Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Punjab Inds. & Exports Corporation ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 October, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 841/Chd/2011
Assessment Year: 2008-09
The AC IT, Vs M/s Punjab Small Industries
Circle 2(1), & Exports Corporation Ltd,
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AABCP1602M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Smt. J yoti Kumari
Respondent By : Shri Vineet Krishan
Date of hearing : 24.10.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2011
ORDER
PER H.L.KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Chandigarh Dated: 6.6.2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09.
2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal reads as under:-
1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,94,291/- made on account of expenditure under the head "Maintenance of Focal Points".
3. Briefl y stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 2 'the Act') and made an addition of Rs. 2,98,94,291/- on account of expenditure under the head "Maintenance of Focal Points". The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in para 2 of the assessment order which reads as under:-
2. The assessee claimed Rs. 3,32,15,879/- as 'Maintenance of focal points" in profit and loss account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details under this head. The same were furnished by the assessee vide letter dated 1.2.2010. The break up of the expenditure submitted by the assessee vide letter referred to above, is as under:-
M/s PS IEC Cl a ss i fi cat io n DI V -I DI V XEN XEV -I V T OT AL ( Ho r t) ( E LE C) Sal ar y & 8594513 1 3 1 1 9 1 8 .5 0 1 6 7 6 3 0 5 .2 5 6 7 8 6 2 2 8 .5 5 1 8 3 6 9 0 1 0 .3 0 wa g e s Elec t.B i ll & 1491298 2438747 2580895 6420940 W ater Rep Mt c. 2 2 8 0 1 9 1 .7 0 2 0 2 7 0 3 .5 0 842432 5 1 0 0 6 0 1 .7 1 8 4 2 5 9 2 8 .9 1 T o tal 1 2 3 6 6 0 0 2 .7 0 1514622 4 8 6 7 5 2 9 .2 5 1 4 4 6 7 7 2 5 .2 6 3 3 2 1 5 8 7 9 .2 1 exp e nd i t ur e 2.2 Perusal of the audit report reveal that auditors have mentioned in Notes on accounts that:
a) The expenditure incurred on any project is debited to work in progress. On completion of 60% of the project, the amount is transferred to stock with full estimated project cost (including unspent balance of 40%). For unspent balance, the liability is created and is shown under the head 'Other liabilities'. Amounts spent on these projects in subsequent years are debited to the head 'other liabilities'. The excess expenditure under specific sub head than the project cost is charged to profit and loss account under specific heads. For the 3 projects undertaken w.e.f. 1.4.2005, the income is being treated on percentage of completion method.
b) The indirect project expenditure incurred by the Engg.
Wing including Estate etc. was first debited to Development Expenditure account upto 31.3.2006, however, Estate Wing has been separated during the year 1996-97. The expenses of Estate Wing and Engineering wing have been directly charged to profit and loss account, instead of development expenditure account from 1996-97 and 2005-06 respectively.
The development charges earned from the deposit work are taken as income in profit & loss account. The net amount of debit balance under respective heads of account to the extent of 12% of the work done is appropriated to work in progress and remaining account is debited to the profit and loss account under the specific heads instead of earlier taken under the head "Development Expenses over and above estimates."
2.3 Above details show that assessee is making provision of expenditure in balance sheet out of capital funds and also debiting the excess expenditure in profit and loss account. This expenditur e is not a Revenue expense as it forms a part of 'current assets' in the balance shown and the work carried out under these heads results in addition of assets in balance sheet. Also, this issue has been dealt in earlier years also.
Keeping in view the facts and the stand of the department, the expense is held to be capital in nature where in 10% depreciation is allowable (Rs. 33,21,588/-). Hence an addition of Rs. 2,98,94,291/- is being made.
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act are being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on this issue."
43. On appeal, the C IT(A) deleted the addition following the order of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 passed in assessee's case in ITA No.627/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07.
4. We have heard the rival submissions. Shri Vineet Krishan, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarel y covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the following decisions passed in assessee's case:-
(1) ITA Nos. 611/Chd/2006 and 566/Chd/2007 dated 30.5.2008 relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
(2) ITA No. 330/Chd/2008 dated 30.6.2008 relating to assessment year 2005-06.
(3) ITA No. 627/Chd/2009 dated 30.7.2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the above orders. We find that the issue of "Maintenance of Focal Points" is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the above decisions. While deciding ITA No. 330/Chd/2008 relating to assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal held as under:-
2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the file. The first and the second addition in the ground raised by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,77,77,476/- made on account of maintenance of focal point and development expenditure of Rs. 4,77,27,323/-. It is seen that the Tribunal vide order dated 30.5.2008 (supra), held as under:-
"The first ground raised by the revenue is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld first appellate authorit y erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 2,10,09,705/- made on account of maintenance of focal 5 point and Rs. 2,62,36,425/- made on account of development expenditure. On the issue of maintenance of focal points, the contention on behalf of the revenue is that the assessing officer noted from the auditor's report that the expenditure incurred on any project is debited to the work in progress and on completion of 60% of the project, the amount is transferred to stocks with full estimated project cost (including unspent balance of 40%). The ld CIT DR invited our attention to page 2 of the assessment order. Plea was also raised that no explanation was furnished by the assessee in its submission dt 25.11.2005. The assessee on asking for the justification of the expenditure furnished repl y dated 7.12.2005. The ld assessing officer was of the view that expenditure under these head is of capital nature, consequentl y, the addition to the tune of Rs. 2,10,09,705/- was made. Our attention was invited to the conclusion of the ld C IT(A) and page 6 of the paper book. The ld DR also relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs British Paints India Ltd 188 ITR 44 (SC) and C IT vs Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd 255 ITR 351(P&H) to the effect that res judicata does not appl y to income tax matters.
On the issue of development expenditure, it was pleaded by the ld CIT DR that in the assessment order, facts has been correctl y appreciated whereas the ld CIT(A) is unjustified while coming to a particular conclusion. Plea was raised that the impugned order be set aside. Reliance was placed in the cases of V.N.R. Meenakshi Ammal v Agricultural ITO & others 82 ITR 676(Mad.), Director of Income Tax vs Dharm Pratisthanam 234 ITR 842(Del.) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v Union of India282 ITR 273 (SC) .
3. However, the Ld counsel for the assessee, strongl y defended the impugned order by contending that assessee is a government undertaking, the accounts of the assessee are audited by the auditors appointed by the government department, the nature of expenses has to be understood, the accounts are audited for the past several years and that if in a year any project was going on, out of expenses @ 12% expenses were transferred to the project work in progress as supervision charges of the work done in respect of any project, this method is the recognized method by the PWD and was accepted by the department year to year. It was pleaded that the assessee had been following the recognized method followed by the PWD department and all the details were dul y furnished by the assessee. The ld counsel countered that the facts in the cases relied upon by the ld CIT DR are not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. It was also pointed out that identicall y in earlier assessment years the expenses has been allowed by the department itself.6
4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the file. Brief facts are that the assessee is a public sector undertaking, declared total income of Rs. 1,63,69,010/- in its return filed on 1.12.2003 which was processed u/s 143(1) on 30.3.2004 and refund of Rs.1,13,81,111/- was issued on 22.6.2004. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, questionnaire alongwith notices were issued to which the assessee filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs. 1,60,98,250/- on 9.3.2005. The assessee filed the details during assessment proceedings and the same were perused/examined by the ld assessing officer. An amount of Rs. 2,33,44,106/- was debited by the assessee under the head "maintenance of focal point" in the revised return. On asking by the revenue, the assessee furnished the details/break-up of the expenditure which is as follows.
XEN I Rs. 18,17,646/-
XEN II Rs. 38,89,901/-
XEN IV Rs. 1,50,87,304/-
XEN Electrical Rs. 25,49,255/-
Total Rs. 2,33,44,106/-
The basis for the impugned addition is the note of the auditor which is reproduced herewith.
"The expenditure incurred on any project is debited to work in progress. On completion of 60% of the project, the amount is transferred to stocks with full estimated project cost (including unspent balance of 40%). Four unspent balance, the liability is created and is shown under the head "Other liabilities". Amounts spent on these projects in subsequent years is debited to the head "other Liabilities". The excess expenditure under specific sub head than the project cost is charged to profit and loss account as "maintenance of focal points.
The indirect project expenditure incurred by the Engg. Wing including Estate., etc. was first debited to Development Expenditure account upon 31.3.96, However, , Estate Wing has been separated during the year 1996-97, so the expenses of Estate Wing has been directly charged to Profit and loss account instead of development account. The development charges earned from the deposit work, are credited to the development expenditure account. The net amount of debit balance in the development expenditure account to the extent of 12% of the work done is appropriated to work in progress and the 7 remaining amount is debited to the profit and loss account. Where development charges received/credited from deposit works are more than the development expenditure, the credit balance of the development charges is taken as income in the profit and loss account.
The assessee in its repl y dt 7.12.2005 claimed that the expenditure of Rs.233.44 lakhs on maintenance of focal point and Rs. 291.52 lakhs as development expenses have been charged as per schedule 'M' and the expenditure is on yearl y basis. The head wise expenditure by each unit was claimed as under:-
Na me o f Wa g El ect r i Re pa ir & To t a
Div is io n es c B il l M a int ena l
nce
Di v is io n 1 6 .1 0 .9 6 1 .0 8 1 8 .1
1 3 7
Di v is io n 2 5 .0 1 1 .0 5 2 .8 3 8 .9
2 5
Di v is io n 1 5 .4 9 .9 8 0 .0 7 2 5 .4
Elec . 3 8
Di v is io n 5 1 .0 2 4 .6 2 7 5 .1 7 150.
8 8 87
The argument of the ld C IT DR is that the nature of expenditure involved under these heads is not basicall y revenue expenditure at all. Resultantl y, it was treated as capital expenditure. The assessee was established for promoting industries in the state of Punjab and to assist the entrepreneurs in setting up various projects. It is an admitted position that the assessee had been consistentl y following the same s ystem of accounting over the years and the return was accompanied b y accounts audited by the statutory auditors and the tax audit report was approved by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Since 1962, i.e. year of creation of the assessee company, the assessee had been helping the entrepreneurs in the state of Punjab for which the infrastructure was created and from 1973 onwards, the assessee raised many industrial focal points upto the Financial Year 1984-85 by making roads, laying sewerage s ystem, electricity, water suppl y etc. Mainl y the focal points which were developed so far are located at various cities of the State of Punjab. The head wise expenditure incurred by each unit is to the tune of Rs. 233.42 lakhs, the details/break-up of which are available at page 3 of the impugned order. Likewise the break up of expenditure of Rs. 291.51 lakhs is available in para 3.3 (page 4) of the impugned order. If the break up of expenditure is anal ysed, it is clearl y established that it was incurred for payment/wages of workers, repair jobs, electricit y bills and other repair and maintenance expenses for the focal 8 points and their upkeeping alongwith maintenance of parks and horticulture. It is also an admitted positron that the entire expenditure was incurred in the normal course of business. The expenditure claimed under the subject two heads in the preceding years are as under:-
A.Y M a int ena nc e Dev e lo p me nt
o f Fo ca l Po i nt s ex pe n dit ur e o v er a n d
a bo v e est i ma t e ( ru pe es
in la kh s)
1997- 1 8 3 .1 9 4 0 .8 5
98
1998- 2 1 5 .0 1 3 3 .9 6
99
1999- 1 9 7 .2 8 1 8 4 .5 8
00
2000- 3 7 9 .8 9 8 2 .9 5
01
2001- 2 6 5 .1 1 2 2 0 .4 3
02
2002- 2 8 9 .6 8 2 7 6 .2 9
03
2003- 2 3 3 .4 4 2 9 1 .5 1
04
If the aforesaid figures are anal ysed, it can be said that the ld assessing officer has disallowed these expenses in a summary manner without considering the past history of the assessee and also without bringing any material on record that any new asset was created which is of enduring benefit to the assessee Corporation. The question whether a particular expenditure is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure has to be viewed for the purpose of business and in the larger context of business necessit y and expediency. If the outgoings/expenditure is so related to carrying on or conduct of the business, it has to be regarded as an integral part of profit earning process and not for acquisition of new asset or a right of a permanent character, then it has to be treated as revenue. Where the expenditure is linked with acquisition of a new asset or an interest or right of a permanent character, it has to be treated as capital in nature. There is no clear cut definition in the Act regarding current repairs, however, the same has to be considered in its popular or commercial sense. In commercial parlance, it means the repair which are undertaken in the normal course of user for the purposes of preservation, maintenance or proper utilization of assets or for restoring it to its original condition. The payments on account of current repair must be understood in contradictions to payment for additions or improvements. The object of the expenditure should not be to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new or different advantage. Admittedl y, the quantum of expenditure, incurred on current repairs is not the determining factor because the extent of repairs and the amounts spent therein would 9 depends upon various factors. Similarl y, by mere fact that old parts were replaced with new parts, it cannot be said that a new asset is brought into existence. Another factor which is more important to be mentioned here is that the method of accounting being consistentl y followed by the assessee company has been accepted in earlier years and such claims was allowed by the revenue itself as revenue expenditure, therefore, from the angle of consistency also it favours the assessee for which the under mentioned decisions can be quoted:-
Dhansiram Aggarwal v C IT (217 ITR 4) (Guj) Taraben Ramanbhai Patel etc. v ITO (215 ITR 323) (Guj) CIT v Neo Pol y Pack Pvt Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del.) ACIT vs Gainda Lal Hazari Lal & Co (263 ITR 679)(M.P.) CIT vs A.R.J. Security Printers (264 ITR 276)(Del) The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Courts in the aforesaid decisions are that if a similar relief has been allowed in earlier years and has attained finalit y and there is a no change in the business or fresh material brought on record, the same cannot be denied in the subsequent years.
5. During arguments the ld C IT DR relied upon the decision in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & Others v Union of India & Others (2006) (282 ITR 273 (SC) to the effect that in tax cases relating to subsequent years involving the same issue, the court can differ. We are in full y agreement with this argument of the ld C IT DR. However, at the same time it is also necessary that the fact has to be distinguished from the earlier years and also that the earlier decision does not represent the true law or the facts are different. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has clearl y held that the Court of superior jurisdiction can overrule the decision of the lower strength and more important is if the facts are distinguishable or per incuriam. The another case reliled upon by Mrs Puri, the ld C IT DR is Director of Income Tax vs Dharam Pritashanam (234 ITR 842)(Del) to the effect that rule of res-judicata is not applicable to the tax assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that every year's assessment is independent and res-judicata is not applicable. The petitioner has right to seek reference of question of law even if such reference was not sought in earlier years. Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Lachhiram Puran Mal v CIT (171 CTR (M.P.) 640.
The following cases to this effect can also be relied upon.
New Jahangir Vakil Miils Ltd v CIT (49 ITR 137) (SC) M.M. Ipoh v C IT (67 ITR 106) (SC) 10 CIT v Brij Lal Lohia & Mahivir Prasad Khemka (84 ITR 273 (SC)] CIT v Brithish Paints India Ltd 91 CTR (SC) 108 Binoy Rattan Banerjee v C IT (15 ITR 98)(All) CIT v M.Chawla (177 ITR 289) (Del) If the aforesaid decisions are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of present appeal, suggests that the assessee made the provision of expenditure under the heads 'maintenance of focal point' and has debited these amounts in the Profit and loss account. The Ld counsel for the assessee, during argument, pleaded that these expenses were incurred onl y for current repairs and replacement and as a result thereof identit y of the existing asset has not been affected. This claim of the assessee was neither controverted by the revenue nor any evidence was brought on record evidencing that the assessee got the benefit of enduring nature or any new asset was created. Even otherwise for assessment year 1984-85, the appeal of the department, on identical fact, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee. The following para from the order is worth mentioning.
"We have looked into the facts of the case and we find that looking to the past history, the CIT(A) has taken a correct view in the matter and there was no justification to make the addition. The system of accounting adopted by the assessee is the same as in the past. No objection can be taken to the system of accounting adopted by the assessee consistently. We, therefore, find no force in ground No. 5 also and it is rejected".
Another point pertinent to mention here is that all these focal points had already been developed long back except one at Pathankot, Bhatinda, Tanda, Malot and Rajkot and the s ys tem was explained to be derived decade back from PWD on any cost of project, 12% are the supervision charges and this s ystem was consistentl y followed from year to year and accepted in the past by the department. Admittedly, whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue is age long debatable points. These are reall y abstract concepts which have not been defined by the Act of Parliament, therefore, in the absence of legislative definition, it becomes necessary for the Court to find out themselves whether the expenditure in a given case falls under the category of "capital expenditure" or "revenue expenditure". The various decisions by the various Forums recognized the necessit y and provided innumerable illustrations and the legal criteria and their applicabilit y. Lord Redeliffe observed that "the subject is one where it is difficult to find any fresh ground upon which to stand, so much has been trampled down by armies of conflicting words. And yet peace 11 has not come to this poor section" (Institution of Mechanical Engineers v Cane (1961) A.C. 696, 718 (HL) in the case of Buckley L.J. in Lurcott v Wakel y & Whellers [1911] 1 KB 905, 923, 924 (CA), the meaning of repair it was observed as under:-
"Repair' and 'renew' are not words expressive of a clear contrast.... Repair is restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts of a whole. Renewal, as distinguished from repair, is reconstruction of the entirety, meaning by the entirety not necessarily the whole but substantially the whole subject-matter under discussion.... The question of repair is in every case on of degree, and the test is whether the act to be done is one which is substance is the renewal or replacement of defective parts, or the renewal or replacement of substantially the whole."
If the test laid down by various authorities/Hon'ble Courts are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal, then it can be said that the conclusion leads to a concept that whether a thing is repair or not is to be seen whether the expenditure incurred was for the purposes of replacement of defective parts or replacement is in its entiret y or of a substantial part has to be considered. The Hon'ble Privy Council in Rhodesia Railways Ltd v Income Tax Collector (1933) 1 ITR 227, a sum of pound 252174 were spent for the purposes of renewing 74 miles of its railway track out of 394 miles of its total length of the track owned by them was held to be an allowable deduction as it was not of capital nature but was expended for the repair of the property occupied for the purposes of trade. Opposite to the above, in the case of Highland Railway Company v Balderston (1889) 2 TC 485, it was held that substitution of one kind of rail for another - steel rails for iron rails was held to be capital expenditure as there was material alternation and improvement in the corpus of the heritable estate of the company. The repair after spending considerable amount of money but that alone would not take away its character as repair. For this proposition, we can draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC). The decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Shri Ram Sugar Mills (1952) 21 ITR 191 can also be relied upon. Identical ratio was laid down in the case of C.R. Corera v CIT (49 ITR 188)(Mad) and Hanuman Motor Service v C IT (66 ITR 88)(M ysore) and the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in CIT vs Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Company Pvt Ltd (82 ITR 741).
Identical ratio was laid down in the case of Ramkishan Sunder Lal v CIT (19 ITR 324) (All), C IT v Dharbhanga 12 Sugar Company Ltd (29 ITR 21)(Patna), C IT vs Shri Ram Sugar Mills (21 ITR 191)(Mad) and Bombay High Court in the New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd v CIT (30 ITR 338), CIT vs Oxford Universit y Press (108 ITR 166) and the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v Desai Brothers (108 ITR 14). In the light of the aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncements, we have not found any infirmit y in the impugned order, therefore, identical view will be applicable for development expenditure also, consequentl y, this ground of the revenue is having no merit."
6. The facts of the present year and the facts of the assessment year 2005-06 are similar. It is also stated that there is no change in the facts.
Therefore, respectfull y following the order of the Tribunal (supra), we dismiss ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal.
7. Ground No.2 of the appeal reads as under:-
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,86,266/- on account of Udyog Sahayak Expenses.
8. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,86,266/- by disallowing the expenditure under the head "Udyog Sahayak Expenses".
9. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition following the order of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 passed in assessee's case in ITA No. 627/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07.
10. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the order of the Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 in ITA No. 627/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07. While deciding a similar issue in assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal held as under:-
13"4. As far as the issue on account of Udyog Sahayak expenses are concerned, this is also covered by the aforesaid decision. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced herewith: -
"4. The next addition of Rs. 27,85,764/- , challenged by the revenue, pertains to expenses on account of Udhog Sahayak. Both the ld representative agreed that this issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order. After considering the rival submissions we have found that the Tribunal in order dated 30.5.2008 (supra) vide para 8 (page 14) held as under:-
"8. The next ground i.e. ground No. (iii) of the impugned appeal pertains to deleting the addition of Rs. 22,23,328/- made on account of Udyog Sahayak expenses. At the outset it was pointed out that this issue has been deliberated upon by the Tribunal in the case of assessee for assessment year 1996-97 (ITA No. 243/Chd/2000). This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the Ld counsel for the assessee. We have found that the Tribunal vide para 11 has deliberated upon this issue in the aforesaid order dt 27.1.2004, the same is reproduced herewith:
'We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the evidence and material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee- corporation has been set up mainly for promoting industries in the State of Punjab and to assist the entrepreneurs to set up various projects. As a part of such activity and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Govt. of Punjab dated 20.11.92, the assessee was asked to bear 30% of the expenditure to be incurred by Udhyog Sahayak. Thus, incurring of such expenditure was obligatory and directly connected with the activities of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had no share or right in the assets acquired by the Udhyog Sahayak with the assistance of the assessee. Therefore, by incurring such expenditure, the assessee has neither acquired any capital asset nor any benefit of enduring in nature. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that Ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of the same as such expenditure was revenue in nature. We confirm her order and dismiss this ground of the revenue's appeal as well.' 14 In the light of the aforesaid conclusion and speciall y the facts were consented to be identical, we uphold the stand of the Ld CIT(A).
It is pertinent to mention here that while coming to the aforesaid decision the Bench has already considered the case of the assessee for assessment year 1996-97 (ITA NO. 243/Chd/2000). In view of these facts, since no contrary decisions or change in fact was brought to our notice by the respective parties, respectfull y following the same, we upheld the impugned order.
In the absence of any contrary decision / facts, we have no hesitation to uphold the stand of the learned CIT(A) specially when he has followed the decision of the Tribunal for earlier years, consequently, this ground is also having no merit."
11. It is an admitted position that there is no change in the facts as compared to the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore, respectfull y following the order of the Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07, we dismiss ground No. 2 of the appeal.
12. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 24 t h day of October, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MEHAR SINGH) (H.L.KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated : 24 t h October, 2011
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
True Copy
By Order
Assistant Registrar