Creative Processing Ltd., Surat v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Surat

CO 203/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 20320523 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCP4345H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number CO 203/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Creative Processing Ltd., Surat
Respondent The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Surat
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 07-10-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS. 509 510 512 513 & 514/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 2007-0 8 & 2008-09 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 SURAT . APPELLANT [ VS. CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD. 606 RIVER PALACE NAVDI OVARA SURAT . RESPO NDENT PAN : AABCP 4345 H CO NOS. 199 200 202 203 & 204/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 2007-0 8 & 2008-09 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD. 606 RIVER PALACE NAVDI OVARA SURAT . APPELLANT [ PAN : AABCP 4345 H VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 SURAT . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT SONIA KUMAR SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI MANISH J SHAH AR !/ DATE OF HEARING : 29/04/2015 #$ ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/04/2015 %& %& %& %& / // / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS- OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II AHMEDABAD FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 AND 2008-09. IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 2 - 2. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL T HE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AMOUN T INVOLVED; THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM IN CASE OF ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR WILL ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO OTHE RS AND THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WER E NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND THUS PROCEED WITH THE FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN IT(SS)A NO.509/AHD/2011. 3. IT(SS)A NO.509/AHD/2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.7 62 728 /- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY ANAL YZED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME ST OCK AS WORK IN PROGRESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 2. THE LD.CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.7 62 728 /- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE ME THOD FOLLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY THE ASSESSEE IN VI EW OF THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS LTD. REPORTED IN 188 1TR 44. 3. THE LD. CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTE R CONCERN OF RS.13 65 558/- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUSTIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PARTIES IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 3 - ARE INTER RELATED AND THAT LOAN COULD HAVE BEEN OBT AINED AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. 4. THE LD. CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTE R CONCERN OF RS.13 65 558/- EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE A.O. 6. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF CL OSING WORK- IN-PROGRESS OF RS.7 62 728/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT YEAR END AND HENCE HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT AS TO WHY WORK-IN- PROGRESS SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED IN THIS CASE. TH E ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS IN THIS REGARD AND HAVING CON SIDERED THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF CLOSIN G WORK-IN- PROGRESS OF RS.7 62 728/-. 4.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DYEING AND PRINTING OF CLOTH ON JOB WOR K BASIS FOR WHICH FABRIC IS SUPPLIED BY PARTIES AND THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN FOLLOWING CONSISTENT METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WHEREIN IT DOES NOT VALUE CHEMICALS CONSUMED IN RES PECT OF IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 4 - FABRICS LYING ON MACHINES AT YEAR END WHEREAS ASSES SING OFFICER ESTIMATED VALUE OF SUCH CHEMICALS AND COLOU R AND MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT BY NOT SHOWING CLOSING WORK-IN- PROGRESS OF SUCH ITEMS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN CORRECT PROFIT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER STATED THAT EVEN ON CONCEPT OF MATCHING COST WITH R EVENUE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE VALUED CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRES S WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT AT YEAR END IT HAS BEEN VALUING STOCK OF COLOURS AND CHEMICALS WHICH ARE NO T BEING CONSUMED AND LYING WITH IT ON CONSISTENT BASIS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE FABRICS WH ICH ARE LYING ON THE MACHINE AT THE END OF RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR BELONGS TO OTHER PARTIES AND CHEMICALS AND COLOURS WHICH ARE USED IN RESPECT OF SUCH FABRICS LYING ON MACHINE AT YEAR-END DID NOT HAVE SEPARATE MARKET VALUE OR CANNOT BE SOL D SEPARATELY; HENCE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE VALUATI ON OF SUCH STOCK. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY AMOUNT OF JOB CHARGES ACCRUES TO ASSESSEE AND IN CASE THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT FURTHER PROCESS FABRIC IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IT WILL NOT RECEIVE EVEN A SINGLE RUPEE FOR FABRICS LYING ON MACHINES W HICH BELONGS TO OTHERS. CONSIDERING THE SAME THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSTANTLY DOES NOT INCLUDE VALUE OF COLOURS AND CHEMICALS AS PART OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS WHICH HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON CONSISTENT BASIS IN P AST YEAR WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE U/S 143(3). THE CIT (A) FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT C-BENCH AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 5 - IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ FASHIONS PVT LTD V. DCIT WHER EIN SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A FTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EMA INIDA LTD (2008) 296 ITR 510 (ALL) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION IN OUR CONSIDER ED OPINION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED AB OVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW ED SYSTEM OF VALUATION OF STOCK BY THE ASSESSEE. AS T HE SAID SYSTEM WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ALSO IN PAST IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD R EASON FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE SAID ACCEPTED METHOD. THE CL OSING STOCK OF ONE YEAR IS THE OPENING STOCK OF THE NEXT YEAR AND HENCE A CONSISTENT METHOD ADOPTED FOR VALUATI ON BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT GOOD REASONS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION(S) OF RS.5 38 9 76/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.90 379/- IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4.2 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE O N BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ FASHION S PVT LTD (SUPRA) WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF CLOS ING WORK-IN- PROGRESS OF RS.7 62 728/-; ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. 4.3. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-0 5 WHEREIN THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE BY DELETING THE ADDITION FOR CLOSING WORK-IN- PROGRESS AMOUNTING TO RS.8 37 568/-. FACTS BEING S IMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTIONED IN THE CA SE OF BAJAJ IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 6 - FASHIONS PVT LTD (SUPRA) THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F ASSESSEE. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTER CONCERN. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.13 65 558/- B EING EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST PAID TO SISTER CONCERN DISALLOW ED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1 90 00 000 /- FROM VARELLI FABRICS PVT LTD ON WHICH INTEREST @ 18% AM OUNTING TO RS.36 41 487/- HAS BEEN PAID AS AGAINST PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF 11.25%. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION IN THI S REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE RATE OF INT EREST PAID AT 18% WAS IN EXCESS OF MARKET RATE THEREFORE HE DISA LLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 6.75% AFTER C ONSIDERING MARKET RATE OF INTEREST @ 11.25% AND THE DISALLOWAN CE HAS BEEN WORKED AT RS.13 65 558/-. 5.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY WHEREIN THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSING OR DER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS AN UNDISPU TED FACT THAT ADDITION MADE U/S 40A(2)(B) IN PRESENT OR DER WAS ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 7 TH FEBRUARY 2006 AND SUCH ADDITION WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 16 TH OCTOBER 2006. HOWEVER HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2007 REFERRED SUPRA HAS DELETED ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER. NO NEW FACTS OR INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS I N IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 7 - RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION WAS FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF APPELLANT. THERE FORE IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SAME ADDITION OF RS.13 65 558/- WHICH WAS ALREADY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DOES NOT MERGE WITH THE ORD ER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT AND SEPARATE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT. THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.13 65 558/- IS NOTHING BU T DUPLICATION OF ADDITION. THUS ADDITION MADE BY ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 5.2 THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN OPPO SED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE INTER ALIA STATING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTER CONCERN OF RS.13 65 558/- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUSTIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PARTIES ARE INTER RELATED AND THAT LOAN COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT T HE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER O F CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . ON THE OTHER HAND LD AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AN D SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.11 26 OF 2007 WITH TAX APPEAL NO.814 OF 2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHO HAS GRANTE D RELIEF TO ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- 10. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED ADVOCATES APPEARING FO R BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WALCHAND AND CO. PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 8 - LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WHERE IN IT IS HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL WAS SATISFIED THAT THE EX PENDITURE WAS LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS N O REASON WHY THE FULL AMOUNT EXPENDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. IT IS OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO COME TO A CO NCLUSION EITHER THAT THE ALLEGED PAYMENT IS NOT REAL OR THAT IT IS NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CHARACTER OF A TRAD ER OR THAT IT IS NOT LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO DISALLOW IT. BU T IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DETERMINE THE REMUN ERATION WHICH IN THEIR VIEW SHOULD BE PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE O F THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISM ISSED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6.1 O F ITS ORDER HAS GIVEN COGENT AND CONVINCING REASONS IN AR RIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. 12. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF WALCHAND AND CO. PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID TO M/S VARELI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMI TED. 5.3 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE O N BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) WE ARE NOT IN CLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTE R CONCERN AMOUNTING TO RS.13 65 558/-; ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 9 - 5.4. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 2006- 07 2007-08 & 2008-09 WHEREIN THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTE D THE RELIEF ON SIMILAR ISSUE BY DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.16 25 550/- RS.16 20 956/- RS.16 20 956/- AND 16 25 709/- RESPECTIVELY ON ADDITION FOR EXCESS PA YMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTER CONCERN. FACTS BEING SIMILAR S O FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTIONED ABOVE THIS ISSUE IN AL L THESE APPEALS IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. CROSS-OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE 7. THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF CROSS-O BJECTIONS IN CO NO.199/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2003-04:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE CASE. 8 SINCE THE ISSUE ON MERIT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE THE ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF CROSS-OBJECTIO NS GOES ACADEMIC; HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO RA ISE THE SAME IT(SS)A NOS.509 510 512 513 514/AHD/2011 & CO 199 200 202 203 204 AHD 2011 CREATIVE PROCESSING LTD AY 2003-04 04-05 06-07 07-08 & 08-09 - 10 - IF NECESSITY ARISES IN FUTURE. SO THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS ARE DISMISSED BEING ACADEMIC. 8.1 SIMILAR CROSS-OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AS SESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09. FACTS B EING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTION ED ABOVE ALL THESE CROSS-OBJECTIONS ARE DISPOSED OF AS INDIC ATED ABOVE. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH OF APRIL 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/04/2015 *BT %& ' ( )%( %& ' ( )%( %& ' ( )%( %& ' ( )%( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ' *+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. -- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. (12 ' / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 2 3 / GUARD FILE. %& %& %& %& / BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// 4 44 4/ // / -5 -5 -5 -5 (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD