M/s. Messung Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune v. CIT (A)-V, Pune

ITA 1210/PUN/2013 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 121024514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAEFM6577C
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1210/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Messung Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune
Respondent CIT (A)-V, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 07-06-2016
Next Hearing Date 07-06-2016
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI AM . / ITA NO S . 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/20 1 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1992 - 93 TO 1994 - 95 1996 - 97 & 1997 - 98 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 501 LUNKAD SKYMAX DATTA MANDIR SQUARE VIMAN NAGAR PUNE 411014 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAEFM6577C VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S /S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK AND P.D. KUDWA / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE / DAT E OF HEARING : 19 .0 9 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 . 0 9 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM: THIS BUNCH OF APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT (A) - V PUNE ALL DATED 15 . 0 3 .201 3 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR S 1992 - 93 TO 1994 - 95 1996 - 97 & 1997 - 98 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 1994 - 95 1996 - 97 & 1997 - 98 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 2 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 93 TO 1 994 - 95 1996 - 97 AND 1997 - 98 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE S WERE HEARD YEARS 1992 - 93 TO 1 994 - 95 1996 - 97 AND 1997 - 98 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE WE REFER TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1 206 /PN/201 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 1992 - 93 . 3 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1 206 /PN/201 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 WAS VALID WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE REASSESSMENT BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID. 2] THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - A . THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED AND THE REOPENING IS BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DULY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID SINCE THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH THE MATERIAL FACTS. FACTS. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U / S 80 I OF RS.5 91 902 / - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN A.Y. 1991 - 9 2. 4] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT - A . THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAD SET UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN A.Y. 1991 - 92. B . THERE WAS NO SEPARATE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE OLD UNIT AND THE NEW UNIT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. C . THE MANPOWER ELECTRICITY CONNECTION PREMISES AND THE MACHINERY WAS C . THE MANPOWER ELECTRICITY CONNECTION PREMISES AND THE MACHINERY WAS COMMON FOR BOTH THE UNITS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION U / S 80 I . 5] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SET UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN A.Y. 1991 - 92 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U / S 80 I IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS FROM THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 6] THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT: - A . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SET UP NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1991 - 92 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASST. ORDER FOR A.Y. 1991 - 92 AND ACCORDINGLY THERE WAS NO REASON TO DENY THE DEDUCTION IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. REASON TO DENY THE DEDUCTION IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. B . THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE NEW UNIT AND COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AND SALE OF ITS ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 3 NEW PRODUCT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 1991 - 92 AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN A LLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80I IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF THE NEW UNIT. C . THE PLANT AND MACHINERY MANPOWER AND THE PREMISES WERE SEPARATELY IDENTIFIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE OLD AND THE NEW UNIT AND HENCE THERE WAS NO REASON TO DENY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/ S 80 I . D . SIMPLY BECAUSE THE EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS DID NOT MEAN THAT THE TWO UNITS WERE ONE UNIT AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION DISALLOWED ON THIS GROUND IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF OFFICE AUTOMATION EQUIP MENTS. T HE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.11.1992 UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED T HE DEDUCTION AT RS. 5 91 902/ - UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AND HAD DECLARED NET INCOME OF RS. 28 55 220/ - . THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 28 65 220/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 ONWARDS. FROM THE FACTS AND THE STATEMENTS AS WELL AS THE DEPRECIATION CHART THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION ON THE INTRODUCTION AND MANUFACTU RE OF NEW ELECTRONIC PRODUCT CALLED EXMP - 8 PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROL. ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACT OF CASE NATURE OF BUSINESS HISTORY OF THE CONTROL. ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACT OF CASE NATURE OF BUSINESS HISTORY OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF MANAGING PARTNER SHRI F.N. MERCHANT AND OTHER FACTORS NOTED ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 4 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE POINT ED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DERIVED INCOME FROM NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 198 2 IS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER PARA 4.3 AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC PRODUCT S WHICH HAVE CHANGED FROM PACE OF TIME TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT OF MARKET AND ECONOMY. HOWEVER THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT NO NEW UNDERTAKING HAD STARTED THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF SUB - S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNIT SET UP IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 HENCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED. THE APPEAL WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENT THERETO T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE REOPENED AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN OF I NCOME ORIGINALLY FILED MAY BE TAKEN ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION ORIGINALLY ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN SINCE THE FACTS MENTIONED CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FO R THE SAID DEDUCTION BECAUSE NO NEW UNDERTAKING WHICH SATISF IED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IA(2) OF THE ACT WAS SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 . THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND THE DEDUCTION AL LOWED AT RS. 5 91 902/ - WAS WITHDRAWN. 6. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 5 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 HAD HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT AND ONLY FOR DE CIDING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 OR 1992 - 93 THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AN EXISTING UNIT ON WHICH NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED. HOWEVER A NEW UNIT WAS SET UP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESS EE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STRESSED THAT DESPITE THE ISSUE BEING DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 03.12.2007 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT TO THE DIREC TIONS OF TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME HAS BECOME TIME BARRED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 10.08.2012 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 WHEREIN IN PARA 3 IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGE D THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS RELIED UPON EARLIER REMAND REPORT DATED 19.08.2004 WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS 1991 - 92 COPIES OF BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 276 AND 236 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO THE LETTER OF ADDL. CIT FORWARDING THE REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS DATED 24.08.2012 WHICH IS PLA CED AT PAGE 275 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ADDL. CIT HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE FINDING BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 6 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 26.04.2002 WHICH WAS DECIDED ON 15.03.2013 AND HE HAD CALLED TWO DIFFERENT REMAND REPORTS DURING THE COURSE OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 164 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ITS BACK AND FURTHER AT PAGE 165 OF THE PAPER BOOK UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.1991. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 93 AND 199 4 - 9 5 AND POINTED OUT THAT ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE PLACED AT PAGE 66 ONWARDS IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 27.03.1998 . THEREAFTER EARLIER YEARS WERE OPENED IN 1998 SINCE UNDER THE PRE - AMENDED PROVISIONS THE ASSESSMENT FOR EIGHT YEARS COULD BE OPENED AS AGAINST PERIOD OF SIX YEARS PROVIDED UNDER NEW EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WANTED TO DISTURB THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF 80IA UNIT THEN HE SHOULD HAVE REOPENED PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WHICH WAS NOT DONE SO. HE STRESSED THAT WHERE THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR THEN THE SAME COULD NOT BE DISTURBED WHERE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT. LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (BOM) WHICH WAS IN RELATION TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SEC TION 10A OF THE ACT AND THEN TO THE DECISION S OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. SHRI VASUDEO RAMDAS MAHAJAN IN ITA ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 7 NO.1644/PN/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 AND IN EXP E RT NET CAD SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1098/PN/2011 AND ACIT VS. EXPORT NET CAD SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1149/PN/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ORDER DATED 29.04.2016 THERE ALSO DEDUCTION W AS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. HE SUMMARIZED THE ARGUMENTS TO STATE THAT SINC E THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WAS NOT DISTURBED THEN THE SAID DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS. FURTHER HE POINTED OUT THAT TILL D ATE NO APPEAL EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE FINDING OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 WHICH HAD TO BE GIVEN WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED IMPLIES THAT THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 153(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE SAME IS TO BE ALLOWED IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FURNISHED REPORT DATED 09.08.2016 WHEREIN HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE APPEAL EFFECT TO BE ALLOWED IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE IMPLIES THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AGAINST PROFITS OF BUSINESS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD ESTABLISHED NEW UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 ON WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.1994 UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AT RS. 2 17 064/ - WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ; COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 8 PLACED AT PAGES 164 AND 165 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 WAS ALSO ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.1995 AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AT RS. 5 91 902/ - WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ; COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGES 166 TO 168 OF THE PAPER BOOK . THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 95 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AT RS. 18 05 504/ - WAS ALLOWED T O THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.1996 ; COPY OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGES 171 TO 173 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND HAD SET UP A UNIT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ON WHICH NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED OR ALLOWED TO THE ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER A NEW UNIT WAS SET UP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM THE SAID YEAR AGAINST PROFITS OF NEW UNIT WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID FACT OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO 80I UNIT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REASSES S MENT . DURIN G THE PENDENCY OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1992 - 93 WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 26.04.2002 BUT HAD BEEN DECIDED ON 15.03.2013 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND WE ARE ADJUDICATING VIDE THIS ORDER. IN THE FIRST REMAND REPORT DATED 19.08.2004 PLACED AT PAGES 234 TO 236 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTS THAT AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS OF EXMP - 8 PLCS IN THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.1991 AND CLAIM ED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF TH E ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 1 - 9 2 THEREFORE THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND NOT 1992 - 93. ANOTHER REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ATED 10.08.2012 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 276 AND 277 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE EARLIER REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 19.08.2004 IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND NOT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 . IT WAS FURTHER REITERATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND REMAND REPORT THAT FROM THE RECORDS ALSO IT WAS SEEN THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF TH E ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.1994 PASSED BY THE THEN J CIT SPECIAL RANGE - 4 PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WAS ENCLOSED TO THE REMAND REPORT. THE ADDL. CIT WHILE FORWARDIN G THE REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 24.08.2012 STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT AFTER VERIFICATION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 03.12.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 HAS NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND EFFECT TO THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER HA S NOT BEEN GIVEN . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF TH E ACT IN RESPECT OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS FIRST CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT UPON VERIFICATION OF RECORD IT WAS SEEN THAT THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WH ICH WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.1994 . HE FURTHER STATES THAT HOWEVER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION D URING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF SUCH REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE LOWER OFFICER THE CIT(A) HELD THE ASSESSEE NOT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 10 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2013 WHICH IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HEN CE THE PRESENT APPEAL. 11. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL DATES AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE WAS DIRECTED TO ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 9 6 . SUCH DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE BENCH ON 14.10.2015 AND THEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FROM DATE TO DATE TILL THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 19.09.2016 . IN REPLY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FURNISHED A LETTER DAT ED 09.08.2016 UNDER WHICH IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE ORDER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS BEING PASSED ON 08.08.2016 . HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO ADJUDICATION OF ISSUE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS REPORTED THAT NO EV IDENCE WAS FILED ON RECORD THAT THIS IS RE GA RDING ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADJUDICATING THE SAID ISSUE RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL NOR ANY ORDER / EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF THE SAID ISSUE. HE FURTHER ADMITTE D THAT SINCE THE ISSUE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME AND ANY SUCH ORDER PASSED AT THIS POINT OF TIME SHALL MAK E THE ORDER AS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO THERE IS NO STAND IN PA SSING THE ORDER FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AT THIS JUNCTURE. 1 2 . THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO BY US ARE IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 5 - 9 6 . HOWEVER ONE LINK IN THIS REGARD HAS TO BE SEEN THAT ORIGINAL LY THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AND IN SOME OF THE YEARS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 FOR THE FIRST TIME T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED OBJECTIONS AND DENIED THE SAID CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 11 WHICH DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ITA NO.1290/PN/2000 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.12. 2007 . FROM T HE PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 238 TO 243 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT AND IT WAS ONLY TO BE DETERM INED WHETHER SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SEVERAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE FIRST YEAR WHETHER THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 FOR THE FIRST TIME OR IN THE EARLIER YEARS. WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 93 TO 1994 - 95 1996 - 97 AND 1997 - 98 WERE REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WHICH WERE ALSO COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE WERE NOT REOPENED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ; THOUGH THE TIME LIMIT FOR REOPENING THE SAME HAD NOT EXPIRED . SINCE AT THAT RELEVA NT TIME UNDER THE PRE - AMENDED PROVISIONS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR EIGHT YEARS COULD BE REOPENED AS AGAINST THE PRESENT LAW WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS ONLY FOR SIX YEARS CAN BE REOPENED. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTE D TO DISTURB THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT THEN EVEN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 COULD BE REOPENED. THE SIMIL E TO THE SAID PROPOSITION IS THAT WHERE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST YEAR OF ESTABLISHING A N EW UNIT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE CAN THE SAME BE DISTURBED WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL ASPECTS. IT MAY BE NOTED HEREIN THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 93 AND 1994 - 95 WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 80I OF THE ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 12 ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE . I N A APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 T HE SAID CLAIM WAS DECIDED TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE FIRST YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM I.E. WHETHER ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991 - 92 AND 1992 - 93 FALLS PART OF ADJUDICATION. THE MATTER WAS REST ORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ADMITTEDLY HAD TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I.E. ON 03.12.2007. HOWEVER TILL DATE NO APPEAL EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT WHICH ADMITTEDLY HE DID BY GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL ON OTHER ISSUE . HOWEVER HE AD MITS THAT THE ISSUE SET ASIDE I.E. THE YEAR OF FIRST OPERATIONS CANNOT BE ADJUDICATED SINCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAME HAS EXPIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80I OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 . 13. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 THERE WAS AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 OR 1992 - 93 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF NEW UNIT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING OLD UNIT ON WHICH NO DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF NEW UNIT SET UP THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 CONSEQUENT THERETO. WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE REMAN D REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT HAS ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 13 BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT FROM ASSESSME NT YEAR 1991 - 92 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED. 14. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE FIRST YEAR OF DEDUCTION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND WHERE THE A FORESAID DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT THE QUESTION ARISES IS WHETHER THE SAME COULD BE DISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS. THE ANSWER TO THE SAME IS NO. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NO POWER TO DISTURB THE CONTINUITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT FOR THE STIPULATED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT WHERE ONCE SUCH A CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR SINCE THAT IS THE Y E AR WH EN ALL THE CONDITIONS AVAILABLE UNDER THE SECTION HAVE TO BE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE FULFILS THE SAME IT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNLESS THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES . THEREAFTER FROM YEAR TO YEAR TI LL THE STIPULATED PERIOD EXPIRES THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION DISTURB ED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE TIME PE RIOD FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL EFFECT HAS EXPIRED. IN ANY CASE THE DISPUTE SETTLED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND NOT ASSESS MENT YEAR 1992 - 93 . THE SAID POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RESPECTIVE REMAND REPORTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 15. SUCH A PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PAUL BROTHERS (1995 ) 216 ITR 548 (BOM) AND IN M/S. DIRECT INFORMATION PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN WRIT PETITION NO.1479/2011 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2011 . ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 14 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONCE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WAS EXTENDED IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR PARTICULAR NUMBER O F YEAR THEN UNLESS THE BENEFIT IS WITHDRAWN IN THE FIRST YEAR IT CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS REFERRING TO THE BENEFIT AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT . 16. T HE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. SHRI VASUDEO RAMDAS MAHAJAN (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SEVENTH YEAR AFTER ALLOWING THE SA ME FOR SIX YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL IN TURN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT. LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (BOM) HAD HELD THAT UNLESS THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE FIRST ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS WITHDRAWN THE SAME COULD NOT BE DENIED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAD REFERRED TO THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF SAID COURT IN CIT VS. PAUL BROTHERS (SUPRA) AND REFERRED TO THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF SAID COURT IN CIT VS. PAUL BROTHERS (SUPRA) AND ALSO TO M/S. DIRECT INFORMATION PVT. LTD . VS. ITO (SUPRA) . T HE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE SAID RATIO HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THE SEVENT H YEAR VIS - - VIS DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT . SIMILAR PROPOSITION WAS LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN EXPERT NET CAD SOL UTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) . 17. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE FOR PARTICULAR NUMBER OF YEARS UNLESS THE SAME IS WITHDRAWN IN THE FIRST YEAR IT CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS PARTICULARLY W HEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS. APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PAUL BROTHERS (SUPRA) M/S. DIRECT INFORMATION PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN CIT VS. WESTERN OUTDOOR INTERACTIVE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA ) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT ITA NO S. 1 206 TO 1210 /PN/201 3 M/S. MESSUNG SYSTEMS 15 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 WHEREIN THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 1 - 92 AND SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES TI LL DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAID CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 1 8 . SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993 - 94 1994 - 95 1996 - 97 AND 1997 - 98 . WE HOLD SO. CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; D ATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - V PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - V PUNE ; 5. / DR A ITAT PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE