Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Roselin Mercantile Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 22 March, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH 'D' MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI T.R. SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA Nos. 5290, 5291 & 5292/Mum/2009
Assessment Years-2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05
M/s. Roselin Mercantile Ltd., The ITO 4(3)(2),
Vithal Sadan, Aayakar Bhavan,
342, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400020
Mumbai-400 002 Vs.
PAN-AABCR 4977K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh
Respondent by: Shri K.V. Ravi Namboodiri
Date of Hearing :22.03.2012
Date of pronouncement:28.3.2012
ORDER
PER B.R. MITTAL, JM :
These three appeals are filed by assessee for assessment years 2002- 03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) all dt. 10.7.2009.
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that relevant facts and substantive grounds are identical in all these appeals. Therefore, we heard these appeals together and dispose off the same by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. Firstly we take up appeal for assessment year 2002-03 being ITA No. 5290/M/09.
4. The relevant facts are that assessee is a Private Ltd. Company and derives income from 4 house properties viz. , 2 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09
1) Badrika Ashram Building, 1st & Lind Khetwadi, 1st Parsiwala, Mumbai-400 004
2) Vithal Sadan Bldg., 342, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002
3) Shiv Prasad Bldg., 73/IInd Cavel Cross Lane, Mumbai-400002
4) Bhagatwadi Bldg., 132 Bhuleshwar Road, Kabutar Khana, Mumbai-400 002.
ii) These 4 buildings are having 546 tenements, which are let out to various tenants. The only activity of assessee company is collecting rent from tenants and no other business is carried out by assessee company in assessment years under consideration.
iii) The assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 3,21,832/-. The said return was processed u/s.143(1). In the return filed, assessee offered income from house property. It is relevant to state that assessee claimed loss from business which relates to providing various services like running lift, providing liftman and watchman and cleaning all buildings against which service charges, electricity charges, staff welfare, general expenses and repairs and maintenance aggregating to Rs. 5,52,151/- was claimed.
iv) Since return filed by assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, Assessing Officer stated that claiming of expenses aggregating to Rs. 5,52,151/- as mentioned herein above was not allowable deduction from the income under the head "Income from House Property and therefore income chargeable to tax escaped assessment within the provisions of Section 147. The AO after recording the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was served upon assessee on 10.2.2006.
v) The AO stated that assessee neither filed return of income nor a letter stating that return filed earlier may be considered as return of income against notice u/s. 148. In order to complete assessment, AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire which was served on assessee. The AO 3 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 assessed income from House property after allowing deduction of Municipal tax and standard deduction u/s. 24 of I.T. Act and has assessed the income of Rs. 13,13,350/- against total returned income at Rs. 3,21,832/- filed by assessee earlier.
vi) Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority disputing initiation of reassessment proceedings and also disallowances made by AO.
5. Ld. CIT(A) by his impugned order dismissed appeal of the assessee. Hence, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
6. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has taken 18 grounds under different heads.
7. In ground Nos. 1 & 2, assessee has disputed the reopening of assessment by AO.
8. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that assessee disclosed all the claims made in the return filed and no new facts came to the notice of AO. Hence, initiation of reassessment proceeding is not valid in law. Ld. AR submitted that AO has initiated reassessment proceedings on account of claiming deductions of service charges of Rs. 5,52,151/- from rental income. He relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs R.J Wood Pvt. Ltd. 334 ITR 358 and submitted that it was held that maintenance and other charges which were paid by assessee are deductible from rental income and therefore there was no escapement of income which was chargeable to tax. Hence initiation of reassessment proceeding is not in accordance with law.
9. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative supported action of AO to initiate reassessment proceedings. He submitted that assessee derived rental income from the properties let out to various persons. He submitted that so called maintenance charges are not allowable from the 4 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 rental income which is assessed under the head "Income from House Property". He further submitted that return filed by assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and there was no assessment made by AO. He submitted that as per explanation 2 of Sec. 147 of the Act where a return has been furnished by assessee but no assessment has been made and the AO is of the opinion that claim of assessee is excessive or the income stated is under stated, it will be deemed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and AO after recording the reasons could initiate reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act r.w.s 148 of the Act. He submitted that at the stage of initiating reassessment proceedings, only requirement is the belief of AO that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He submitted that AO has recorded the reasons and thereafter notice u/s. 148 was issued. Therefore, the reassessment proceeding has been validly initiated.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. Representatives of parties. We have also considered the case of R.J. Wood Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cited by Ld. AR. We observe that in the said case, there was a dispute between assessee and tenants and the tenants claimed that rent payable by them to assessee included maintenance charges but assessee wanted the tenants to pay the maintenance charges exclusive of contractual rent. The tenant filed suit in the small Causes Court for fixation of standard rent and the court fixed the interim rent. Since the rent was fixed on a lump sum basis, the assessee had to pay the maintenance charges, which were claimed as deduction. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim on the ground that as per lease agreement, maintenance charges were to be borne by tenants. However Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim which was affirmed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the suit was finally decided and the contractual rent as agreed upon between the assessee and the tenants was fixed as the standard rent by the court. During the pendency of the suit since assessee received the rent at a lesser rate than the contractual rate, the assessee received the arrears of rent in the financial year 1999-2000 when suit was decided in November, 5 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 1999. The assessee has spread arrears of rent for various assessment years i.e. assessment year 1996-97 to 1999-2000 and had shown the annual letting value under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of rent fixed by Small Causes Court which was received by it under the interim orders of the court i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per month. In the above facts and circumstances, claim of assessee for maintenance and other charges paid by it were held to be deductable from the rent while computing the Annual Letting Value. In view of above facts, we are of the considered view that the said case is not relevant to the facts of the case before us. On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the only criteria of reopening of assessment is that the AO should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment notwithstanding that full disclosure of material is on record. It is observed that return filed by assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and if AO is of the view that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, his action u/s. 143(1) is valid as the escaped assessment includes both non assessment as well as under assessment. The sufficiency or correctness of material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of reopening of assessment as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC). Further reopening of assessment can also be initiated when there is an apparent error on the face of record or available in the records which leads to under assessment or excessive claim of loss. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 that so long as conditions of Sec. 147 of the Act are fulfilled, AO is free to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 of Act and failure to take steps for regular assessment u/s. 143(3) will not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when summary assessment with intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act had been issued. It was further held that under substituted section 147 as amended by Finance Act 1999, existence of only the condition that if AO for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction in reopening the assessment.
6 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/0911. In the case before us, we are of the considered view that action of AO to initiate reassessment proceeding is in accordance with law. Hence, we uphold his action to initiate reassessment proceedings by rejecting ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal taken by assessee.
12. In ground Nos. 3 to 5 of appeal, assessee has disputed order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming action of AO to tax rental income under the head "Income from house property".
13. The relevant facts are that assessee while filing the return of income disclosed the rental income under the head "Income from house property". However, during the course of assessment proceedings, AO stated to assess the said income under the head "Income from business" and claimed deduction of various expenses. The AO, after considering the fact that assessee is not carrying on any business activity and is only receiving the rental income from tenants of 4 buildings of which the assessee is the owner, held that total income of assessee is to be computed under the head "Income from house property".
14. The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the action of AO. It is relevant to state that Ld. CIT(A) has also observed that assessee has wrongly claimed various expenses as business expenditure like electricity, telephone postage, conveyance expenses, printing and stationery, audit fees, filing fees and travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 1,12,096/-. Ld. CIT(A) has stated that all these expenses are not allowable against the 'Income of House Property and provisions of lift, cleaning of building and employment of watchman cannot be presumed to be related with any sort of business of letting out property. Ld. CIT(A) has stated that in fact, it is a willful wrong claim of assessee. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of AO to assess the rental income under the head "Income from House Property'.
15. During the course of hearing of appeal, Ld. AR conceded that rental income derived by assessee from letting out of 4 buildings, details mentioned 7 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 herein above at para-4 is to be assessed under the head 'Income from house property" and referred the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Vs CIT 263 ITR 143. In view of above submission of Ld. AR, grounds Nos. 3 to 5 of appeal are rejected.
16. In grounds Nos. 6 to 8 of appeal assessee has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing deduction on account of repairs cess amounting to Rs. 4,72,834/-.
17. The AO has stated that assessee claimed deduction of repairs cess u/s. 24(1)(vii) on the ground that said expenses was incurred being repair- cess levied by Municipal Corporation, Mumbai. However, AO did not accept the claim of assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority.
18. On behalf of assessee, it was contended that the cess was paid as tax levied by the local authority and as such it is allowable as per proviso to Sec. 23(1). It was also contended that the representatives of assessee by mistake gave a wrong clause or section for claiming the said cess and that should not mean disentitle assessee to claim deduction. The assessee also filed copies of bills of Municipal Corporation. However, Ld. CIT(A) vide para-9 of the impugned order rejected the claim of assessee which reads as under:
"I have considered the rival submission finding of AO and have also perused the paper book and evidences. Appellant has shown deduction in computation of income from Income from House property to the extent of Rs. 4,67,389/- in page No. 2 of Paper Book submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, whereas in Schedule 8 of P&L A/c filed by appellant on page No. 12 of paper book reveals the property repair cess of Rs. 4,72,834/-, which reflects the discrepancy. The paper book submitted in appeal reveals the computation showing income from House property of Rs. 4,59,459/- and loss of Profit & gains of Rs. 1,37,627/-. Thereafter, loss from House property income carried forward has been reduced to the extent of gross total income i.e. Rs. 3,21,832/-, thus taxable income is shown at Rs. NIL. AO has not allowed this property repair cess against the claim of the appellant u/s. 24(1)(vii) but in appeal it is claimed 8 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 that this is allowable u/s. 23(1) of I.T. Act. This clause (vii) of section 24(1) provides deduction of "any sums paid on account of land revenue or any other tax levied by the State Government in respect of the Property'. Hence, the provision of law under reference was with reference to land revenue and any other tax which did not cover any such repair cess hence the claim of the appellant in computation of income was apparently not allowable. Now, in appeal provision of law u/s. 23 has been referred to as changed and alternative arguments which is also of no avail because of the reason that earlier provision of laws u/s. 23 was substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002 which means the Annula Value was to be determined u/s. 23 in F.Y. 2002-03 relevant to A.Y. 2003-04, whereas this disallowance has been made in F.Y./P.Y. 2001-02 relevant to A.Y. 2002-03 in which no such law was in enactment. Therefore the arguments of Ld. AR are not tenable. Furthermore, all this repairs-cess bills contains name of other parties and not of the appellant, hence considering the full facts and provision of law under issue disallowance of repair-cess made by AO is confirmed."
Hence, assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.
19. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that copies of bills of payment of repair cess paid to Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai are placed at pages 45 to 53 of Paper Book. He submitted that said payment was paid to Board who was assigned the activity to collect repairs under Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board Act, 1976. He submitted that it is a statutory duty and the same should be allowed as deduction as per proviso to Sec. 23(1) of the Act. However, Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).
20. We have carefully considered orders of authorities below and submissions of Ld. Representatives of parties. We have also perused pages 45 to 53 of paper book to which our attention was drawn at the time of hearing that assessee paid repair cess to Municipal Corporation which is allowable as per proviso to Sec. 23 of the Act. However, Ld. AR could not establish the fact as recorded by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order that all the repair cess bills contains name of other parties and not of the assessee. Therefore, considering the full facts as observed by Ld. CIT(A), we hold that assessee is not entitled to get deduction on repair cess allegedly paid by assessee as the 9 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 said bills were not raised in the name of assessee but are in the name of other parties. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground Nos. 6 to 8 are rejected.
21. Ground Nos. 9 to 11 of appeal, assessee has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of expenses aggregating Rs. 5,52,152/- claimed by assessee for rendering services to the tenants.
22. The assessee claimed Rs. 5,52,152/- under the following heads as expenses and claimed its deduction from rental income:
1. Service charges Rs. 2,40,260/-
2. Electricity charges Rs. 95,846/-
3. Staff Welfare Rs. 60,587/-
4. General expenses Rs. 37,703/-
5. Repairs & Maintenance Rs. 1,17,755/-
------------------
Total Rs. 5,52,151/-
==========
23. The AO stated that the above expenses are not allowable as deduction u/s. 23, 24 or any other provisions of I.T. Act when the rental income is assessed under the head Income from House Property. The AO did not accept the contention of assessee that rent received by assessee is the composite rent from tenants and it includes ancillary services. The services given by assessee to tenants for security, liftman, lift maintenance, electricity for operating lift and for common passage and staircase, sweeper for cleaning building, common passage, toilets etc and therefore the service charges should be deducted out of composite rent received from tenant. The AO has stated that on verification of rent receipt issued by assessee company to its tenants, it is seen that assessee company has not charged any extra amounts from tenants for any of services rendered by it. He has stated that only expenses which are allowed to be deducted from house property income are governed by Sec. 23 and 24 of I.T. Act. He has further 10 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 stated that the buildings situated are governed by Rent Control Act and assessee company cannot charge rent in excess of Standard Rent as governed by Rent Control Act. Therefore, AO added back the said amount of Rs. 5,52,152/- to the total income of assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority.
24. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of AO vide para-15 of impugned order which reads as under:-
"I have considered this issue carefully and perused the written submission. In this case it is found beyond doubt that appellant has owned four buildings and has given to 546 tenants, which income is Income from House Property as there is no series of activities like business activities. As appears from the records that appellant company has acquired land and built house and let it out to the tenants, hence appellant derives income from House property vide Commercial properties Ltd. AIR 1928 (Cal) 456, Balliganga Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 409 (Cal) and Indian Citi Property Ltd. Vs CIT (1965) 55 ITR 262 (Cal.). Similarly, in such set of facts case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) is also relevant. Appellant has not explained as to how rental income is a composite rent comprising of charges for various services, which is not incidental to letting out the House Property. In fact, no such independent and additional services are provided which has got additional element of charges or income, on the contrary it is a very obvious fact that appellant receives rents from the tenants which does not reveal any evidence of additional charges of services so claimed. With a view to make this point clear it seems necessary to point out that an amount of Rs. 5,52,151/- comprises of service charges of Rs.
240260/-, electricity charges of Rs. 95846/-, staff welfare of Rs. 60587/-, general expenses of Rs. 37,703/- and Repairs & maintenance of Rs. 1,17,755/-. This clearly reveals that such expenses are related with the maintenance of building for which rental income is received. The provision of law of Sec. 29(6) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 referred to by Ld. AR goes against the appellant's claim as according to this law appellant either himself or through any person acting on his behalf shall not without just and sufficient cause cut-off or withhold any essential supply or services enjoyed by the tenants in respect of the premises let to them. In fact, this law prohibits appellant from disrupting any such service or essential supplies related to the functional part of the building. Therefore, reliance placed by 11 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 Ld. AR on this law is untenable. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT are not relevant to the facts of the case because of the reason that appellant does not provide any other additional services which requires additional charges of the rent and moreover, appellant is not engaged in doing such letting out business which is related with commercial complex, super markets or business centers where an element of service is predominant and rental income is of composite nature. Appellant has also not shown splitting up of rental income which means there is no composite rent but an exclusive rental income from the House property is there, therefore there is no property to claim such expenditure in addition to the standard deductions claimed and allowed by the AO."
Hence, assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.
25. Ld. AR, at the time of hearing made his submissions on the lines of submissions made before authorities below. He further submitted that as per Sec. 29 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, assessee has to provide facilities like lift facility, watchman and to provide electricity in the common passage and therefore these expenses are to be allowed as deduction for services rendered. However, Ld. AR also referred the case of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT 2011-TIOL-525-ITAT-Mum for claiming expenses of the services provided and decision in the case of Universal Textile Water Proof Co.(India) Vs ACIT 20 SOT 275. However, Ld. DR in his submission supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that no independent and additional services have been provided by assessee and whatever the services are provided are the necessary services provided and for which 30% deduction has already been given as per Sec. 24 of I.T. Act. He further submitted that the decision of Mumbai Bench ITAT in the case of Universal Textile Water Proof Co.(India) Vs ACIT (supra) relied upon by assessee is not applicable as in that case there were business service centre in premises and assessee provided infrastructure facilities. He further submitted that in the said case, rental income was segregated into rent and service charges as assessee provided infrastructure facilities as business was conducted by the tenants in the premises let out by assessee unlike in the case of assessee herein.
12 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/0926. We have carefully considered the orders of authorities below and submissions of Ld. Representatives of both parties. We have also gone through cases cited by Ld. AR (supra). We observe that assessee has provided facilities of electricity, lift, security etc. which is essential in a multistory building when the premises are let out to various tenants. It is not the service provided by assessee which is an additional service to tenants. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gupta (H.G.) & Sons 149 ITR 253 that when rental income is assessed under the head income from house property, deduction to be allowed are specified in Sec. 24 of the Act and they are exhaustive. Therefore, no further expenses could be claimed as taken save and except the expenses specified in section 23 or 24 of I.T. Act. In respect of case relied upon by Ld. AR of Universal Textile Water Proof Co.(India) Vs ACIT (supra), we agree with Ld. DR that the facts of that case to segregate rental income received by assessee into service charges and rent are not similar to the facts of the case before us. In that case, assessee company had an office premise which was given on rent to its sister concerns. It was found that assessee provided infrastructure facilities like electronic instrument and gadgets, air conditioners, Epbx system, telephone instruments, telefax etc. Further, it was also mentioned in the lease agreement that premises had been provided alongwith all infrastructure facilities to its sister concerns. However, in the case before us, there is no such agreement specifying that assessee has provided any other facilities to the tenants and the composite rent, as alleged by assessee, was received by it. It was also observed in the above case that assessee carried out its activity in an organized manner unlike in the case before us. Hence, said case of ITAT Mumbai Bench of Universal Textile Water Proof Co.(India) Vs ACIT (supra) does not apply to the facts of the case before us.
27. Further, the case of Shri Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT 2011-TIOL-525-ITAT- Mum(supra) relied upon by Ld. AR is also not applicable to the facts of the 13 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 case, as in that case it was found that the house was used also for business purposes and assessee himself disallowed 25% of electricity expenses as against 50% allowed by AO. In the case before us, there is no such contention of assessee that premises under consideration are used by assessee for its business purposes. On the other hand there is a categorical finding that assessee company is not carrying out any business activity and it derives only rental income from tenants. In view of above facts, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground Nos. 9 to 11 of appeal of assessee.
28. In ground Nos. 12 and 13, assessee has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO not to allow set off of brought forward losses against current year's income.
29. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of assessee and have considered orders of authorities below. We observe that AO has stated that assessee company did not carry out any business activity. Hence, loss computed by assessee under the head business or profession is not accepted.
30. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has stated that assessee has shown income from house property only and does not have any business activity. We consider it prudent to refer para-18 of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is as under:
"I have considered the rival submission carefully, and found that AO has rightly assessed the income from House property, therefore, there is no point for setting-off of business losses of A.Y. 1991-92 of Rs. 27,136/-, 1995-96 Rs. 1,02,419/-, 2000-01 Rs. 58,283/-, A.Y. 2001-02 Rs. 99,257/- and loss from House property income Rs. 54,957/-. It appears that loss from House property of A.Y. 2001-02 is not the actual loss but it is because of claim of various charges of services claimed as rendered which in fact is not the additional charges having consequential additional rental income, but, as held above is an incidental services related with maintenance of House property for which standard deduction is duly provided under the I.T. Act. Therefore the arguments of the Ld. AR are not convincing one. When income under reference has been assessed and is approved in appeal, after considering the full facts and 14 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/09 circumstances of the case, it is held that AO is right not to setting-off of brought forward non allowable loss in this year."
31. In the absence of any further facts before us, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence we uphold his order not to allow set off of brought forward loss against rental income of assessee. Therefore ground Nos. 12 and 13 also rejected.
32. In Ground Nos. 14 & 15 assessee has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding levy of interest u/s. 234A of I.T. Act.
33. We observe that no interest u/s. 234A has been levied by AO. Further, charging of interest is consequential. Hence, ground Nos. 14 & 15 do not require any adjudication.
34. In ground Nos. 16 & 17, assessee has disputed levy of interest u/s. 234B. Since levy of interest u/s. 234B is consequential, it does not require any specific adjudication.
35. Ground No. 18 is general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication.
36. ITA No. 5291/M/09 for assessment year 2003-04, the grounds are identical as in the case of appeal for assessment year 2002-03 being ITA No. 5290/M/09 except amount of repairs cess and service charges are of Rs. 5,47,475/- and Rs. 4,09,677/- respectively.
37. At the time of hearing, Ld. Representative of both parties submitted that whatever decision is taken for assessment year 2002-03 will apply to appeal for assessment year 2003-04. Since we have rejected all the grounds of appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and following the reason mentioned hereinabove, grounds of appeal taken by assessee for assessment year 2003- 04 are rejected.
15 ITA Nos. 5290 to 5292/M/0938. In respect of appeal for assessment year 2004-05 being ITA No. 5292/M/09, we observe that this appeal is arising out of regular assessment and therefore the issue of reopening of assessment is not under consideration. However, rest of the grounds are identical save and except that amount of repairs cess is of Rs. 7,56,252/- and service charges is of Rs. 4,06,952/-. Following the reasons mentioned hereinabove for assessment year 2002-03, grounds of appeal taken for assessment year 2004-05 are also rejected.
39. In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 28th March, 2012
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.R.SOOD) (B.R. MITTAL )
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mumbai, Dated 28th March, 2012
Rj
Copy to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT-concerned
4. The CIT(A)-concerned
5. The DR 'D' Bench
True Copy
By Order
Asstt. Registrar, I.T.A.T, Mumbai