DCIT, CHENNAI v. M/s. I.P. Rings Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 3538/CHNY/2018 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 353821714 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAACI0908C
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 3538/CHNY/2018
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent M/s. I.P. Rings Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 16-04-2019
First Hearing Date 16-04-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 28-12-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.3500/CHNY/2018 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. M/S. I.P. RINGS LIMITED NO.D11/D12 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MARAIMALAI NAGAR KANCHEEPURAM 603 209. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2) CHENNAI. ./I.T.A. NO. 3538/CHNY/2018 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2) CHENNAI. VS. M/S. I.P. RINGS LIMITED NO.D11/D12 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MARAIMALAI NAGAR KANCHEEPURAM 603 209. [PAN AAACI 0908C] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) # $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN ADV &' # $ % /RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITHA IRS JCIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 27-11-2019 + '! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-11-2019 ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 28.09.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S. I.P. RING LTD IS A COMPA NY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF INTERNA L COMBUSTION ENGINES AND PISTON RINGS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 27.11.2012 DISCLOSING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 6 77 66 213/- AND BOOK PROFIT OF C24 59 492/- U/S. 115JB OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF I NCOME THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2) CHENNAI VIDE ORDER DATED 30 .03.2015 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AT TOTAL LOSS OF C2 29 48 020 /-. WHILE DOING SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES. 01. DISALLOWANCE ON ROYALTY C71 43 082/- 02 DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE FEES C2 14 11 991/- ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 3 -: 03 BELATED REMITTANCE OF PF/ESI C5 01 200/- 04 ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION C12 98 174/- 05 EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.35(2AB) C11 31 458/- 06 DISALLOWANCE OF PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES C1 12 69 187/- 07 DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRECIATION C20 63 101/- 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER GRANTED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON BELATED R EMITTANCE OF PF/ESI FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/ S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.585 AND 586 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015 DATED 24.07.2015 . AS REGARDS TO THE ROYALTY EXPENDITURE THE LD. CIT(A ) HELD THAT 25% OF ROYALTY PAYMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPEN DITURE AND BALANCE OF 75% WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN SWITCH GEAR VS. CIT 232 ITR 359. AS REGARDS TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE FEES PAID TO INDIA PISTONS LTD THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES OF SERV ICES RENDERED ON TECHNICAL SERVICES. REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 4 -: BRAKES INDIA LTD VS. DCIT IN T.C.A NO.551/2013 DAT ED 14.03.2017 AND CIT VS. T.P. TEXTILES P. LTD IN T.C.A. NO.157 /2017 DATED 06.03.2017. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE A DDITIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF WEIGHED DEDUCTION U/S.35(2AB) AND PRE-O PERATIVE EXPENSES. AS REGARDS TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS NO BILLS WERE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER WHI CH IS AGAINST ASSESSEE-COMPANY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US IN ITA NO.3500/CHNY/2018 WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS IN A PPEAL IN ITA NO.3538/CHNY/2018 ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3500/CHNY/2018 FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING 25% OF THE ROYALTY EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITU RE AND THE REMAINING 75% AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 2.1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY WAS TOWARDS ONLY USE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FOREIGN COMPA NY AND HAS NOT RESULTED IN ACQUISITION OF ANY ASSETS OF ENDURING A ND EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS. ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 5 -: 2.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHT IN THE TECHNOLOGY AND LICENSE BUT ONLY RIGHT TO USE . THE PAYMENT FOR MERE RIGHT TO USE IS ONLY REVENUE IN NATURE. HENCE THE ENTIRE ROYALTY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ALLO WED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 2.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IAEC (PUMPS) LTD REPORTED IN 232 ITR 316 (SC) IS AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF APPELLANTS CASE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) OF RS 11 31 458/-. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENDITURE AS NO T AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 4.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENDITURE CAPI TALIZED WITH THE PLANT AND MACHINERY PERTAINS TO EXPENDITURE ON THE PVD FURNACE PURCHASED IN 2009-10 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURE OF RINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH EURO VI/BHARAT STAGE VI NORMS. 4.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT BY THE TIME THE MACHINERY WAS ORDE RED TO MAKE RINGS COMPLAINT TO THE EURO NORMS THE GOVERNMENT O F INDIA POSTPONED THE IMPLEMENTATION EXCEPT METRO CITIES DU E TO THIS THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION AND HENCE ALL THE COST PERTAININ G TO IT WAS CAPITALIZED UP TO 2011-12. 4.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CAPITALIZED CONSIS TS OF INTEREST TRAVEL AND OPERATING EXPENSES. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.20 63 101 I- ON THE GROUND OF NON-PRODUCTION OF INVOICES WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 6 -: 7. GROUND 1 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE DOE S NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 8. GROUNDS 2 TO 2.3 CHALLENGES THE DECISION OF LD. C IT(A) IN ALLOWING ONLY 75% OF THE ROYALTY EXPENDITURE HOLDI NG IT TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN ITA NOS. 1716 TO 1719/MDS/2000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-200 0 2003-04 TO 2005-06 DATED 25.02.2011 AND ITA NOS. 2583 AND 2 584/2016 DATED 28.07.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-20 12 DATED 28.07.2017. THE RELEVANT PARA NO.8.4 IN ITA NOS. 1 716 TO 1719/MDS/2000 ARE ABSTRACTED HEREUNDER:- 8.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED A SUM OF 56 58 538/- AS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES IN ADDITIO N TO THE TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY FEE PAYABLE AT 5% OF THE TURN OVER TO THE IPL. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE AS PER AGREEMENT WIT H IPL THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND IPL ABOUT PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT AND IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SUCH TYPE OF CLAIM WAS EVER MADE IN TH E IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN SUCH A HUGE PAYMENT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SO CALLED ORAL COMMITMENT WITHOUT PLACING ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE EXPED IENCY OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH BUSINESS IN THIS REGA RD. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS A TIE UP WITH MIS. IP L FOR USING THEIR SALES DEPOT AND SALES NETWORK THROUGHOUT THE COUNTR Y AND PL BY VIRTUE OF THERE PRESENCE IN THE MARKET FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS GUIDE THE ASSESSEE IN INTRODUCING THE NEW PRODUCT A ND ACQUIRING ORDER FOR THE ASSESSEE ETC. WHEREAS THE LP RINGS LTD. DOES NOT HAVE ANY MARKET SET UP IN ITS OWN AND WHEN ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 7 -: SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS ALREADY CLAU SE IN THE. AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY FEE PAY ABLE AT 5% THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ASSERTED FURTHER THAT TH ERE WAS A DIRE NEED FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE AND IT HAS BEEN USED FOR LAUNCHING OF THE NEW PRODUCT WITHOUT WHICH THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT APPROPRIATELY MARKET THE NEW PRODUCT. BUT WHEN ASKED TO SUPPLY CERTAIN DATA IN DETAILS ABOUT JUDGMENT AND O THER DETAILS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO DO SO. CONSIDERING THE E NTIRETY OF FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE IN CLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE. CONCLI4SION AS DRAWN BY THE ID. CI T(A) WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF T HE ISSUE BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM WHEN NO CONTRARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF 1999-20 00. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2. TO 2.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO.3 CHALLENGES THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.35(2AB) OF THE ACT OF C11 31 458/-. 10. THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- THE SUBMISSIONS ARE DULY CONSIDERED. SECTION 35(2 AB) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR WEIGHTED TAX DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY A SPECIFIED COMPANY ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (NOT BEIN G EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF COST OF ANY LAND OR BUILDING) IN THE INHOUSE R&D CENTRES AS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY TO THE EXTE NT OF EXPENDITURE CERTIFIED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY (I.E.) DSIR AS HAVING BEEN LAID OUT OR EXPENDED ON SUCH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. IN THE INSTANT CASE DSIR HAD INTER-ALIA APPROVED EXPENSES AS ELIGIBLE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 12 55 424/-. THE SAID POSI TION OF LAW HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CA SE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.1106/HYD /2011) BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MASTEK LTD. (2013) 263 CTR 671 AND BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TEJAS NETWORKS LTD. VS. DCIT (2015)60 TAXMANN.CO 30 9 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE APPROVED BY DSIR IN THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THEM IN FORM NO.3CL ALONE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 35(2AB). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE T HE ACTION OF THE ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 8 -: ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 35(2 AB) WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES NOT APPROVED BY DSIR TO THE TUNE OF RS .11 31 458/- IS HELD TO BE LEGALLY VALID AND THUS UPHELD. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WELL REASONED WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 TO 4.3 ASSESSEE CHALLEN GES THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING PRE-OPERATIV E EXPENSES OF C1 12 69 187/-. 12. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTESTED BEFORE US THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY INCURRED AN EXPENDITU RE OF C3 21 97 676/- ON PVD PROJECT. THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS NOT COMPLETED AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH ACQUISITION OF PLANT AND MACHINER Y WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT CLAIMED AS REVENUE W HILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED T HE SAME HOLDING IT TO BE CAPITAL. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF PRE OPERATIVE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN CURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS AND THE MACHI NERY WERE PUT TO USE ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 9 -: DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD FILED BEFORE US ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM STATUTORY AUDITOR SAYING THAT THE SE EXPENDITURE WERE CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN CONNECTION WITH PVD PROJECTS. CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE U S WE REMIT THE ISSUE BA CK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PUR POSE OF CARRYING OUT VERIFICATION WHETHER THESE EXPENDITURE WAS INC URRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PVD PROJECT AND THE PVD MAC HINES WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IF SO ALL OW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES CAPITALIZE. THUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 TO 4.3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. IN GROUND NO.5 ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE DECISIO N OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF C20 63 101/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR WANT OF INVOICES. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED INVO ICES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DUE VERIFICAT ION OF INVOICES AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION. THUS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 10 -: 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3500/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.3538/CHNY/2018 FOR ADJUDICATION. 16. IT IS STATED BEFORE US THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS.50 LAKHS AND THEREFORE THE CIRCULAR NO. 17 /2019 DATED 08.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT T AXES (CBDT) IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER VESTED UNDER SEC. 268A(1) OF THE IT ACT COMES INTO PLAY WHEREIN THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING TH E APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITAT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS APEX COURT ARE REVISED WITH AN OBJECT OF THE REDUCING TH E TAX LITIGATION. VIDE PARA 3 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR (SUPRA) IT IS STATED TH AT IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEALS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT EXCEED C50 LAKHS APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE FILED. THUS TAKING A NOTE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019 AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS L ESS THAN RS.50 LAKHS THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED / NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE IS SUES RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LEFT OPEN TO BE EXAMINED IN THE A PPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IF ARISES IN FUTURE. AT THE SAME TIM E WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE APPEAL FALL IN ANY OF THE EXCEPTI ONS REFERRED TO IN THE ITA NOS.3500 &3538/2018 :- 11 -: ABOVE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER IF SO ADVISED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.3538/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 STA NDS DISMISSED. 18. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3500/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.3538/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 STA NDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER -) / CHENNAI . / DATED:28 TH NOVEMBER 2019. KV /0 $0& *12032'* / COPY TO: 0 1 . # / APPELLANT 3. 0 ( 4*056 / CIT(A) 5. 278 0& * 9 / DR 2. &' # / RESPONDENT 4. 0 ( 4* / CIT 6. 8:0;) / GF