I.T.AS. NOS.1143/LB TO 1145/LB, 2610/LB AND 4060/1,13 OF 1986-87 VS I.T.AS. NOS.1143/LB TO 1145/LB, 2610/LB AND 4060/1,13 OF 1986-87
1997 P T D (Trib.) 1454
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Judicial Member
and Inam Elahi Shaikh, Accountant Member
I.T.As. Nos.1143/LB to 1145/LB, 2610/LB and 4060/LB of 1986-87, decided on /01/.
th
January, 1997. (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.23---Deduction---Capital expenditure---Revenue expenditure-- Determination--- Borrowed capital ---Interest on borrowed capital utilized in acquiring capital asset is a capital expenditure in the pre-production period and will be revenue expenditure after the commencement of the business.
(b) Income-tax---
----Deduction---Interest on borrowed capital---Revenue expenditure---Capital expenditure--- Essentials--- Expression "commencement of business" has a wider connotation and has to be considered with reference to the totality of a business of an assessee and not with reference to a particular asset of the assessee---If an assessee has not started the business at all and is in the process of constructing, building, erecting or installing any plant, machinery etc., the interest paid on borrowed capital during this period shall be treated as capital expenditure---Once an assessee has started the business and thereafter any new unit, project or expansion is undertaken it will be deemed to be extension of the business which has already commenced and not starting of a new business and as such interest paid on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring of such new assets shall be deemed to be revenue expenditure---Decisive factor is the unity of control of the business, unity of management and unity of organization and not the erection and production of each and every unit, plant or machinery separately and independently.
Challa Pali Sugars Ltd.'s case (1975) 98 ITR 167; C.I.T. v. Alambic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715; C.I.T. v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 623; Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1970) 77 ITR 739; C.I.T. v. Shah Theatres Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 499; Kanhiram Ramgopal v. C.I.T. (1988) 170 ITR 41 and Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1975) 98 ITR 20 ref.
(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.23(l)(vii)---Deduction---Interest on borrowed capital ---Assessee carrying on one composite business---Interest on borrowed capital paid by such an assessee qualifies for straight deduction as revenue expenditure and will be allowed as such.
(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.23(1)(v)---Depreciation---Equipment used for extension of business--Depreciation has to be allowed on such expenditure and amount so spent was not to be capitalized.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, L.A., Qadrul Jalil, D.R. and Amjad Ali, D.R. for Appellant.
Khalifa Salahuddin for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st November, 1990.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---In all the above appeals at the instance of Department the following common objections have been raised:
(1) That the learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing that the interest capitalized by the ITO should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
(2) That the learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing that depreciation on equipment used for extension purchase should be allowed and should not be capitalized as done by the ITO.
2, Heard M/s. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, Qadrul Jalil, IAC and Amjad Ali, IAC for the Department/Appellant and Mr: Khalifa Salahuddin, Advocate for the respondent. Our findings on the above grounds are as under:
FINDINGS
Ground No. l ,
3. Since the facts and circumstances in all the appeals are common and the I.T.O., has dealt with the issue extensively in the assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82, therefore, the relevant finding of the I.T.O., from the assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 is reproduced below for the sake of convenience, which shall serve as common facts for all the assessment years under consideration:
"The assessee has claimed interest and other financial charges amounting to Rs.9,58,94,000. This expenditure includes interest on borrowed capital for new projects also. A note has been incorporated in the accounts at No.21, which says ' it is the policy of the company not to capitalise any part of the interest and other financial charge on borrowings for financing the fixed expenditure and the entire amount thereof is charged against the year's income.' This treatment of the assessee is based on the arguments which he advanced in connection with his re-assessment proceedings for 1980-81. His arguments were as follows:---
'The interest on loans has been claimed under the provisions of clause (vii) of subsection (1) of section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. This clause makes no distinction between capital borrowed for purposes of capital expenditure or for revenue expenditure. It is however essential that the capital borrowed must be for the purposes of the business of the assessee. There is sufficient case-law to support this statement and we shall be pleased to produce this before you, if required. We submit that all the loans obtained by the company were for the purposes of its business, as stated in the objects clause of the company's Memorandum of Association, and, therefore, all interest paid is allowable under aforementioned clause (vii). In the circumstances we do not understand how the treatment of interest expense incurred by the company is illegal'."
These arguments advanced by the assessee are based on the following case-law which was pleaded in connection with re-assessment proceedings on 1980-81. The case-law relied upon is as follows:---
(i) Calco Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265.
(ii) Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 186.
(iii) CIT v. Alembic Glass Industrial Limited (1976) 103 ITR 715.
The abovementioned case-law has been examined but the treatment of the assessee has been found not in accordance with law because the matter is not so simple and have been more authoritative cases which came before the Supreme Court of India and other Courts which laid down the principles more authoritatively.
The real question is what constitutes capital expenditure? Capital expenditure is an expense which creates an asset of lasting nature. The cost of such an asset not only includes the direct cost of such asset but also all expenditure which is incurred in the creation of such asset. In the case of installation of any plant and machinery, capital expenditure would include the cost of machinery, import duties and taxes, clearance charges, carriage inward, cost of installation, cost of trial production etc., etc. In short all expenses which are incurred in the installation and during the reproduction period are includible in the cost of the asset although by their own nature these expenses are of revenue nature. Same is the nature of interest payable on any moneys borrowed for the purposes of acquisition and installation of such asset. It is also includible in the cost of the asset. This is the treatment which is based not only on the accepted principles of accountancy but also almost all the judicial pronouncements on the subject. Even the assessee in the instant case has followed the said treatment in respect of all expenses attributable to the installation of new pipelines. The assessee has capitalized not only the direct cost of the material consumed but all other expenses which by their nature are of revenue nature. The company has allocated a percentage of the overheads to the cost of the pipeline. The only exception is the amount of interest payable on the loans which have been specifically secured for the purposes of acquisition and installation of the new pipeline and depreciation on machinery utilized in the installation of pipeline.
The principle of capitalization of interest payable on moneys borrowed for the purposes of installation of machinery has been approved by the Supreme Court of India in Challapali Sugars Ltd. (1975) 98 1TR 167 (SC). In the said case, the assessee had paid interest on loans obtained for installation of machinery during the accounting year in which the factory was still under installation and had capitalized the amount of interest and claimed depreciation thereon. The Department did not allow depreciation on the ground that it was not a part of the cost of machinery. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court which considered the principles of accountancy and held that the cost of fixed assets should include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into being and put them in working condition and thus, in case money is borrowed for the acquisition of such assets which are in the process of being installed, the interest incurred before the commencement of production on such borrowed funds should be capitalized and, added to the cost of assets.
The assessee's counsel tried to distinguish his case by arguing that in the said case the assessee-company was installing a new sugar factory alongwith and was not already engaged in the production of sugar whereas the assessee was already distributing gas and the new machinery was only expansion of the existing machinery: This argument gives rise to an amusing principle that an expenditure which is part of the cost of assets turns into a revenue expense if the expenditure is incurred in the expansion on the existing machinery generations income. This argument cannot be accepted. What constitutes a part of capital asset remains a capital expenditure irrespective of the fact whether the said capital asset is altogether a new unit or an expansion of an existing unit.
In view of the foregoing discussion, out of the total claim of Rs.22,58,94,000 it remains to be determined as to how much was attributable to capital expenditure. Information in connection with re-assessment proceedings for 1980-81 were called for and the assessee gave figure for the preceding years alongwith' a note dated 18-5-1982 which gives a list of steps taken for working out interest. No doubt, a great deal of effort has been made to work out details of interest to be capitalized. Explanation of the assessee fails to have any recognized principle as to a basis for working out the interest. Since in matters of computation of income some recognized or readily understandable principle of accounting has to be employed, therefore, despite labour put in by the assessee, it is not possible to accept the method adapted by him For instance, from the method adopted by the assessee it is not possible to find out as to how the assessee has dealt with the period during which project was not under active implementation but goods were lying in the form of store at site. Therefore, a more readily understandable method of computation would be taken, i.e., average of the work-in-progress during the period multiplied` by the bank rate. Bank rate has been adopted as a mean figure because most of the loans were given to the assessee a few percentage points above the bank rate while certain old loans were given at a slightly lower rate of interest. This method of computation will yield the method attributable to interest to be capitalized as worked out below:--
| Opening work-in-progress | 11,1649(th) |
| Closing work-in-progress | 17,83,73" |
| Total: | 28,00,22" |
| Average work-in-progress. | 14,00,11,000 |
| Disallowed interest to that extent @ 10% | Rs.1,40,00,100 |
4. The learned CIT (A) has dilated on this issue in details in his order, dated 31-5-1986 while deciding the appeals pertaining to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1980-81 and in subsequent years has placed reliance on this order in all the subsequent years and, therefore, for the sake of convenience the relevant portion from the order of learned CIT(A) dated 31-5-1986 is reproduced below:
"Next objection common to all the years under appeal is directed against the capitalization of interest on loans utilized for new projects. The assessee had claimed this interest as expenditure alongwith other expenses of transmission and distribution business. It is contended by the appellant's counsel that the money was borrowed for purpose of business, there being one composite business carried on by the company and that construction of service lines so as to supply gas to more consumers was a mere extension of existing business and not a separate and entirely new undertaking unconnected with the existing business. Case-law has been cited to show that business connotes a continuous course of activities, all of which go to make up the business. It is argued that laying of new pipelines was a part of the same business earlier carried on by the company. As otherwise every foot of pipeline constructed and laid by the company would constitute a separate business, which on the face of it was a ridiculous proposition. It is thus pleaded that the interest paid on the money borrowed whether for the business already generating income or for the extension of the same business is an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the repealed Act/section 23(l)(vii) of the Ordinance. The learned counsel adds that in his action of refusing to treat the interest claimed as expenses the ITO had relied on the case of Challapali Sugar Ltd, (1975) 98 ITR 167;, but that the said case supported assessee's claim. It is pointed out that in this case the ITO had rejected the assessee's claim for capitalization holding that interest paid from year to year was an admissible item of revenue expenditure and thus neither at the assessment stage nor at subsequent stage the expenditure was treated as of capital nature. It is added that the issue was finally decided by the Indian High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries reported as (1978) 103 ITR 715 wherein the ratio decided of the Supreme Court in the case of Challapali Sugar Ltd. was explained as under:
"Where the borrowing is for the purpose of a business, the interest paid on such a borrowing becomes eligible for deduction contemplated by section 10(2)(iii) of the Act of 1922 or section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, 1961;
(2) This would be so, whether the capital is invested in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because the act of borrowing capital is distinct from the act of investment of the capital to acquire an asset;
(3) However the business for which an asset of enduring nature is purchased with the borrowed capital should not be separate or distinct from the business for the purpose of which the capital is borrowed; if deduction under section 10(2)(iii) is to be allowed and (4) if there is no existing business with reference to which the capital is borrowed and the borrowed capital is invested to purchase a new asset of enduring nature than the interest paid on such borrowing with asset so purchased goes into production, increases the cost of installation of the said asset, and hence should be treated as "capital expenditure" not covered by section 10(2)(iii) of 1922 Act or section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act."
The legal position is quite clear. Interest on capital borrowed and utilised in acquiring capital asset is a capital expenditure in the pre -production period and will be revenue expenditure after the assets are commissioned for business. In order to decide the issue in the appellant's case reference has to be made to the nature of assessee's business activities and the objects for which the company was established and the relevant extracts from the Memorandum of Association of the Company are reproduced below:
(1) To acquire and take over the existing natural gas pipeline running from Sui to Multan owned by the Government of Pakistan and presently operated on their behalf by the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, together with all distribution, supply and mains and other distribution facilities already installed, or in the process of installation and the natural gas pipelines running from Dhalian to Wah and Rawalpindi owned by the Attock Oil Co. Limited and to extend the said pipelines with such branch and distribution facilities as may be decided upon by the company from time to time.
(2) To carry on all or any of the business of storing, transporting, transmitting, distributing, supplying and exporting natural gas for" lighting, heating, motive power, generation of electricity, or any other purpose whatsoever.
(3) To manufacture, construct, equip, maintain, correct, lay, repair, alter and remove pressure control, mattering stations, gas works and works connected therewith, with all necessary machinery and apparatus, pipes, mains matters, conduits, service pipes, lamp posts, pillars, posts and other materials and apparatus for supplying gas for heating, lighting, motive power, industrial, commercial, domestic and any other purpose whatsoever.
From the above it is clear that the assessee is all the time distributing natural. gas through existing pipelines and at the same time laying out new pipelines and extending the distribution work. It is not possible to say where the distribution work ends and the laying out of the new pipelines begins. The time-lag between the construction of new pipelines and their commissioning for distribution of gas is also liable to vary. New pipelines may be commissioned during the same year or in the next year depending on the various factors. In my opinion, there is sufficient weight in appellant's assertion that it carries on one composite business and the assessing officer's finding that the company was engaged in two distinct types of work. i.e., one relating to supply and distribution of gas and the other to construction of pipelines for own use as well as for use by others does not appear to be correct. At the same time there was the assessee's claim that the entire investment in the extension projects did not come out of borrowed funds and in addition to such funds the expenditure incurred on extension projects was out of company's own funds as well as those specifically contributed by the consumers towards the cost of service lines and mains so that it is not possible to estimate with a curacy the interest allocable to the extension projects. The Income Tax Officer determined the amount of interest to be capitalized by multiplying the average work in progress with bank rate, which was not a satisfactory method. Concerning the I.T.O.'s arguments that the assessee itself had capitalized other revenue expenses except interest, it is to be stated that an independent judgment has to be made whether the interest could be capitalized or not. In the circumstances of the case enumerated above I am of the view that the assessee-company was carrying on one composite business and as such interest on borrowed capital qualified for straight deduction as a revenue expenditure and will be allowed as such. The impugned assessments will be modified likewise".
5. The learned representatives for the parties have reiterated the same contentions before us as canvassed before the learned two officers below. It is interesting to note that both the parties are placing reliance on the ratio of judgment in the case of Challapali Sugars Ltd. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC of India)-. We will show presently that the facts of this case are not on all fours to the facts of present case. Both the learned representatives for that parties have agreed to the proposition that interest on borrowed capital utilized to acquiring capital asset is a capital expenditure in the pre-production period and will be revenue expenditure after the commencement of the business. The contention of the department is that one wing of the respondent's business is supply of gas and other is construction and expansion of pipelines. According to the learned counsel for the appellant every expansion of pipelines consisting of mains or service lines and every installation for further extension of supply of gas is a new business. Mr. Ilyas Khan has contended that before supply of gas the amount of interest paid on the borrowed capital for laying out new pipelines and extending the distribution work would amount to making expenditure on a new business and after the commissioning of new pipelines it will form part of the business. In short the plea on behalf of the department is that every expansion, installation, laying of new pipelines, mains and distribution as well as service lines amounts to starting a new business and as such the interest paid is to be treated as capital expenditure with reference to the point of time when the new pipelines are commissioned. On the other hand, the contention of assessee/respondent is that once the assessee has started its business of supplying gas then every expansion, installation, laying of new pipelines and all other investments would be deemed to be part of the same business and as such the interest paid on the borrowed capital shall be deemed to be revenue expenditure and shall be eligible for deduction contemplated under section 10(2)(iii) of the Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922 and section 23(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
6. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned representatives for the parties with particular reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that both the representatives for the parties agreed to the proposition that the interest on the borrowed capital before the commencement of business is to be treated as capital expenditure and after the commencement of business it is to be treated as revenue expenditure and an eligible deduction, the point which clinches the issue is whether the commencement of business is with reference to the assessee or a particular asset. The contention of the assessee is that the commencement of business is with reference to the assessee and, therefore, once an assessee has started the business and thereafter any expenditure of capital or revenue nature is made the interest on the borrowed capital is to be allowed as revenue expenditure without any distinction whether the investment is made in the same asset or in the installation or acquiring of some other asset for the purpose of the said business. On the contrary the departmental view is that the commencement of business is restricted to the particular assets held by an assessee for the purpose of specific business and if any other capital asset is acquired it will not be a part of the same and running business but it shall be treated as a separate and new business and, therefore, the interest on borrowed capital for acquiring such new capital assets shall be treated as capital expenditure before the commissioning and production of such new asset and the interest paid after the production and commissioning of new assets shall be treated as revenue expenditure. In support o; their contention the learned Representative for the parties have addressed very lengthy arguments and have produced various judgments from the Indian jurisdiction. A similar issue came for consideration before Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd (1976) 103 ITR 715. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the assure-company was manufacturing glass at Baroda from 1947. During the assessment years 1965 66 and 1966-67 the company incurred expenditure on establishing a new glass manufacturing unit at Bangalore. The said unit die not come into production during the two assessment years referred to above; and, therefore, during the course of assessments the ITO disallowed the payment of interest for these two assessment years on the borrowings. The ITO further held that the Bangalore unit was not a branch of the assessee's factory and was, therefore a new business; and since this new business ha not started the payment of interest could not be taken as revenue expenditure. On appeal, the A.A. C. held, that though unit established at Bangalore was a new one it did not become a new business undertaking and, therefore, the deductions claimed by the assessee ought to have been allowed. The appellate Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a reference it was held by he Gujarat High Court that the business organisation administration and fund of both the units of the assessee were common, There was one company which controlled the administration and supplied are staff to both the units and which managed the whole of the business organisation of both the units. The production of both the units was considered the production of the assessee-company itself. Thus there was complete inter-winection, inter lacing and inter-dependence of both the units which is the test laid down for determining whether two lines of business constitute the sarhebusiness by the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Co.- Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 623 and again approved by the Supreme court of India I in Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITO 739. In these circumstances the Tribunal was right and justified in ho144 that the new factory at Bangalore did not constitute a new business bot was only an establishment of new unit of the existing business at Baroda. As in the present case before us it was contended on behalf of the revenue that since during the relevant account years the unit at Bangalore dad not started production, the payment of interest on the borrowing which was utilized for the purpose of establishing that new unit should go towards the cost of new unit and, therefore, on the principle accepted by the Suprerhe Court of India in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) this interest should be treed as a capital expenditure and not as a revenue expenditure. It was held by the Honourable Judges of the Gujarat High Court that observations of the Supreme Court of India in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. was with reference to a situation where the production had not started and the business had not commenced at all. The learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shah Theatres Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 499, wherein it has been held that where borrowing is made for the purpose of business, interest paid on such borrowing becomes eligible for deduction and this would be so, whether the capital is invested in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because the act of borrowing capital is distinct from the cost of the investment in the capital to acquire an asset. However, if there is no existing business with reference to which the capital is borrowed and the borrowed capital is invested to purchase a new asset of enduring nature, then interest paid on such borrowing till the asset so purchased goes into production increased the cost of installation of the said assets and hence should be treated as capital expenditure. In this case also there was expansion of the existing business and, therefore, it was held that the ratio in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. was not attracted to a case of expansion of the existing business because in that case the assessee had borrowed money for the installation of machinery and plant for a newly started company which was in the process of constructing and erecting its plant and the interest so incurred before the commencement of the production on such borrowed money. The learned counsel for the respondent has lastly relied on the judgment of Kanhiram Ramgopal v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 41. In this case the assessee carried on the business of rice and Dal mill. He wanted to expand business by starting a factory to utilise the waste products of the rice and Dal mill for manufacturing straw-boards and for that purpose took a loan from a financial corporation. The ITO allowed deduction of the interest paid. The Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction held that the interest was not deductible as the straw-boards factory had not commenced production in the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal affirmed order of the Commissioner. On reference it was held by the Honourable Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court that the setting up of the straw-board factory was only an expansion of the existing business of the assessee and it was not a case of starting an altogether new business and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest paid as revenue expenditure. In arriving at the above conclusion reliance was placed on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 20. The facts of the Allahabad case were that the assessee-company were running a spinning and weaving mill and had set up a straw-board manufacturing factory and for that purpose took a loan from the financial corporation. The assessee claimed deduction of interest paid towards the loan on the same but the same was disallowed by the Tribunal holding that the straw-board factory was altogether a fresh undertaking with the help of surplus fund and also of borrowed funds and could not be identified with the existing business and the business for which capital was borrowed had not yet started production. It was held by the Allahabad High Court as follows:
"The memorandum of association of the assessee-company specifically stated as one of the objects of the company the manufacture of straw-board. The straw-board factory was set up by the assessee by utilising its existing surplus funds and by borrowing. The assessee controlled both the ventures of spinning and weaving mills as well as the straw-board factory. The management, trading organisation, administration, funds and the place of business were identical. It could not, hence, be said that the setting up of the straw-board factory was initiation of a different business by the assessee and on that ground the expenditure could not be disallowed. The decisive test was unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business."
7. The observations of Supreme Court of India in Challapalli case were considered by the Honourable Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was held that the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a new factory being set up and not expansion of the existing business and, therefore, it was not applicable to the case of an assessee which is already running a business and has made investment for expansion.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on various judgments from the Indian jurisdiction but all of them are relating to the newly started business and, therefore, we need not to discuss them in details. After a very careful consideration we respectfully agree with the findings of Gujarat High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the judgments cited above that the expression "commencement of business" has a wider connotation and has to be considered with reference to the totality of a business of an assessee and not with reference to a particular asset of an assessee. Thus, if an assessee has not started the business at all and is in the process of constructing, building, erecting or installing any plant, machinery etc., the interest paid on borrowed capital during this period shall be treated as capital expenditure. However, once an assessee has started the business and thereafter any new unit, project or expansion is undertaken it will be deemed to be extension of the business which has already commenced and not starting of a new business and as such interest paid on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring of such new assets shall be deemed to be revenue capital expenditure business. The decisive factor is the unity of control of the business, unity of management and unity of organisation and not the erection and production of each and every unit, plant or machinery separately and independently. Applying this test to the facts of the present case which has been elaborately discussed by the learned C.I.T.(A) we find that the learned C.I.T.(A) has rightly concluded that the assessee-company was carrying on one composite business and as such interest on borrowed capital qualified for straight ,deduction as revenue expenditure and will be allowed as such. The impugned finding of the learned C.I.T.(A) is not open to any exception and is hereby confirmed.
9. The learned representatives for the department have though assailed the finding of learned CIT(A) but they are not able to support the view taken by the ITO whereby the claim of depreciation was capitalized as the impugned finding of the learned CIT(A) is not open to any exception, therefore, the same is hereby maintained.
10. Consequent to above findings all the departmental appeals are held to be devoid of substance and stand dismissed accordingly.
M.B.A /352/Trib.Appeal dismissed.