Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2675 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-03-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
17-03-2011
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
26-04-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.563/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S RAMAN AND RAMAN AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD 48, TIRUVIDAIMARUDUR ROAD KUMBAKONAM VS THE ACIT CIRCLE I KUMBAKONAM [PAN AACCR7263F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.661/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE ACIT CIRCLE I KUMBAKONAM VS M/S RAMAN AND RAMAN AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD KUMBAKONAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.V.RAJAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, DATED 1.2.2010, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 2 -: 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS THE MAIN DEALER IN MAHINDRA TRACTORS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.12. 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 34,27,145/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE VARIO US ADDITIONS WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT VIDE HIS ORDER D ATED 24.12.2008. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTIALLY SUCCESS FUL. THAT IS WHY BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED AND FILED RESPECTIVE APPE ALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.11 ,35,942/- UND ER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TRACTORS WERE TRANSPO RTED BY THE TRANSPORT COMPANY, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY MAHIND RA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED AND WITH WHOM THE APPELLANT HA D NO CONTRACT IN ANY MANNER TO WARRANT THE APPLICATIO N OF SECTION 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THERE WAS NEITHER A FORMAL CONTRACT NOR AN IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELL ANT AND THE TRANSPORTER IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH THE FREIG HT CHARGES WERE PAID AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 3 -: ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PAYMENT O F INCENTIVE TO DIRECTORS IS EXCESSIVE AS PER 40A(2)(A ) OF I.T ACT AND WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY SINCE THE SAME IS RATIFIED BY THE COMPANY IN THE AN NUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING ONLY ON 22/6/2006, I.E, AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HENCE, IT IS ONLY A PROVISION W HICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T A CT. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE TO DIRECTOR HAS BEEN RATIFIED BY A POST FACTO SANCTION IN THE ANNUAL GEN ERAL BODY MEETING WHICH PROVES THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE AND HENCE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(2)(A) BY THE A.O. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURES ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES WHICH ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE SUCH AS WOOD W ORKS AND FALSE CEILING WHICH HAVE LONG LASTING BENEFITS FOR THE COMPANY. IT MAY BE AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA. IT IS PERTINENT TO SAY THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PAYING RENT TO TWO OF THE DIREC TORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEY WERE RIGHTLY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DISALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE. FOR THESE REASONS AND SUCH OTHERS THAT MAY BE ADDUC ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MAY BE CANCELLE D AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A SUM OF ` 25,19,103/- WAS FOUND DEBITED AS FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT, OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF ` 11,35,942/- WAS PAID TO TRANSPORTERS NAMELY, CARGO WING (MADRAS) PVT. LTD, CHENNAI. ON THIS PAYMENT, THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON THE PREMISE THAT THE TRACTORS WERE BROUGHT IN BY THE ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 4 -: TRANSPORTERS WHO WERE APPROVED BY M/S MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD(M&ML) AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NEITHER ORAL CONTR ACT OR IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IT WAS STATED THAT T HE TRACTORS WERE SENT FROM STOCK YARD AT THE INSTANCE OF M&ML RAISING THE INDENT FOR PURCHASE OF TRACTORS. THE TRACTORS WERE BILLED IN LARGE QUANTITY AND KEPT IN STOCK YARD IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR SALES TARGET AND SENT FROM STOCK YARD WHEN THE INDENTS WERE RAISED FOR TRACTOR S BY THE DEALERS. THIS WORK WAS DONE BY M&ML TO AVOID DAMAGE/MISHANDL ING OF TRACTORS DURING THEIR TRANSPORT. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE TRANSPORTER I S ALSO AN ASSESSEE IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. BY REFE RRING TO FINANCE ACT, 2009, IT WAS STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE RECIPIENT IS A TRANSPORT OPERATOR AND HAD FURNISHED HIS PAN T O THE TAX PAYER, RATE OF TDS SHALL BE NIL. PAN OF THE TRANSPORTER W AS ADMITTEDLY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR CE AND HENCE, APPLICATION OF SECTION 40A(A)(IA) WAS NOT ATTRACTE D. BUT AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C R .W.S 40A(IA) ARE ATTRACTED HENCE, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITU RE OF ` 11,34,942/- AND ADDED THE SAME IN ASSESSEES HANDS. THE LD. CI T(A) HAS SIMPLY SUSTAINED THIS ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONIN G. NOW THE ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 5 -: ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS SUSTAINED ADDITI ON. SIMILAR CONTENTION WAS TAKEN BEFORE US AS WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT BEFORE US, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENT S, THE LD.AR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH COUR T DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHAGWATI STEELS, 326 ITR 108, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: WHEN THE MATTER WAS HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL A COPY O F THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE M/S TATA STEEL WAS PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT HAD APPOINTE D DISTRIBUTOR FOR MARKETING OF PRODUCTS OF M/S TATA S TEEL WHICH ENVISAGES PURCHASE OF PRODUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AND SALE THEREOF. THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUOTED CLS. 2.14 OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH SHOW THAT M /S TATA STEEL WAS TO RAISE INVOICE ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE LIST PRICE TO BE PUBLISHED BY TATA STEEL. THE T RIBUNAL AFTER READING THE AGREEMENT REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT HAD A RESPONSIBILITY OF MARKETING THE GOODS OF M/S TATA STEEL AFTER PURCHAS ING THE SAME FROM THEM. THE SAMPLE COPY OF THE PRICE LI ST HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE PAPER BOOK. THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT WAS FOUND TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE INV OICES BUT THE AO CONSIDERED FOR PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S . 194 (C) WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL AFTER READING THE WHOLE CONTRACT IN ITS ENTIRETY RE ACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PAR TIES WAS ESSENTIALLY GOVERNED BY THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEM ENT WHICH WAS TRANSACTION OF GOODS PER SE AND CANNOT BE SEGREGATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF EXPENSES BY WAY OF FREIGHT. IN THAT REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS PL ACED RELIANCE ON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) VS. ASSTT. MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), FCI, JAGADHRI (IT APPEAL NO. 407 OF 200 8, DT. 21ST AUG., 2008). IN THAT CASE ALSO THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO STATE AGENCIES ON THE BASIS OF INVOICES RAISED IN RESPECT OF THE FOOD GRAIN PROCURED BY THEM. THE INVOICES REFLECTED THE COST OF WHEAT APART FROM THE COST OF INCIDENTAL EXP ENSES INCLUDING VAT, TRANSPORTATION, INTEREST OR STORAGE ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 6 -: CHARGES. THE COURT NEGATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AND HELD THAT IF EXPENSES INCURRED BY A PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION AND INTEREST ETC. WERE AD DED TO THE COST OF THE GOODS THEN IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT SUCH A PERSON HAD PAID SEPARATELY FO R SERVICES OF TRANSPORTATION AND INTEREST ETC. AS IT BECOMES PART OF THE COST OF THE PRODUCT PURCHASE. THEREFORE SUCH AMOUNT CHARGE SEPARATELY CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S. 194(C) OF THE A CT. BOUND BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE IS COVER ED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT. NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ARISE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS RELIED ON THE REAS ONINGS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. AFTER COGITATING THE ENTIRE RECORDS, WE FIND IT FOR A FACT THAT THE TRACTORS WERE TRANSPORTED BY THE TRANSPORT COMPANY WHICH WAS APPROVED BY M&ML AND ASSESSEE HAD NO DIRECT CONNECT ION IN ANY MANNER TO WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 194C O F THE ACT. THERE WAS NEITHER A FORMAL CONTRACT OR AN IMPLIED CONTRAC T BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSPORTER. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO PAY FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S. THE FREIGHT CHARGES WERE PAID ONLY TO PROCURE TRACTORS AND THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT AS AN ELEMENT OF PU RCHASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD II OF ICAI, FOR THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, WHEREIN FREIGHT INWARD PERTAINING TO CLOSING STOCK IS INCLUDED IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE HON'BL E P&H HIGH COURT IN THE DECISION CITED SUPRA HAS HELD THAT TRANSPORTING CHARGES PAID WAS ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 7 -: PART OF COST OF PROCUREMENT OF WHEAT AND THE PROVIS ION FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WAS NOT APPLICABLE. IN ANY OTH ER CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE TRANSPORTER BY W AY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ONLY. COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE PAN OF THE TRANSPORTER WAS FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT , THEREFORE, NO DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED U/S SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTIO N 194C OF THE ACT. THE AMENDMENT BEING CLARIFACTORY AND CURATIVE HAS T O BE APPLIED TO PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. WE MAY ME NTION THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009. SO, IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N IS NOT CALLED FOR AND THEREFORE, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE SAME FROM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING I NCENTIVE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT REVEALED THAT FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS: I) SHRI N.SIVARAMAN 13,52,143 II) SMT. S.SYAMALA 6,76,071 III) SHRI P.S.NARAYANAN 6,76,071 27,04,285 10. THIS WAS TERMED AS PERFORMANCE ALLOWANCE BASED ON C OMPANYS TURNOVER. UNDISPUTEDLY, THIS PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE WAS RATIFIED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN THEIR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 22.9.2006. ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 8 -: IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE INCENTIVE PAYMENT WAS IN ADDITION TO THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THEM. THE DIRECTORS IN SERIAT IM WERE PAID ` 2,40,000/-, ` 1,80,000/- AND ` 1,60,000/- RESPECTIVELY, AS THEIR REMUNERATION. SINCE THESE PAYMENTS WERE RATIFIED O NLY IN THE AGM HELD AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OPINED THA T THE PAYMENTS WOULD BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, THIS ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF ` 27,04,285.- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT ON THE REASONING THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO BETTER PERFORMANCE WI TH THEIR EXPERIENCE AND PAID TAXES ON THE INCENTIVES. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTA ND THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THIS A MOUNT EVEN IF THIS PAYMENT WAS RATIFIED IN THE AGM BY THE BOARD OF DIR ECTORS HOW THIS PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE BE TREATED AS EXCESSIVE TO ATT RACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE NATURE OF THIS DEALER TO ARRIVE AT TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENT IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS TO WHY THE INCENTIV E PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE DIR ECTORS HAD CONTRIBUTED TO BETTER PERFORMANCE WITH THEIR EXPERI ENCE AND HAD ALSO PAID TAXED ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM. IN OUR CONSIDERED ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 9 -: OPINION, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 12. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS IN RELATIO N TO DELETION OF AN ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCUR RED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES ON WOOD WORK AND FALSE CEILING WH ICH ALLEGEDLY HAVE LONG LASTING BENEFITS FOR THE COMPANY. 13. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AS P ER THE DIRECTION OF M&ML, NEARLY EIGHT BRANCHES HAVE BEEN OPENED DUR ING THE YEAR 2005-06 AT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, PERAMBALUR, PUDUKOTTAI, ARUDAIYARKOIL, JAYAMKONDAM, THENNAVANALLUR, THURAIYUR AND LALGUDI. THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON FALSE CEILING, GLASS PA RTITIONS AND SHOWROOM EXPENSES AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF M&ML . THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON RENTED PREMISES AND TH E REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ARE RELATED TO WOOD WORKS, FALSE CEILIN G AND GLASS ROOM PARTITION TO ADHERE TO THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY M&ML. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A LESSEE OF THE PREMISES AND HA S CARRIED OUT CERTAIN RENOVATIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ASSET. THE STRUCTURE ON WHICH THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IS DEFINITELY O F TEMPORARY NATURE AND THE PREMISES WERE MORE CONDUCIVE TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS INTERESTS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT FOR BRINGING IN TO EXISTENCE ANY ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 10 - : NEW ASSET OR ADVANTAGE BUT ONLY FOR RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS EFFECTIVELY IN A SMOOTHER MANNER. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TREATED THIS EXPENDITURE TO BE FOR BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE A NE W ASSET OR ADVANTAGE IN RESPECT OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS EFFEC TIVELY AND HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF ` 12,82,799/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TREATING IT AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, HOWE VER, TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW AND HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISPUT E REGARDING THE FACTS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY HAS INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE ON RENTED PREMISES AND TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED ON TE MPORARY PARTITION ETC. DONE WITH THE HELP OF WOOD AND BY GLASS AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF M&ML WHICH ANY BUSINESSMAN WOULD FIND IT EXPEDIENT TO DO SO TO CARRY ON HIS BUSINESS IN A PROPER MANNER. SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS AYESHA H OSPITALS(P) LTD, 292 ITR 266, CIT VS OOTY DASAPRAKASH, 237 ITR 902 AND CIT VS HARI VIGNESH MOTORS(P) LTD, 282 ITR 338, COPIES OF WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISIONS CITED SUPRA AND IN VIEW OF THE CL EAR CUT FACT FINDING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. ITA 563 & 661/2010 :- 11 - : CIT(A). WE CONFIRM BOTH THE DELETIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEA L. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED WHEREAS THAT OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 30.3.2011 SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MARCH, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR
