DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI v. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5354/MUM/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 535419914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACT1848E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5354/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI
Respondent TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 18-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA(AM) AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) ITA NOS. 5354 & 4595/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2003-04 & 2004-05) THE DCIT 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. BOMBAY HOUSE 24 SIR HOMI MODY STREET FORT MUMBAI-400 001 PAN-AAACT 1848E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANTOSH PARAB O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XXX MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y.2003-04 & 2004-05. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS THESE WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND ON 25 TH AUGUST 2000 FOR RS. 8 79 82 917.00 (INCLUSIVE OF DEVELOPMENT COST) AND WAS SHOWING IT AS STOCK IN TRADE. FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THE ASS ESSEE CHOSE TO REVALUE THE LAND AT MARKET VALUE WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE C OST AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT OF A LAND AGENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT ACCEPT THE SAME AND ADDED BACK RS.1 11 27 917/- AND RS. 26 17 164/- FOR A.Y 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY BEING THE PROVISION FOR DIMINU TION IN VALUE OF LAND. 3. FOR BOTH THE YEARS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PUT FORWARD VARIOUS COMMON AR GUMENTS. M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 2 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF FULL SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY. APART FROM THE REGULAR ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF AUTOMOTIVE PARTS AND COMPON ENTS THE ASSESSEE ALSO UNDERTAKES IN HELPING ITS CLIENT TO BUILD THEI R BUSINESS IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR. THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN ENUMERATE D IN CLAUSES 3A 3B AND 3C OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW FOR YOUR REFERENCE. THUS THE ASSESSEE INCUBATES THE BUSINES S NURTURES DURING ITS NASCENT STAGE AND THEN TRANSFERS IT TO ITS CLIENTS. THIS IS GENERALLY BOUGHT ABOUT BY PROMOTING JOINT VENTURES. THE ASSESSEE BUY S LAND FOR THESE VENTURES SETS UP THEIR MANUFACTURING UNITS BUILDS B USINESS PROCESSES FOR THEM AND THEN MAKES THESE UNITS INDEPENDENT BY TRAN SFERRING ITS SHARE IN THE VENTURES AND OR PASSIVELY BECOMING AN INDEPENDE NT HOLDING INVESTMENT COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITY O F THE ASSESSEE CAN BE COMPARED WITH THAT OF A BUILDER WHERE THE BUILDER B UYS LAND BUILDS A BUILDING AND SELLS. IT. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IT BUYS LAND BUILDS A FACTORY OVER IT AND SELLS IT. IN THE CASE OF A BUILDER TH E LAND BOUGHT IS NOT A CAPITAL FIXED ASSET BUT AN ITEM OF INVENTORY. IT IS QUITE A SIMILAR SITUATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TO CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITY ENUMERATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAD BOUGHT LAND IN AND AROUND PUNE. THESE PIECES OF LAND WERE TO BE USED FOR SETTING UP THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FOR ITS CLIENT AND WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CLIENT ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. LAND WAS THEREFORE APPROPRIATELY TREATED A S A CURRENT ASSET AND WAS GROUPED UNDER THE HEAD STOCK IN TRADE UNDER INVENTO RY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER SCHEDULE F IN VENTORIES UNDER SUBMISSIONS HEAD STOCK IN TRADE-LAND.IN SCHEDULE Q. NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS UNDER SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES THE POLICIES FOR VALUATION OF INVENTORIES IS GIVEN UNDER SUBMISSIONS CLAUSE (E) W HICH IS AS FOLLOWS: INVENTORIES ARE VALUE AT COST OR NET REALIZABLE VA LUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. SIMILARLY IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT UNDER SEC 44AB FO R THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE TAX AUDITOR UNDER CLAUSE 12(A) OF PART A OF FORM 3CD HAS STATED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING S TOCK EMPLOYED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS FOLLOWS: M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 3 STOCK IS VALUED AT THE LOWER OF COST AND NET REALI ZABLE VALUE. FURTHER UNDER CLAUSE 11(B) OF THE PART A OF FORM 3 CD THE TAX AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED AS COMPARED TO THE METHOD EMPLOYED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO DISCLOSED UNDER NOTE 8 TO THE SCHEDULE Q NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS AS F OLLOWS. PROVISION IS MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF LA ND (WHICH IS INVENTORIZED) BASED ON ESTIMATES MADE BY THE MANAGE MENT. THE ASSESSEE ON AUGUST 25 2000 BOUGHT 40.50 ACRES OF L AND IN AND AROUND VILLAGE MANN NEAR PUNE. (CONVEYANCE DEEDS PLACED I N THE PAPER BOOK) THE LAND WAS BOUGHT IN THREE PIECES WITH SURVEY NOS 279 280 AND 281. THE LAND WAS WITH A CLEAR TITLE WITH FSI UTILIZATIO N RATIO AVAILABLE OF 1:2. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE AREA WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMP TION OF ELECTRICITY DUTY AND 90% OF STAMP DUTY/ THE COST OF THE THIS LAND W AS AS FOLLOWS: PARTICULARS RS. RS. BASIC 8 09 00 000.00 RELATED EXPENSES STAMP DUTY 32 76 300.00 FENCING WORK 25 60 596.00 SURVEY CHARGES 8 100.0 0 LEGAL NOTICE CHARGES 10 841.08 REPAIRS TO COMPOUND WALL 7 295.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FENCING 1 83 750.00 FEES FOR SEARCH REPORT 4 92 285.00 BROKERAGE 6 06 750 .00 OTHER COST 70 82 917.00 TOTAL COST 8 79 82 917.00 THUS THE VALUE PER ACRE OF THE LAND WAS AROUND RS 21.75 LACS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE COST OF LAN D IN AND AROUND THE AREA HAD FALLEN. THE TRANSACTION OF SAL E OF LAND SURROUNDING AREA HAD OCCURRED AT RATES WHICH WERE MUCH BELOW TH E COST OF THE LAND BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED A VALUATION FROM AN ESTATE AGENT NAMELY KRISHNA ESTATES WHO WAS AN E XPERT AGENT DEALING IN THE AREA. KRISHNA AGENT HAD OPINED THAT THE REALIZABLE VALUE OF THE LAND HELD BY THE COMPANY IN VILLAGE MANN COU LD NOT BE MORE THAN RS 19 LACS PER ACRE. THIS BEING A DIMINUTION IN TH E VALUE OF THE ASSET THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION TO THE EXTENT OF 1 11 27 917/- AND 26 17 164/- FOR A.Y 2003-04 AND 2 004-05 RESPECTIVELY. THE PROVISION WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVAILING ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE IN VOGUE IN INDI A. WE HAVE BRIEFING EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES . M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 4 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENT FURNISHED AND THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN AND AROUND VILLAGE MANN NEAR PUNE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000- 3002 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 8 79 82 970/- IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE COST OF THIS LAND WAS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE BY THE APPELLANT SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 ONWARDS AND HAS BEEN SHOWN T HE VALUE AT COST OF THIS LAND TILL THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 RELEVA NT TO ASST. YEAR 2002- 03. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE APPEL LANT HAS VALUED THE LAND BY MAKING A PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN TH E VALUE OF LAND AND DEBITING THE SAME TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A ND REDUCING THE SAME FROM THE STOCK IN TRADE LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS CLA IMED THIS PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 26 17 164/- AS THE NET REALIZABLE VALUE BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF KRISHNA ESTATES C ERTIFYING THE FALL IN VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR BEING GENUINE AND IS BASED ON THE SALE VALUE PER ACRE OF THE PLOTS IN THE VICINITY BELONGI NG TO TWO OTHER CONCERNS. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THIS DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE LAND HAS BEEN IN STOCK IN TRADE AND THE INVENTORIES ARE REGULARLY VALUED AT COST OR NET REALIZABLE VALU E WHICHEVER IS LOWER AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUATION BY KRISHNA ESTATES IS MER ELY ESTIMATION AND NOT REALIZABLE MARKET VALUE AND THE RATES ARE AROUN D SIX MOTHS OLD. SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING THE INVENTORY OF LAND AT THE COST VALUE I.E. FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-03 SINCE THE DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THESE YEAR S WERE EXEMPT AN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS NOT EXEMPT. HEN CE THE BENEFIT OF THE DEVALUATION IN LAND IS SCHEMED TO GET PARTIALL Y ABSORBED THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED AT RS 424.22 000/- DURING TH E YEAR. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BORNE ANY EXPENDITURE AND IT IS A MERE PROVISION AND LOOSELY ASSUMED ESTIMATE AND HYPOTHETICALLY CHARGED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS NOT JUS TIFIED. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS HAS CONTENDED THAT REALIZABLE VALUES WILL ALWAYS BE AN ESTIMATION . THE ESTIMATION OF REALIZABLE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE INDEPENDENT VALUER AND IS BASED ON PRUDENT PRINCIPLES. THE VALU ER HAS APPROPRIATELY BENCHMARKED THE PRICE WITH THE TRANSACTION OF SALE THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE NEAR VICINITY THAT TOO WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE BALANCE SHEET DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGREED WITH THE TRE ATMENT ACCORDED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS DISALLOWED THE PROVISION SINCE IN HIS VIEW THE ONLY BENEFIT DERIVED IS PARTIALLY NEGATING THE POSITIVE INCOME WHICH CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE AS THE ACCOUNTS WERE DUL Y AUDITED BOTH UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AS WELL AS THE INCOME TAX A CT. THE TREATMENT ACCORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN LINE WITH THE ACCEPT ED ACCOUNTING M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 5 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES PREVALENT IN INDIA. MOREOV ER IT IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT VALUATION OF CLO SING STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER A ND THE PRINCIPLE WAS UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN Z INC LTD VS CIT I FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND HAS SINCE BEEN TR EATED AS STOCK IN TRADE FROM THE YEAR OF PURCHASE AND CONTINUOUSLY SHOWN AS SUCH AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE A STOCK IN TRADE BY THE DEPARTM ENT AS WELL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE REJECTING THE VALUATION OF KRISHNA ESTATES TERMING THE SAME A MERE ESTIMATION HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE VALUATION MADE IS INC ORRECT AND THERE IS NO DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES THE VALUATION CLAIMED BASED ON THE SALE OF PLOTS IN THE VICINITY BY OTHER CONCERNS DURING THE YEAR C ANNOT BE REJECTED AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PREVALENT EROSION IN THE VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR. AS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY T HE APPELLANT AND THE VALUATION OF STOCKS BEING MADE ON AT COST OR REALIZ ABLE VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCES THE VALUATION CLAIMED BASED ON THE SALE OF PLOTS IN TH E VICINITY BY OTHER CONCERNS DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE REJECTED AS EVI DENCE FOR THE PREVALENT EROSION IN THE VALUE OF LAND DURING THE Y EAR CANNOT BE REJECTED AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PREVALENT EROSION IN THE VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR. AS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOW ED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE VALUATION OF STOCKS BEING MAD ON AT COST OR REALIZABLE VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN DI MINUTION IN VALUE OF THE LAND CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND TH AT THE SAME IS A MERE ESTIMATION BY A VALUER OR THE MOTIVE FOR CLAIM ING THE DIMINUTION IS TO NEGATING THE POSITIVE INCOME FROM DIVIDEND UNLES S THE SAME IS ESTABLISHED WITH MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. SINCE THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR AS CLAIMED BY THE APP ELLANT IS BASED ON THE SALES INSTANCES DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO CERTI FIED BY A VALUER I FIND THAT THE TREATMENT ACCORDED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BASED ON BONAFIDE PRINCIPLES OR ACCOUNTING REGU LARLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THIS GROUN D IS THEREFORE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 7. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ONLY ISSUE ON AP PEAL FOR THE BOTH THE YEARS ARE THE ALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE WHILE DETERMINING THE CLOSING VALUE OF LAND HELD BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASESSEE PURCHASED 40.45. ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE MANN NEA R PUNE IN AUG 25 2000 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 79 82 917/- ( INCLUDIN G THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT). THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING THIS AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY MANUFACTURES AND SELLS AUTOMOBILE COMPONENTS BUT ALSO M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 6 UNDERTAKES IN HELPING ITS CLIENT TO BUILD THEIR BUS INESS IN AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR. THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN ENUMERATED IN CLAUSES 3A 3B AND 23C OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THE ASSESSEE INCUBATES T HE BUSINESS NURTURES DURING ITS NASCENT STAGE AND TRANSFERS IT TO CLIENT S. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE LAND PURCHASED BY IT AS STOCK IN TR ADE. WHILE IT WAS BEING SHOWN AT COST OF ACQUISITION DURING THE INITIAL YEA RS THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A VALUATION REPORT ON THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATE AGENT M/S. KRISHNA ESTATES. THEY VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS 19 LAKHS PER ACRE. ACCORDINGLY PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF TH E LAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 11 27 917/- AND 26 17 164/- WAS MADE FOR A.Y 2003 -04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IT AS A DEDUCTIO N IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AS THEY ARE VALUING THE LAND AS STOCK IN TRADE AT C OST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. 8. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WHETHER THE LAND CAN BE TREAT ED AS STOCK IN TRADE. NO DOUBT THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION HAS PROVIDED FO R SETTING UP OF JOINT VENTURES. THESE JVS ARE FOR MANUFACTURING AUTOMOBIL E PRODUCTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN INCUBATING NURTURING AND DEVELOPING MANUFACTURING CAPACITY OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND THEN MAKING THEM I NDEPENDENT BY TRANSFERRING THE SHARES OF THE UNIT TO THE CLIENTS. IT CAN BE TREATED AS AN ACTIVITY OF DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS AND NOT AN ACTI VITY OF DEALING IN LAND. ASSESSEE IS PROPOSING TO START A UNIT AND AFTER DEV ELOPING THE SAME TRANSFER THE SHARES OF THE UNIT. SALE OF SHARES IN THE DEVEL OPED UNIT WILL NOT AMOUNT TO SALE OF LAND AS STOCK IN TRADE. LAND PURCHASED F OR OWN BUSINESS IS CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL AND NOT STOCK IN TRADE. THERE FORE LAND USED FOR DEVELOPING JV CANNOT BE STOCK IN TRADE. FURTHER RIG HT FROM PURCHASE OF THE LAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY DEVELOPI NG ACTIVITY. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN SHOWING IT AS STOCK IN TRADE THE AO SHOULD EXAMINE FURTHER WHETH ER THE LAND IN QUESTION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS STOCK IN TRADE. IF SO THEN THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE NAMELY VALUING THE STOCK AT COST OR MARKE T VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXAMINE WHETHER THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REASONA BLE SUPPORTED BY M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 7 COMPARABLE SALES INSTANCES / GUIDE LINE VALUE. FOR CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE EXAMINATION THE APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REDOING THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011 SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICI AL MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2010. RJ COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL - I CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI M/S. TATA AUTOCOMP SYSTEMS LTD. 8 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 24.01..2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 25.01.2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ S R. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER