Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. M/ s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 561/LKW/2014 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 56123714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AABCB1562A
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 561/LKW/2014
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow
Respondent M/ s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 23-03-2015
Next Hearing Date 23-03-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 03-07-2014
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.561 & 562/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - II LUCKNOW. VS. M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. 5 PARK ROAD HAZARATGANJ LUCKNOW. PAN:AABCB1562A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - III LUCKNOW DATED 22/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 AND DATED 05/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 I.E. I.T.A. NO.561/LKW/2014. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 01 849/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF IRAQI ASSETS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPELLANT BY SHRI ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL C.I.T. D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV COST ACCOUNTANT DATE OF HEARING 23/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 9 /04/2015 2 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DEC ISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 AND ALL THE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 TO 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR . LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS HELD BY TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE CONCERNED BLOCK OF ASSET S AND THE SAID BOCK OF ASSET S IS TO BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. THIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: 2(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 69 011/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON TEMPORARY ERECTIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN TREATING THE PROJECT SITE - OFFICES OF THE ASSESSEE BUILT OF IRON CEMENT AND BRICKS ETC. AS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THESE STRUCTURES WERE DESIGNED TO LAST FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF PROJECTS WHICH USUALLY TAKE TEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS FOR COMPLETION. 3 6. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT YEAR. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFF ERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS PER THE TRIBUNAL DECISION S AVAILABLE ON RECORD ALSO WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 AND 2002 - 03 THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95 AND 96 - 97. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. HENCE W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 8. GRO UND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 17 200/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BILLS OF IRAQ WORK WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 3(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNILATERALLY DECIDED NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST ON SUCH OUTSTANDING AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CONCERNED PARTIES HAD DENIED THEIR LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING BILLS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 9. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OU T ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND SINCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION S IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS.14 55 17 044/ - DID NOT ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT ALREADY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CLEARLY TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN OVERLOOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 199 OF THE ACT AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS ON THE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS RETURN INCOME IT IMPLIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECOGNIZED THE SAID AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4(C) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN GIVING THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME ALSO STRENGTHENS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 158 ITR 102 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE REAL I NCOME THEORY CANNOT AFFECT THE INCOME WHICH HAD ALREADY ACCRUED AS PER LAW. 5 12. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION S IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 13. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 RETENTION MONEY WAS HELD BY THE PARTIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 455.17 LAC S WHEREAS IN THE SAME YEAR THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.8 039.29 LAC S ON EXPIRY OF DEFERRED LIABILITY PERIOD AND THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13 012.34 LAC S . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS REDUCED TO RS.6 701.21 LAC S AND WAS REDUCED TO NIL AT THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 11 I.E. 31/03/2011 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 12. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS EARLIER YEARS. NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. MOREOVER DURING THE PRESENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 455.17 LAC FROM ITS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED A LARGE R AMOUNT OF RS.8 039.29 LAC BEING RE TENTION MONEY NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN EARLIER YEARS BUT OFFER ED TO TAX IN PRESENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF EXPIRY OF DEFERRED LIABILITY PERIOD. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IF THE PRESENT YEAR IS CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION THE AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX IS MORE THAN THE AMOUN T OF INCOME REDUCED FROM THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY. THIS IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT THAT AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 11 THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RETENTION MONEY WAS OFFERED TO TAX AND CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE WE 6 DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 4 IS ALSO REJECTED. 15. GROUND NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.50 81 002/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES BEING 7.5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIR TO BUILDING WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 03 - 04 TO 2006 - 07 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. NO DIFFERENCE IN F ACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 5 IS REJECTED. 18. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. THAT THE LD. C IT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.26 28 177/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE 7 TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS COP Y OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTE D OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 6 IS REJECTED. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. 22. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 I.E. I.T.A. NO.562/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 77 716/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF IRAQI ASSETS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 43 35 600 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPR ECIATION ON TEMPORARY ERECTIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN TREATING THE PROJECT SITE - OFFICES OF THE ASSESSEE BUILT OF IRON CEMENT AND BRI CKS ETC. AS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THESE STRUCTURES WERE DESIGNED TO LAST FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF PROJECTS WHICH USUALLY TAKE TEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS FOR COMPLETION. 3(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.2 23 200 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BILLS OF IRAQ WORK WITHOUT 8 APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TAW AND FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNILATERALLY DECIDED NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST ON SUCH OUTSTANDING AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CONCERNED PARTIES HAD DENIED THEIR LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING BILLS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4(A) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS.6 11 54 776/ - DID NOT ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT ALREADY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAID AMOUNT W AS CLEARLY TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4(B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN OVERLOOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 199 OF THE ACT AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT FO R TDS ON THE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS RETURN INCOME IT IMPLIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECOGNIZED THE SAID AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4(C) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN GIVING THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME ALSO STRENGTHENS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 158 ITR 102 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE REAL INCOME THEORY CANNOT AFFECT T HE INCOME WHICH HAD ALREADY ACCRUED AS PER LAW. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55 76 317/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES BEING 7.5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIR TO BUILDING W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.61 70 496/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHICH NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 23. BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE ISSUES AND FACTS INV OLVED IN THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE SAME CAN BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE . FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ALL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY US AGAINST THE REVENUE IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER AND THEREFORE ALL THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE ON SIMILAR LINE BECAUSE NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS C OULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE ON ANY OF THE ISSUES . 24. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 25. IN THE COMBINED RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 9 /04/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR