ACIT, New Delhi v. Indian Farmer Fertilizers, New Delhi

ITA 1605/DEL/2011 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 160520114 RSA 2011
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1605/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent Indian Farmer Fertilizers, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 18-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 18-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 01-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NOS.1154 & 1605/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX M/S. INDIAN FAR MER FERTILIZER CIRCLE 23(1) NEW DELHI. VS. CO-OPERATIVE LTD. IFFCO SADAN C-1 DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAA10050M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH JGM (TAXATION). O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 1.12.2010 AND 31.01.2011 PASS ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE MATTER OF ORDERS DAT ED 31.03.2010 AND 12.10.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE C. 154 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 03-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE IDE NTICAL AND HENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A COMMON ORDE R IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. IN THESE TWO APPEALS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED A G ROUND TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES AND EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER RELA TED ITEMS. 4. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 5. IN THIS YEAR THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 6.03.2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.771 28 23 100/- WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.756 11 13 245/- IN PURSUANC E TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE AO PERU SED THE RECORDS AND FOUND THAT AS PER THE 3CD REPORT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIME D PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.721.15 LAKH IN THE PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT. THE AO THEN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCAN TILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTI LE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS THE ANNUAL PROFITS ARE WORKED OUT ON DUE OR ACCRUAL BASIS. THE AO THEREFORE STATED THAT ONLY SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS DED UCTION FROM A PREVIOUS YEAR INCOME AS ARE RELEVANT TO THAT YEAR AND THERE FORE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES 3 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. THE AO THEREFORE TAK EN A VIEW THAT THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.721.15 LAKH WERE WR ONGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES I.E. PRINTERS SC ANNERS UPS CAMERA PROJECTOR SWITCHES ETC. AS AGAINST THE CORRECT RAT E OF 25%. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19 76 672/-. 7. THESE TWO DISALLOWANCES OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER RELATED ITEMS WERE MADE BY THE AO BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2010. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 6.03.2006 MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT OR THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 DATED 2.02.2007 AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS TO CONTEND THAT THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PE RIOD EXPENSES AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ITEMS CANN OT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT:- (I) T.S. BALARAM VS. ITO 82 ITR 50(SC). 4 (II) HOTZ HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 647 (D EL). (III) CIT VS. TTK PRESTIGE LTD. 322 ITR 390 (KAR.) (IV) CIT VS. JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. (ITA NO.1500/2010) 10. ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WAS PASSED ON 31.03.2010 WHICH IS AFTER A GAP OF M ORE THAN 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE A O ON 10.02.2008 AND THEREFORE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 154(8) THE RE CTIFICATION ORDER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSEE HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXPENDITU RE HAD BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITU RE BUT THE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF THESE EXPENSES HAD CRYSTALLIZED DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002- 03 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONLY AND ON SIMILAR BASIS INCOME OF RS.1.05 LAKH WHICH PERTAINED TO THE EARLI ER PERIOD BUT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WAS ALSO TREATED AS INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH `B IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORP. LTD. IN ITA NO.2851 AND 368 0/DEL/2007 THE DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON PRINTERS SCANNERS AND OTHER PERIPHERALS WAS JUSTIFIED. 5 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION CA RRIED OUT BY THE AO AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY HOLDING THAT THE MATTER CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE RECTIFI CATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS A MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RUNS AS UNDER:- 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF RECTIFICATION CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPE LLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED CANNO T BE TERMED AS MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS HIGHLIGHTED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE EXP ENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES HAD AC TUALLY CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AC CORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE SOCIETY THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. FURTHER THE CORRECT RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE ON COMP UTER PARTS/ACCESSORIES HAS ALSO BEEN DEBATED AT DIFFEREN T LEVELS AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE V IEW POINT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE DELHI I TAT B- BENCH WHEREIN THE COMPUTER PERIPHERALS HAVE BEEN C ONSIDERED PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTERS AND THUS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60%. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO KEEP I N MIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO RECTIFY THE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 154 BY TREATING THE ISSUES INVOLVED AS MIST AKES APPARENT FROM RECORD AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE ME ON THE ISSUE O F INAPPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE RECTIFICATION DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT ON THE MERITS OF LIABILITY OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES/DEPREC IATION ON COMPUTER @ 60%. THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHE R THE ISSUE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE AND NOT CAPABLE OF TWO VIEWS. I AM ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES DO N OT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 154. 6 (I) WHETHER EXPENSES THAT CRYSTALLIZED DURING A PARTICU LAR YEAR HAD TO BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME YEAR IF TERMED A S PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OR NOT; (II) WHETHER DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS HAS TO BE GIVEN @ 60% OR 25% WHICH OF COURSE DEPENDS UPON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER/COMPUTE R PERIPHERALS. (8) SINCE THE ABOVE TWO ISSUES HAVE BEEN ARGUED AT THE LEVEL OF ITAT AS WELL AS HIGH COURT AND HAVE BEEN DULY CO NSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS I CANNOT CATEGORIZED THE SAME AS MISTA KES APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE THE ISSUES RECTIF IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 CANNOT BE THE S UBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE DEBATABLE NA TURE OF THE SAME. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DELETED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER AN ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD BUT LOOKING TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL WE FIND IT PROPER TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL AS WELL ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION OF LAW WAS INVOLVED HEREIN. 13. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON THE COMPUTER ITEMS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO BY WAY OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT I N DISPUTE THAT ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE A CT WHICH WAS REVISED IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. SECTION 154 PROVIDES THAT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD 7 AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 116 MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. SO AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 154 OF THE ACT IT IS ONLY IN CA SE IF A MISTAKE HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO HAS GOT THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN ORDER TO IN VOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 154 OF THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES THE SUBJECT MAT TER MUST BE BEYOND DOUBT OR DEBATE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY THE MISTA KE COMMITTED COULD BE AMENDED. IN OTHER WORDS A DEBATABLE MATTER DOES N OT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.721.15 LAKHS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PER IOD EXPENDITURE. WHETHER PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IT IS TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE ACTUA LLY CRYSTALLIZED. MERELY BECAUSE THE EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PRIOR PERIOD T HAT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE A BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITE D IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE PRIMA FACIE NOT ALLOWABLE UNLESS AND UN TIL AN ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE TO VERIFY AND ASCERTAIN AS TO WHEN THESE EXPEN SES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CRYSTALLIZED AND WHEN THE LEGAL LIABILITY TO PAY TH ESE AMOUNTS HAS ACTUALLY 8 BEEN CRYSTALLIZED AND ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE IN O RDER TO DISALLOW PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE NATURE OF THESE EXPENSES AND THEN TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO PAY THESE EXPENSES HAS ACTU ALLY BEEN CRYSTALLIZED SO AS TO ALLOW THE SAME AS DEDUCTION IN CASE WHERE THE AS SESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IN OTHER WORDS THE ISSUE RE GARDING ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CAN ONLY BE DECI DED BY MAKING FULL INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE OF EXPE NSES AND THEN IT CAN BE DECIDED ONLY AFTER A DUE PROCESS OF REASONING GIVEN BY ANY AUTHORITY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ALLOWABILITY OF PRIOR PERIO D EXPENSES OR OTHERWISE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF A MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM THE RECORD WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 15. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OR NOT IS A MATTER TO BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS AFTER EXAMINING AND VERIFYING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND AFTER ASCERTAINING WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY CRYSTALLIZED OR WHEN THE LIABILITY TO PAY THESE EXP ENSES WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND IT THUS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD SO AS TO RECTIFY THE SAME UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. 9 16. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPEN SE RELATES TO A TRANSACTION OF AN EARLIER YEAR IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABILITY PAYABLE IN THE EARLIER YEAR UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LIABIL ITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THAT YEAR ON THE BASIS OF MAINTAINI NG ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE METHOD. IN EACH CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNT S ARE MAINTAINED ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN RESPECT OF ANY CLAIM WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND QUANTIFIED DURING TH E RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR SO AS TO BE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. IF ANY LIABILITY THOUGH RELATING TO THE EARLIER YE AR DEPENDS UPON MAKING A PAYMENT AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH LIABILITY HAS BEEN ACTUALLY CLAIMED AND PAID IN THE LATER YEARS IT CA NNOT BE DISALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION MERELY ON THE BASIS THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAIN TAINED ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND IS RELATED TO A TRANSACTION OF THE EARLIE R YEAR. 17. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THEREFORE HOLD THA T ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS A DEBATABLE MATTER AND THEREFORE IT DOES NOT COME W ITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 154 OF ACT. 18. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION @ 60% ON COMPUTER ITEMS WE FIND THAT IT IS ALSO A DEBATABLE MATTER INASMUCH AS TO WHETHER THE UPS PRINTERS AND OTHER PERIPHERALS OF COMPUTER ARE A PART OF A 10 COMPUTER OR NOT IS ALSO A MATTER OF DEBATE. HOWEV ER THE ITAT DELHI BENCH `B NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF CONTAINERS CORP. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT PRINTERS SCANNERS AND OTHER PERIPHERALS ARE PART A ND PARCEL OF COMPUTER AND ARE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60%. THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING DEPRECIAT ION @ 60% ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD. 2010-DIOL-636-HC-DEL-IT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS ARE ALLOWABLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 60% IS A SUBJECT MAT TER OF DEBATE AND DELIBERATION AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPA RENT ON RECORD SO AS TO RECTIFY THE MATTER UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. 19. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND REASONS GIV EN ABOVE WE FIND NO REASON AT ALL TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUES RECTIFIED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN TH E PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE ACT. THUS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 20. NOW WE COME TO THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 11 21. IN THIS YEAR ALSO AFTER PASSING THE REGULAR ASS ESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2010 U/S 154 OF THE ACT HAS DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 27 85 121/- DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND ALSO DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL S CLAIMED @ 60% BY THE ASSESSEE. 22. THESE TWO ITEMS RECTIFIED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ITEMS RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS IT WAS FOUND BY HIM THAT FACTS OF THE CASE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 A RE ON THE SAME LINES AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 23. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04 HEREINABOVE WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY WAY OF REC TIFICATION CARRIED OUT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 24. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 25. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 22 ND JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND JULY 2011. 12 ITA NOS.1154 & 1605/DEL/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.