M/s. Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda v. The ACIT.,Circle-1(1),, Baroda

ITA 299/AHD/2011 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29920514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACG7996C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 299/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s)
Appellant M/s. Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda
Respondent The ACIT.,Circle-1(1),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 02-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 02-11-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 04-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD A BENCH .. !'# !'# !'# !'# $ .%.&'( %) * % # % # % # % # BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA VICE-PRESIDENT AND A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.299 AND 301/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 1999-2000 AND 2003-2004] GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LT. P.O. FERTILIZERNAGAR VADODARA 391 750. PA NO.AAACG 7996 C /VS. ACIT CIR.1(1) BARODA. ITA NO.659/AHD/2011 WITH CO NO.78/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2003-2004] ACIT CIR.1(1) BARODA. /VS. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LT. P.O. FERTILIZERNAGAR VADODARA 391 750. ( (( ( - - - - / APPELLANT) ( (( (./ - ./ - ./ - ./ - / RESPONDENT) 01 2 3 %/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI YOGESH G. SHAH * 2 3 %/ REVENUE BY : SHRI KARTAR SINGH 5 2 16)/ DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND NOVEMBER 2011 7&8 2 16)/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4 TH NOVEMBER 2011 %9 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR 1 999-2000 AND 2003-2004 AND THE CO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.20 03-2004 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BARODA. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.299/AHD/2001 (A.Y.19999-2000) ASSESSEES A PPEAL ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -2- 2. GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN H OLDING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT INSPIT E OF THE FACT THAT THE REASSESSMENT HAD BEEN REOPENED BEYOND A PERIOD OF F OUR YEARS AND THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSE SSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE REASSESSMENT CITING EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147 AS PER WHICH PRODUCTION OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE BEFOR E THE AO WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN NOT EXAMINE FACTUALLY WHETHER IN CSE OF TH E APPELLANT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/OTHER EVIDENCE AMOU NTED TO FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS OR NOT. IT IS SU BMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THERE WAS O FAILURE O N THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATER IAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD.CIT(A)HA S ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNTED TO A CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE AO AS THERE WAS NO FRESH MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN REOPENED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT FOR M THE BASIS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT B E SO HELD NO. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW IN THIS CASE AS REOPENING WAS INITIATED BY ISSUING OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 1 0-11-2004 WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC LOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RET URN. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONE D ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL T HE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -3- OWN CASE FOR A.Y.1990-91 IN ITA NO.4237/AHD/2003 DA TED 20-8-2010 WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT APPARENTLY THERE WAS AN ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 148 WAS JUSTIFIED. HE REFERRED TO RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEB ITED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OF RS.652.99 LAKHS IN THE P&L ACCOUNT O UT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADDED BACK A SUM OF RS.375.50 LAKHS AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.277.49 LAKHS PERTAINING TO THE PRIOR PERIOD WAS NOT ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY A SUBSIDY OF RS.30 LAKHS WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING THE COMPUTATION OF STATUTORY INCOME AND THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS W HILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE EXPLANATION- 2(C) OF SECTION 147 IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ITS CASE FALL IN PROV ISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL NECESSARY MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR ITS ASSESSMENT TRULY AND FULLY BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIM E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PART OF DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME. WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT IN THIS CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO RECORD THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHER WISE THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -4- FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.1990-91 DAT ED 20-8-2010 (SUPRA) WHERE IN IDENTICAL FACTS THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE O PINION OF THE REVENUE HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WA S UNDER OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY NEC ESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE IT S OBLIGATION IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS FOR THE AO TO DRAW THE CORRECT CONCLUSION FROM THE MATERIAL FACTS DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE D EPARTMENT CAN NOT REOPEN A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FRO M THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. ACCOR DINGLY WHEREVER NOTICE TO REOPEN WAS ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL TH E MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT REOPENING NOTI CE WOULD NOT BE VALID. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMEN T. IN THESE FACTS WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 O F THE ACT WAS NOT VALID IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED I N THIS CASE IS QUASHED AND THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION HOLDING THAT REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW IN THIS CASE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS N O NECESSITY TO ADJUDICATE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. ITA NO.301/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2003-2004) ASSESSEES AP PEAL: 6. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS A S UNDER: ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -5- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFI RMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.718.38 LAKHS UNDER THE NOMENCLAT URE TAKE OR PAY LEASE RENTAL CHARGES TO GCPTCL. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENTS/EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND HAD NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED. 1.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IF AT ALL ANY P ORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE IS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE THE SAME M AY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YE AR WHERE THE REMISSION IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN O FFERED FOR TAX. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED NECESS ARY RELIEF IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. IN VIEW OF THIS SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AS UNDER : 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOL DING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES OF RS.35 25 274/- MADE TO TH E SUBSIDIARY WHICH WERE WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS HAD CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS HAS CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.28 OF T HE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2000-2001 IN ITA NO. 3490 AND 3743/AHD/2003 DATED 17-9-2010 WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AN D THEREFORE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. 10. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN NEW PROJECT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMMENCED AND THEREFORE EXPENDIT URE WAS IN THE NATURE OF ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -6- CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDI TURE WERE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. MERELY BECAUSE EXPENDITURE WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS RESOLUTION WILL NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER TOO K OFF AND THEREFORE THE EXPENSES WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER TO OK OFF. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE NEW PROJECT WHICH COULD NOT BE COM MENCED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THIS EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE I N ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2000-2001 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE A O HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION STATED THAT THE GSFC INF OPARK LTD. WAS NOT ABLE TO MEET THE BENEFITS AS ENVISAGED OBJECTIVE FOR WHICH IT WAS SET UP AND APPROVED TO WRITE OFF THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE PAYABLE TO T HE COMPANY BY GSFC INFOPARK LTD. THIS EXPENDITURE HAVE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.659/AHD/2011 A.Y.2003-2004 (REVENUES APPE AL) 12. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.8 5.41 LACS ON THE RELEASE OF WATER AND DISCHARGE OF EFFLUENT AND POLL UTION CONTROL AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THIS EXPENDITURE DID NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF ANY SPECIFIC ASSET WITHO UT APPRECIATING THAT THE EXPENDITURE GAVE AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE AN D FELL IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AND FOR BEING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IT IS NO T ALWAYS NECESSARY THAT IT RESULTS IN CREATION OF A NEW DEPRECIABLE ASSET F OR THE ASSESSEE AS SETTLED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOOGLY MILLS CO. LTD . 287 ITR 333 (SC). ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -7- 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2001-2002 AND 2002-2003 IN ITA NO.2877/AHD/ 2007 AND 2907 AND 3310/AHD/2007 ORDER DATED 21-4-2011. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE ON RELEASE OF THE WATER AND DISCHARGE O F EFFLUENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL HAS BEEN DECIDED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-2003 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5 6.04 LAC ON ACQUIRING FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENTS AND ON SAFETY MEASURES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NECES SARY FOR COMPLYING WITH THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND DID NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF ANY ASSET WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THESE ARE NOT THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING THE CAPITAL VIS--VI S REVENUE NATURE OF AN EXPENDITURE AND THE EXPENSES BEING IN CAPITAL FIEL D AND GIVING AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE CONSTITUTE CAPITAL EX PENDITURE AS SETTLED IN THE CASE OF BALLIMAL NAVAL KISHORE VS. CIT 224 ITR 414 (SC). 16. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2001-2002 AND 2002-2003 IN ITA NO.2877/AHD/ 2007 AND ITA NO.2907 AND 3310/AHD/2007 ORDER DATED 21-4-2011. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ISSU E OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ON SAFETY MEASURE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL FOR A.Y.2001-02 AND ITA NO.299 301 AND 659/AHD/2011 -8- 2002-2003 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. CO NO.78/AHD/2011 A.Y.2003-2004 (ASSESSEES CO) 18. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CO ARE MERELY PROTECTIVE IN NATURE. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2003-2004 THIS GROUND OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES IN FRUCTOUS AND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 20. IN THE RESULT ITA NO.299/AHD/2011 IS ALLOWED W HILE ITA NO.301/AHD/2011 659/AHD/2011 AND THE CO.NO.78/AHD/ 2011 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( .%.&'( /A.K. GARODIA) %) * /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( .. /G.C. GUPTA ) !'# !'# !'# !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR ITAT AHMEDABAD