EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeal by assessee are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (the ld. CIT(A) dated 02.01.2017 & 25.05.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. In both the appeal, the assessee has raised certain

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

common grounds of appeal, therefore, with the consent of parties, both

the appeals were clubbed, heard and are decided by a common order.

treated as lead case. The assessee in appeal for AY 2012-13 has raised the

following grounds of appeal:

All the below grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other;

I. NON GRANT OF DEDUCTION OF R & D EXPENDITURE OF RS. 39,50,218/- U/S 35(1)(i) :-

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

IV. APPLICABILITY OF THE YEAR OF WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM UIS 72A OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES (BUSINESS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION) ON NON FULFILMENT OF CONDITIONS LAID DOWN u/s 72A(2)(iii) RW RULE 9C:- 1. The Learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 72A are applicable in A Y 2012-13 when the conditions as laid down U/S 72A(2)(iii) r.w rule 9C are not fulfilled. 2. The Learned AO erred in disallowing the brought forward business losses & unabsorbed depreciation losses of Karnataka Malladi Biotics Ltd. (KMBL) in the earlier years instead of fourth year ie AY 2012-13 in the

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

year on non fulfillment of conditions as laid down u/s 72A(2)(iii) rw Rule 9C. 3. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that; a) As per provisions of section 72A rw Rule 9C disallowances of set-off of brought forward losses claimed cannot be made before the end of 4 years i.e A Y 2012-13 from the end of year of amalgamation i.e A Y 2008-09. b) The disallowance u/s 72A rw Rule 9C can be applied only if conditions not fulfilled which is 4th year i.e AY 2012-13 & not earlier years. 4. The brought forward losses which were set off in the earlier years i.e from A Y 2009- 10 to A Y 2011-12, ought to have been disallowed in the forth year i.e A Y 2012-13 & not earlier. 5. The disallowance of set-off of brought forward losses u/s 72A of KMBL requires to be made only in the fourth year i.e AY 2012-13 and not in earlier years. 6. Without prejudice to above, direction be given that the withdrawal of set off of brought forward business losses & unabsorbed depreciation losses of KMBL in earlier years be cancelled and directed to be withdrawn in A Y 2012-13. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the

business of manufacturing and trading of Bulk Drugs, filed its return of

income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total

income at Rs. 6,74,36,365/-. The return of income was selected for

scrutiny. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order noted

that the assessee has claimed business losses of Rs. 5.15 Crore. The

Assessing Officer on verification of records for A.Y. 2010-11 noted that

the entire brought forward loss was available to the assessee for set off

against income of subsequent year have been disallowed in the wake of

provision of section 72A of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued show-

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

cause notice as to why set off of loss be not disallowed. The assessee

furnished its reply. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing

Officer. The Assessing Officer concluded that assessee did not complied

the conditions of Rule 9C of I.T. Rules, 1962 to achieve the level of

production of 50% of install capacity from the date of amalgamation of

Karnataka Malladi Biotics Ltd. (KMBL). The AO also took the view that

the assessee failed to achieve the production of 50% of the installed

capacity till the end of five years from the date of amalgamation. The

application of assessee for relaxing the condition before CBDT has been

rejected vide order dated 02.01.2015. 5. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee has claimed deduction

of Research & Development expenditure to Rs. 39,50,218/- under section

35(1)(i). The claim of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer

holding that as per report no. 3CL, the competent authority did not allow

the revenue expenditure of Rs. 39,50,218/- as expenditure not incurred

for the purpose of R & D Expenditure. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A)

the action of Assessing Officer was confirmed on both the disallowance.

Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has

filed the present appeal before us. 6. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of

the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue

and perused the material available on record. Ground No. I & II relates to 5

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

disallowance of R & D Expenditure under section 35(1)(i). The ld. AR of

the assessee submits that assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Bulk

Drugs namely ephedrine, Hydrochloride and Pseudo Ephedrine

Hydrochloride. The assessee has established separate in-house Research

Development Centre in the year 2003. The Research Centre is recognized

by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science

and Technology vide certificate dated 05.09.2003. The Certificate of

Industrial Research was renewed from time to time and was valid up to

31.03.2015. The assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) of

Rs. 7,26,39,362/- based on actual expenses incurred. The assessee

furnished the details to the lower authority. The assessee also made

application in the prescribed form to Department of Industrial and

Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR)/ competent authority for

approval of its claim. The competent authority reduced the claim of

assessee to Rs. 6,86,89,144/- thereby made a reduction in the claim of

assessee to Rs. 39,50,216/- . On receipt of report of DSIR under Form

3CL dated 18.12.2014, the assessee revised its claim of deduction to Rs.

6,86,89,144/-. The assessee withdrew the excess claim of Rs. 39,50,218/-.

The Assessing Officer disallowed 200% of Rs. 39,50,218/- i.e. Rs.

79,00,436/-. The approval of DSIR is only in respect of weighted

deduction to be claimed under section 35(2AB). The report of DSIR has

no relevance for determining whether expenditure claimed as allowable 6

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

or not under any other provisions of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee

submits that he expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for

Scientific and Industrial Research during the course of business of

assessee. The lower authority has not brought any material on record that

assessee has not incurred the expenses against the salary and wages of the

employee, power, raw-material etc. in revenue expenditure on research

and development activities. 7. In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case

unapproved revenue expenditure of Rs. 39,50,218/- is not allowable

under section 35(2AB) in absence of approval from DSIR, the assessee is

entitled for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act as expenditure was

incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. In support of

his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of (i)

Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 ITR 94 (Madras HC) (ii) CIT

vs. Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 717 (AP HC) (ii) ACIT

vs. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. 141 TTJ 662 (Del. ITAT) & (iv) JCIT vs. ITC

112 ITD 57 (Hyd ITAT). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of

lower authorities. The ld. DR further submits that the claim of assessee

was not approved by competent authority; thereby the Assessing Officer

disallowed 200% of excess claim made by assessee.

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed

the deduction of R & D Expenditure holding that the expenditure has not

been approved by competent authority and was not allowable under

section 35(2AB). The Assessing Officer also not allowed the expenditure

by taking view that it has not been approved by competent authority as

genuine. Therefore, normal business expenditure was also rejected by

Assessing Officer (under section 37). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the

action of Assessing Officer with similar observation that the amount of

Rs. 39,50,218/- was not approved by DSIR holding the same as non-

genuine expenditure. Alternative submission of assessee was also rejected

holding that the expenditure which is not genuine under one section

cannot automatically become genuine expenditure under in another

section.

(supra) held that the benefit of section 35(1)(iv) can be availed by the

assessee in respect of expenditure of a capital nature on scientific

research if that research is related to the business carried on by the

assessee. The approval of the authority prescribed under section 35(2B) is

not an essential pre-requisite for claiming the allowance under section

35(1)(iv) if it is found that a part of the claim falls within the ambit of

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

section 35(1)(iv). The mere fact of a claim not having been found

admissible under section 35(2B) will not constitute a bar to allow an

expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) if that expenditure is capital

expenditure and falls squarely within the ambit of section 35(1)(iv).

Capital expenditure incurred on the acquisition of land or construction of

building which is excluded by the very terms of section 35(2B) can be

claimed under section 35(1)(iv).

Vs ACIT (supra) held that where a part of expenditure incurred by

assessee toward unapproved R&D facilities was not entitled for deduction

under section 35(2B), that itself could not be a reason to disallow the

same under section 35(1)(iv). Further, the coordinate bench of Mumbai

Tribunal in DCIT Vs Reliance Life Science (P) Ltd (supra), almost on

identical fact passed the following order :

“ 5.5 We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities and material placed before us for our consideration. Since, main claim of assessee with respect to deduction u/s. 35(2AB) was not seriously pressed before us, therefore, same is dismissed. With respect to alternate claim made by the assessee u/s. 37(1) of the Act, it is noted that the invoice of M/s. Reliance Clinical Research Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 31.03.2007 is enclosed at page no. 3 of the paper book, showing that payment has been made to the said company under the head "Clinical Trial Fees" - for the month of March, 2007 for time spent on 1st March to 31st March, 2007 for conducting clinical trials, in support of to all 'K projects', for a sum of Rs. 57,65,564/-. It is further noted that on the back side of the invoice, complete details have been given with respect to time spent by 22 employees of RCRS, also giving particulars of the studies done by these employees. Names of these employees have been given along with their rates per hour. It is further noted that ld. Assessing 9

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

Officer has shown no doubts about the genuineness of these expenses. It was held by Ld. CIT (A) that since claim of assessee with respect to deduction u/s. 35(2AB) has been denied, therefore, these expenses are capital in nature. It was further observed by ld. CIT (A) that Assessing Officer, as well as assessee, have treated these expenses as capital in nature. In our view, the observations of Ld. CIT (A) are misplaced and without any basis. We have gone through details of these expenses. In our considered view, these expenses are apparently revenue in nature. Ld DR also could not point out as to which expenses are capital in nature. Thus, in our view, these expenses are of revenue nature. 5.6 The other argument of Ld DR was that assessee did not claim these expenses u/s. 37 and did not treat them as revenue in nature, and therefore assessee should be precluded from claiming benefit of these expenses, now at this stage, irrespective of this fact that these expenses may have been held as allowable, if the assessee would have made its claim correctly as per law, at the time of filing of return. We have carefully considered this argument, but find that it is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of well settled position of law. In our view, there are no estoppels against law. Even if, assessee agrees or consents for something contrary to law, the A.O. is obliged under the law, to discharge his duty of making fair assessment of income and to compute amount of tax payable as per law. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, "No tax can be collected except by authority of law". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, held that the state authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful right, which is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The state authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. Further, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 Relevant portion is reproduced below: "It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. Quite apart from it, it was incumbent on the income-tax department to find out whether a particular income was assessable in the particular year or not. Merely because the assessee wrongly included the income in its return for a particular year, it could not confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year. Therefore the income from dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59, but it was 10

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It could not, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59." Further reliance is placed by us on another judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of, S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165/146 Taxman 335 in which relief was granted to assessee with following observations: "The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected." In the case of Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156, Hon'ble J&K High Court held that "when the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can be levied or recovered without authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India and section 114 of the State (J&K) Constitution imposes an embargo on imposition and collection of tax if the same is without authority of law." Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, coupled with facts and circumstances of this case and clear position of law, as discussed above, in our opinion there was no reason to deny the claim assessee u/s. 37 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow these expenses u/s. 37 of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 12. Therefore, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in

Tube Investment of India (P) Ltd (supra) and Chennai Tribunal in Apex

Laboratory (P) Ltd (supra) that if a claim not having been found

admissible under section 35(2B) will not constitute a bar to allow an

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) if that expenditure is capital

expenditure and falls squarely within ambit of section 35(1)(iv). 13. We are also in agreement with the alternative submissions of the ld. AR

for the assessee that the report of DSIR has no relevance for determining

whether expenditure claimed as allowable or not under any other

provisions of the Act. The assessee incurred the expenditure wholly and

exclusively for Scientific and Industrial Research during the course of

business of assessee. The lower authority has not brought any material on

record that assessee has not incurred the expenses against the salary and

wages of the employee, power, raw-material etc. in revenue expenditure

on research and development activities. Thus, respectfully following the

decisions of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Reliance Life Science (P) ltd

(supra) we direct the assessing officer to deleted the disallowance under

35(1)(i) and allow the same under section 37 of the Act. No contrary law

is brought to our notice. In the result the ground No. I & II of the appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. Ground No. III relates to disallowance of brought forward losses

(Business and Unabsorbed depreciation). The ld. AR of the assessee

submits that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of bulk

drugs at its unit at Mahad, Maharashtra. The assessee took over a

company namely KMBL by way of amalgamated w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The

scheme of amalgamation was approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

vide order dated 24.03.2009 effective from 01.04.2008. At the time of

amalgamation there was carry forward business loss of Rs. 17.74 Crores

and unabsorbed depriciation of Rs. 14.88 Crores in KMBL. The assessee

claimed brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of

KMBL of Rs. 32.61 Crore up to Assessment Year 20091-9. The

unabsorbed business losses and depreciation of KMBL of Rs. 32.61 Crore

were available to the assessee for set off of against its income as per the

provisions of section 72A. The ld. AR of the assessee further explained

that the losses on amalgamated company are deemed to be losses of

amalgamated company for previous year in which the amalgamation was

affected. 15. It was explained that the business losses are subject to the fulfillment of

certain condition as provided under section 72A r.w. Rule 9C. the

fulfillment of conditions of section 72A r. w. Rule 9C has been accepted

by Assessing Officer in assessment order under section 143(3) dated

15.12.2011 for Assessment Year 2009-10 and set off of brought forward

losses of Rs. 8,67,99,116/- was also granted to the assessee. The ld. AR

of the assessee further explained that amalgamating company/KMBL was

engaged in the same business in which accumulated loss occurred or

depreciation remained unabsorbed for three or more years. The assessee

is continued the same activities as conducted by amalgamating company.

The KMBL has held continuously on the date of amalgamation at least ¾ 13

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

of book value of fixed assets held by it from the years prior to the date of

amalgamation. The said condition was fulfilled. The assessee-company

continuously hold ¾ book value of fixed asset of KMBL acquired in the

claim of amalgamation. The assessee is continued the business of

manufacturing of KMBL products which is manufacturing of Bulk drugs.

The assessee also in compliance of Rule 9C. In Assessment Year 2009-

10, the assessee company achieved the capacity utilization of 83.56% and

claim was allowed in assessment order under section 143(3). In

Assessment Year 2010-11 i.e. second year from the date of amalgamation

the assessee achieved capacity utilization of 10.76% due to labor

problem, thereby the assessee made an application as per Rule 9C before

the Central Government to allow the extension of time for achieving

minimum production of 50% beyond stipulated four year i.e. on or before

the 31.03.2012 until the labour unrest was mutually resolved and allowed

the assessee to claim set off of carry forward business losses and

unabsorbed depreciation on amalgamating company of KMBL. The

CBDT rejected the application of assessee on 02.02.2015 on the

reasoning that there is no certainty of labour strike and the matter is

pending before the Labour Tribunal and further litigation before the

Hon’ble High Court cannot be ruled out. The ld. AR of the assessee

submits that CBDT while rejecting the application of assessee no-where

held that the amalgamation as non-genuine nor made any adverse 14

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

comment of any nature. In support of his submissions the ld AR for the

assessee relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Bayer Material

Science P Ltd Vs ACIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 134 (Mumbai Trib.). The

ld AR further submits that claim of set off of loss/unabsorbed

depreciation was allowed in AY 2009-10 in assessment order passed

under section 143(3) dated 15.12.2011, which was withdrawn in AY

2010-11. In without prejudice submissions the ld AR for the assessee

submits that withdrawal if any can be only in AY 2012-13 ( i.e. in the

year under consideration) 16. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the

authorities below. The ld. DR further submits that the assessee has not

fulfilled the condition of achieving 50% of production level and continue

to maintain the same level before the end of four year from the date of

amalgamation. The application made by the assessee for extension of

time was also dismissed by CBDT vide order dated 02.01.2015. 17. We have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone

through the orders of authorities below. During the assessment the

assessing officer disallow the brought forward loss of Rs. 5.15 Crore as

the entire brought forward loss was disallowed to the assessee in AY

2010-11 under the provisions of section 72A. The assessing officer also

noted that the assessee has not fulfilled the condition of Rule 9C, in

achieving the level of production of at least 50% of the production of the 15

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

installed capacity. Further, the application made by the assessee before

CBDT for relaxing the condition under Rule 9C has also been rejected

vide order dated 02.01.2015. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of

assessing officer holding the similar issue was decided against the

assessee by his predecessor in appeal for AY 2010-11, after considering

the CBDT order date 02.01.2015 passed under section 72A. 18. The coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Bayers Material Science(P)

Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) held that Section 72A(2)(b)(iii) provides that the

accumulated loss of the amalgamating company shall not be set off or

carried forward and unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the

assessment of the amalgamated company if the amalgamated company

fails to fulfill such other conditions as may be prescribed to ensure the

revival of the business of the amalgamating company or to ensure that the

amalgamation is for genuine business purpose. The 'prescribed'

conditions as referred to in this provision have been set out in rule 9C.

This rule has two clauses. First clause provides that the amalgamated

company shall achieve level of production of at least 50 per cent of the

installed capacity of the amalgamating company before the end of four

years from the date of amalgamation and continue to maintain the said

minimum level of production till the end of five years from the date of

amalgamation. The second clause states that the amalgamated company

shall furnish to the Assessing Officer a certificate in Form No. 62 duly 16

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

verified by an accountant showing particulars of production along with

return of income 'for the assessment year relevant to the previous year

during which the prescribed level of production is achieved and for the

subsequent assessment years relevant to previous years falling within five

years from the date of amalgamation'. On going through clause (a) of rule

9C, it is found that the amalgamated company is required to achieve the

level of production of at least 50 per cent of the installed capacity of the

undertaking of the amalgamating company 'before the end of four years

from the date of amalgamation'. A cursory perusal simply divulges that

the requirement of achieving production of at least 50 per cent of the

installed capacity of the undertaking is to be fulfilled before the end of

four years from the date of amalgamation. This production level may be achieved in the first year or second year or third year or even before the

end of the fourth year. 19. Considering the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Bayers Material

Science (P) ltd (supra) this grounds of appeal is restore to the file of

assessing office to reconsider the issue afresh and decided it after

following the order of the Tribunal. The assessing officer is also directed

to consider the submission of the assessee that withdrawal of loss or

depreciation if any can be only in AY 2012-13 ( i.e. in the year under

consideration) and to decided the issue in accordance with law. In the

result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 17

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

ITA No. 5414/Mumbai/2017 for AY2013-14.

I. NON GRANT OF DEDUCTION OF REVENUE R&D EXPENDITURE OF Rs.64,80,742/- UIS 35(1)(i) 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting the claim of R&D expenditure ofRs.64,80,742/- U/S 35(1)(i) made in the revised return of income by interpreting that non-consideration by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in its report in Form 3CL for deduction U/S 35(2AB) as R&D expenditure the same are non-genuine expenditure. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in drawing incorrect conclusion that DSIR did not approve the expenditure of Rs. 64,80,742/- as they are non-genuine expenditure without any base or such report by DSIR 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in following his order dated 02.01.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 4. The claim made for deduction U/S 35(1)(i) of Rs. 64,80,742/- required to be allowed. 5. Without prejudice to above, the said expenditure being revenue in nature, incurred in the course of business of the appellant and neither personal nor capital requires to be allowed u/s 37(1). II. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I - NON GRANT OF DEDUCTION OF R&D EXPENDITURE OF RS. 64,80,742 U/S 37(1) :- 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting the claim of R&D expenditure of Rs.64,80,742/- U/S 37(1) by interpreting that non-consideration by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in its report in Form 3CL for deduction U/S 35(2AB) as R&D expenditure the same are non-genuine expenditure. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in drawing incorrect conclusion that DSIR did not approve the expenditure of Rs. 64,80,742/- as they are non-genuine expenditure without any base or such report by DSIR 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in following his order dated 02.01.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13.

ITA No. 2460 & 5414 Mum 2017-Embio Limited

raised vide Ground No. I &II in appeal for AY 2012-13, which we have

already allowed. No difference in material facts are brought in our notice

for the year under consideration. Therefore, following the principal of

consistency the ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2019.

Sd/ Sd/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 23.04.2019 SK Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4. The concerned CIT 5. DR “E” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File

BY ORDER,

Dy./Asst. Registrar ITAT, Mumbai