSO DIRECT THE A.O. TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. 8. IN M.A. NO.40 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.122 O F 2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT ONE MORE ERROR WITH REGARD TO THE R ECEIPT OF RS.87,23,221/- WITH REGARD TO WHICH TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE RE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE EITHER IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. OR IN TH E CIT(A). WHEREAS, THIS AMOUNT FIND PLACE IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THOUGH NOT IN SPECIFIC TERMS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.87,23,221/- IS A PART OF TOTA L RECEIPT OF 7 RS.1,01,58,508/- WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO BE THE IN COME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT HE HAS NOT E XAMINED THIS AMOUNT SPECIFICALLY IN HIS ORDER. SIMILAR WAS THE POSITIO N BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE HAS MENTIONED THIS AMOUNT RS.1,01,58,508/- IN ITS PARA NO.2.1 AT PAGE 3 OF ITS ORDERS. BUT HE HAS NOT DISCUSSED THIS AMOUNT INDEP ENDENTLY IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS REGARD THAT THIS MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR ITS ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE O F 121 OF 2007 DATED 24.6.2009. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL AND THIS ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT FIND PLACE WITHIN THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.1,01,58,508/- C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). SINCE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE SPECIFICALLY IN THEIR ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA 121 OF 2007 IN THE AS SESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 24.6.2009. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUBSTITUTE THE PARA NO.11 OF THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING PARA: 11. IN THE ITA NO.122 OF 2007 ONE MORE ISSUE IS RA ISED THROUGH GROUND NO.2(A) WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF RECEIPT OF RS. 87,23,221/- WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. TO BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES TO BE AN INCOME UNDER HEAD PROFIT & B USINESS OR PROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT SAID RECEIPTS ARE IN RESPECT OF EXP ENDITURES INCURRED WHILE CARRYING ON BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN EARLIER YEARS WH ICH HAVE BEEN CREDITED BACK OR RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ONLY BEING THE NATURE OF PROFITS CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OU R ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH THE SUBMISS IONS THAT THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE BUT THIS AMO UNT FIND PLACE IN THE DETAILS OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,01,58,508/-. SINCE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE PROPERLY IN THEIR ORDERS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE 8 THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE IT TO THE FILE OF T HE A.O. TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.121 OF 2007 DATED 24.6.2009. 10. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OFF. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.6.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 2 ND JUNE, 2010 COPY TO 1 M/S. VBC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, A-4 UNIT, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 M/S. VBC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 6-2-913/914, 3 RD FLOOR, PROGRESSIVE TOWERS, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD-500 004. 3 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 THE CIT(A)-I, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 THE CIT(A)-II, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM