M/s. Metal Link Alloys Ltd., Nani Daman V. The ACIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

CO 185/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1986 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Speculation loss; Speculative transactions
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 43(5); 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO NO.185/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI .. APPELLANT VS METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD, PLOT NO.67, PANCHAL UDYOGNAGAR, BHIMPORE, DAMAN .. RESPONDENT PAN : AAFCM 2174 H (CROSS-OBJECTOR) REVENUE BY : SMT. SO NIA KUMAR , SR - DR ASSESSEE(S) BY SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR / DATE OF HEARING 24/02/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/03/2016 / O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJE CTION THEREOF FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD, D ATED 31.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SPECULATION LOSS AMOUNTING T O RS.46,16,944/-. ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 2 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED PAYMENTS OF PROVIDEN T FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.11,255/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTED RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.65,664/- 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF COPPER ALLOYS A ND INGOTS. THE ASSESSEE E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09. 2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,44,39,975/- UNDER TH E REGULAR PROVISIONS AND A BOOK PROFIT OF RS.3,06,72,816/- U/ S 115JBOF THE ACT. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO THE INCOME RETURNED. THEREAFT ER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF L OSS ON COMMODITIES TRANSACTIONS, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT, BELATED PAYMENT OF PF AND COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUN TING TO RS.46,16,944/-, RS.1,63,010/-, RS.11,255/- AND RS.6 5,664/- RESPECTIVELY AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,92,96,850/-. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON COMMODITIES OF RS.46,16,944/-. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI SALLOWED THE LOSS ON COMMODITIES AMOUNTING TO RS.46,16,944/-. I N APPEAL, CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME. REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING R ELIEF ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 3 - TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SPECULATION LOSS AMOU NTING TO RS.46,16,944/- AND REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LOSS INCURRED FROM COMMODI TIES TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS ALLOWAB LE AS BUSINESS LOSS. AS PER CLAUSE (D) INSERTED TO PROVI SO TO SUB- SECTION (5) OF 43 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, THE TRA NSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF TRADING DERIVATIVE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (AC) OF SECTION 2 OF THE SECURITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 195 6, CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE ARE ELIGIBLE TRANSAC TION FOR CLAIMING LOSS AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO A SPECULAT IVE TRANSACTION. RELYING ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS, THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILA R ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIMAL OIL & FOODS LTD VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO.2392/AHD/ 2011, WHEREIN ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, ITAT DECIDED THE I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A SSESSEE'S DERIVATIVE TRADING THROUGH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE IN A.Y.2007-08 WAS NON SPECULATED TRANSACTION; THEREFO RE, LOSS INCURRED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS TO BE TREATE D AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS. WE FIND THAT BY FINANCE ACT, 2005 CLAUSE (D) WAS INSERTED IN PROVISO TO SUB SECTION ( 5) OF SECTION 43 W.E.F. 1.4.2006 WHICH PROVIDED THAT A N ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TRADING IN DERIV ATIVE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SEC URITIES ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 4 - CONTRACT (REGULATION) ACT, 1956 CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. THUS, FROM 1ST APRIL, 200 6 TRADING IN DERIVATIVE CARRIED THROUGH THE RECOGNIZE D STOCK EXCHANGE WAS TREATED AS NON-SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION S. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (D), RULE 6DDA AND 6DDB O F IT RULES, 1962, PROVIDED THAT NOTIFICATION OF RECOGNIZ ED STOCK EXCHANGE HAS TO BE DONE BY THE CENTRAL GOVE. (CBDT) . IN PURSUANCE OF THIS RULE, THE CBDT HAS NOTIFIED THE M CX STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. BY S.O. 1327(E) DATED 22.05.200 9. THE ISSUE IN SUCH A NOTIFICATION GIVEN ON 22.05.200 9, BY WHICH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED, COULD BE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE TRANSACTION UNDERT AKEN IN THE A.Y.2007-08 I.E. AFTER 1ST APRIL, 2006. FROM TH E COMBINED READING OF CLAUSE (D) OF PROVISO TO SECTIO N 43(5), RULE 6DDA, 6DDB AND EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 43( 5), IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED ARE ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, AS IT PRESCRIBES THE MET HOD AS TO HOW TO APPLY FOR NECESSARY RECOGNITION AND CONSE QUENT NOTIFICATION. HENCE, THESE ARE PURELY PROCEDURAL MECHANISM ADOPTED FOR THE SAME WHEN A RULE OR PROVI SION DOES NOT AFFECT OR EMPOWER ANY RIGHT OR CREATE AN OBLIGATION BUT MERELY RELATES TO PROCEDURAL MECHANI SM, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE UNLESS SUCH A N INFERENCE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO AN ABSURDITY. IF THE AMENDMENT IS MADE IN PROCEDURAL MECHANISM, IT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING OR TO BE INITI ATED. ONCE IN THE STATUTE, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT W.E. F. 1.4.2006, AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION, THEN SIMPLY BECAUSE PROCED URAL MECHANISM HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME TO RECOGNIZE THE ST OCK EXCHANGE, IT WILL NOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE SAME WOULD BE APPLICABLE FROM THE DATE WHEN THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. T HE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER RULE 6DDB, DOES NOT EMPOW ER ANY RIGHT OR CREATE OBLIGATION BUT ONLY RECOGNIZES WHAT IS ALREADY PROVIDED IN STATUTE. THUS, THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE AFTER 1.4.20 06, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BEING TREATED AS NON-SPECULAT IVE DERIVATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (D) OF PROVI SO TO SECTION 43(5). ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 5 - 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS D IRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.4,82,270/- IN CURRED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY ON TRADE IN COMMODITY DERIVATIV ES. 4.2 FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REAS ONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F SPECULATION LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.46,16,944/-. WE U PHOLD THE SAME. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED PAYMENTS OF PROVIDEN T FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.11,255/-. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECI DED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRA NSPORT CORPORATION, REPORTED IN (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- HELD : CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF INCOME TAX ACT AS IT STANDS, WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUM RECEIVED BY ASSESSE E FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (X) OF SUB-SECTION (24) OF SECTION 2 APPLIES, ASSESSEE SHA LL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT IN COMPUTING INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 IF SUCH SUM WAS NO T CREDITED BY ASSESSEE TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN RELEV ANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS PER EXPLANAT ION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF ACT. MERELY BECAUSE SECOND PRO VISO TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT IN WHICH THERE WAS A REFEREN CE TO DUE DATE AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36, IT CANNOT BE HELD TH AT EVEN SECTION 36(1)(VA) WAS AMENDED AND/OR EVEN EXPLANATI ON BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 WAS ALSO DELETED. IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 IN SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 43B (WHICH HAS BEEN ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 6 - DELETED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003), ONLY FOR PURPOSE OF DEFINING DUE DATE AS PER EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SU B- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36. THEREFORE, BY DELETING S ECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B BY FINANCE ACT, 2003, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT SECTION 36(1) (VA) IS AMENDED AND/OR EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB- SECTION (1) O F SECTION 36 WAS DELETED, WHICH IS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. (PARA 7.11) CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 READ WITH SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE 24 OF SECTION 2, IT WAS HELD THAT WITH RESPECT TO SUM RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLA USE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION (2) APPLIES, ASSESSEE SHA LL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SUM CREDITED BY ASS ESSEE TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTI ON 36(1)(VA). CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS HELD THAT LEARNED T RIBUNAL HAD ERRED IN DELETING RESPECTIVE DISALLOWANCES BEIN G EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF ACCOUNT / ESI ACCOUNT MADE BY AO AS, AS SUCH, SUCH SUMS WERE NOT CREDITED BY RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTS IN RELEV ANT FUND OR FUNDS (IN PRESENT CASE PROVIDENT FUND AND/O R ESI FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS PER EXPLANATION TO SE CTION 36(1)(VA) OF ACT I.E. DATE BY WHICH CONCERNED ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN PROVIDENT FUND UNDER PROVI DENT FUND ACT AND/OR IN THE ESI FUND UNDER ESI ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDERS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN DELETING DISALLOWANCES MADE BY AO WAS HEREBY QUASHE D AND SET ASIDE AND DISALLOWANCES OF RESPECTIVE SUMS WITH RESPECT TO PROVIDENT FUND / ESI FUND MADE BY AO WAS HEREBY RESTORED. QUESTIONS RAISED IN PRESENT APPEAL ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. WITH THIS, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. (P ARA 8) 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE LEGAL DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS AL LOWED. ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 7 - 6. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS.65,664/-. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.65,664/- TO M/S . ARIES EXPORTS PVT LTD. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND TO PROVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES FOR WHICH PURPOSE, SERVICE RECEIVED; HE CONSIDERED IT AS NON- GENUINE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME AND AD DED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) HAS BEEN OPPOSED BY THE REVENUE, INTER ALIA , SUBMITTING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.65,664/-AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER B E RESTORED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPOR TS METALS THROUGH ARIES EXPORTS PVT LTD, WHICH ACTS AS A MEDI ATOR IN THE EXPORT OF METALS AND IN TURN THE ASSESSEE PAYS COMM ISSION TO IT. THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT TO M/S. ARIES EXPORT S PVT LTD FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS ON THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND THE CREDIT OF THE ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 8 - SERVICE TAX WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BILL RAISED BY M/S. ARIES EXPORTS PVT LTD. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE ON THIS FACT UAL MATRIX. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SUCH ADDITION WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THUS , THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD AND THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. CO NO.185/AHD/2012 8. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF CROSS-OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,63,010/- MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT RELEVANT TDS WAS DEPOSITED B Y THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF I NCOME. 8.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(IA) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,63,010/-. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED FROM THE APP ELLATE ORDER THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY CIT(A) AS NOT PRESSED. BEFORE US, BY WAY OF CROSS-OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,63,010/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT RELEVANT TDS WAS DEPOSIT ED BY THE ITA NO. 1558/AHD/2012 & CO 185/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. METAL LINK ALLOYS LTD AY :2009-10 - 9 - ASSESSEE PRIOR TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF I NCOME. THIS IS A LEGAL CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A), SO HE DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER ON MERITS ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30TH MARCH, 2016 A T AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA K. YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/03/2016 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. && ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. ()* $++ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! ' , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD