Shri Vimal Vadilal Shah(HUF), Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-6, Surat

CO 201/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7575 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJNISH VOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Speculation loss
• Section: 43(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2427 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ACIT, CIRCLE 6, SURAT VS. SHRI VIMAL VADILAL SHAH (HUF), 207, SATYANARAYAN BLDG., KANSARA SHERI, MAHINDARPURA, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AACHV9195F C.O.NO.201/AHD/2009 (IN I.T.A.NO. 2427/AHD/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) SHRI VIMAL VADILAL SHAH (HUF), VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 6, 207, SATYANARAYAN BLDG., SURAT KANSARA SHERI, MAHINDARPURA, SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RASESH SHAH, AR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAJNISH VOHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 05.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.08.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) IV, SURAT DATED 12.05.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 2 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING SET OFF OF SPECULATIVE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMODITIES TRADING OF RS.91,13,122/- AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1, 23,60,835/-. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IV, SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE O RDER OF THE A.O. 3) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IV, SURAT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORE D. 3. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) ON PAGES 1,2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BE LOW: THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT OF RS.1,41,80, 518/- ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING OF SHARES. SO FAR S THE COMM ODITY TRADING IS CONCERNED, ASSESSEE INCURRED LOSS OF RS.91,13,122/- IN DERIVATIVES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SET OFF THE LOSS OF RS.91,13,122/- ON COMMODITY TRADING WITH BUSINESS INCOME FORM TRADING OF DERIVA TIVES IN SHARES DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2008 AS TO WHY THE COMMODITY TRADING LOSS SHO ULD NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS AND SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE 4. ASSESSEE AS SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS SET-OFF AGAINS T OTHER HEADS OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE NOTICE, ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 27.11.2008 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT RECOG NISED STOCK EXCHANGE WAS DEFINED IN CLAUSE 2 OF THE EXPLANATION TO SEC 43(5) AS STOCK EXCHANGE AS REFERRED IN SECURITIES CONTRAC T (REGULATIONS) ACT, 1956 AND WHICH FULFILS SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND NOTIFIED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE . THE RECOGNISED STOCK EXCHANGE WAS NOTIFIED BY CENTRAL G OVERNMENT WITH EFFECT ON 25.01.06. SO ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE BUSINESS PROFIT OR LOSS ARISING ON OR AFTERWARDS ON 25.01.06 IN DERIVATIVES COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS NON-SPECULATIVE PROFIT OR LOSS. I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 3 ASSESSEE GAVE BIFURCATION OF PROFIT IN RESPECT OF T HE TRANSACTIONS OF THE DERIVATIVES BEING RS. 1,23,60,835/- DERIVED BET WEEN 01.04.05 TO 24.01.06 AND RS.18,19,7837-BETWEEN 25.01.06 TO 3 1.03.06. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT TRADING IN DERIVATIVES IS THE NEW ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE IN WHICH CONCEPT OF ACTUAL D ELIVERY HAS BECOME IRRELEVANT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ADVANC E RULING IN THE CASE OF MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL LTD. - 272 ITR 416 HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM TRADING IN DERIVATIVE TRAD ING IN CASE OF GLOBAL FII SUCH AS MORGAN STANLEY SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED ONLY AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE REPRODUCED RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC 43(5) NOTIFYING THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE SECTION BY FINA NCE ACT, 2005 AT PARA NO. 10.9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER & THE CIRC ULAR NO 3/2006 DATED 27,02.06 IN FINANCE ACT 2005 AT PARA NO.3.10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE NOTES O N CLAUSES WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EF FECT FROM APRIL 1, 2006 AND WILL ACCORDINGLY APPLY IN RELATION TO A .Y 2006-07 & SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE STATED THAT SAID CIRCULAR WAS ONLY FOR NOTIFYING THE TWO BIGGEST STOCK EXCHANGES IN INDIA FOR DERIVATIVE TRADING. HE STATED THAT SAID NOTIFICATION IS EFFECT IVE FROM 01.04.06 AND CONSIDERED THE AMENDMENT MADE AS RETROSPECTIVE BEING CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. HE STATED THAT WHERE AN AM ENDMENT IS MADE FROM T' APRIL, IT IS USUALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR STARTING FROM 1 S APRIL. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN CASE OF CIT V. HONGKONG OCEAN SHIPPING - 238 ITR 955 (MAD). HE MADE VARIOUS OTHER CONTENTIONS & DISA PPROVED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION TO TREAT F & 0 INCOME BEFORE 25.01.06 AS SPECULATIVE INCOME AND CONSIDERED THE LOSS IN COMMO DITY TRADING AS SPECULATIVE LOSS AND DID NOT ALLOW THE SET-OFF & ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OFRS.91,13,122/- WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON COMMODITY TRANSACTIO NS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE TRIBUN AL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS HIREN J SHAH AS REPORTED IN I.T.A.NO. 3361/AHD/2009 DATED 17.06.2011 SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. HE I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 4 SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION AND POIN TED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT RULE 6DDB IS ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, IT IS RETROSPECTIVE AND HENC E, THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.01.2006 WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FORM 01.04.2005 AND I T WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IS NOT SPECULATION INCOME AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST SPECULATION LOSS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ODITY TRADING OF RS.91,13,122/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ONE MORE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI TEJAS K SHAH IN I.T.A. NO. 2255/AHD/2010 DATED 17.09.2010 WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRAN SACTION UP TO THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION IS TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE TRA NSACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE TWO CONTRADICTORY JUDGEMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL. 6. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHARAT R RUIA (HUF) AS REPORT ED IN 337 ITR 452 (BOM.) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT COVERS THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE, NO REFERENCE TO SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT NOTIFICATION DATED 25.01.2006 IS NOT FULLY CONSIDER ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIREN J SHAH (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS F AILED TO CONSIDER THIS ASPECT OF NOTIFICATION THAT NSE AND BSE WERE APPROV ED BY THIS NOTIFICATION NO.02/06 DATED 25.01.2006 W.E.F. THE D ATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE TWO STOCK EXCHANGE NOTIFICATIONS, DATE IS 25. 01.2006 ONLY AND HENCE, TILL 24.01.2006 IT WAS NOT APPROVED STOCK EX CHANGE AND THEREFORE, DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION TILL THIS DATE IS SPECULATIV E TRANSACTION ONLY. HE I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 5 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THIS IS HELD THAT WHENEVE R THE RECOGNITION IS GRANTED TO A STOCK EXCHANGE, THE SAME SHALL APPLY F ORM 01.04.2005 THEN, IT WILL LEAD TO UNINTENDED RESULTS BECAUSE NCX STOC K EXCHANGE LTD. HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.46/9 DATED 22. 05.2009 AND HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS NOTIFICATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MORE STOCK EXCHANGES MAY BE NOTIFIED IN FUTURE ALSO AND, THEREFORE, THIS VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT WHENEVER THE STOCK EXCHANGE IS NOTIFIED, THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPROVED NOTIFIED STOCK EXC HANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 43(5) W.E.F. 01.04.2005. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THAT T HE RELEVANT AMENDMENT BEING INSERTION OF CLAUSE (D) IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT ISW.E.F. 01.04.2006. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- 43(5)(D): AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TR ADING IN DERIVATIVES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (AC) OF SECTION 2 OF THE SECU RITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 1956 (42 OF 1956) CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A SPECULAT IVE TRANSACTION. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISION OF CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-SE CTION (5) OF SECTION 43, WE FIND THAT DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION CAR RIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATI VE TRANSACTION. HENCE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER TH E DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK E XCHANGE OR NOT. AS PER THE NOTIFICATION NO.89 DATED 25.01.2006, TWO STOCK EXCHANGES WERE NOTIFIED AS RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE I.E. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE) AND BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE (BSE). SUBSEQUENTL Y, MCX STOCK EXCHANGE WAS ALSO RECOGNIZED BY NOTIFICATION NO.46/ 9 W.E.F. 22.05.2009 I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 6 AND UNTIED STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. IS ALSO RE COGNIZED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.12/11 DATED 25.02.2011. NOW, THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN NSE AND BSE UP TO 24.01.2006 CAN BE SAID TO BE THE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN A RECO GNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AND SIMILARLY WHETHER A TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN MCX STOCK EXCHANGE UP TO 21.05.2009 AND IN UNITED STOCK EXCHANGE OF IN DIA LTD. UP TO 24.02.2011 CAN BE SAID TO BE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. HERE, THE QUESTION IS N OT THIS THAT WHETHER THIS NOTIFICATION IS CLARIFICATORY AND, THEREFORE, RETROSPECTIVE BECAUSE THE NOTIFICATION ITSELF STATES THAT THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED W.E.F. THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE AND SUCH DATE OF PUBLICATION REGARDING NOTIFICATION FOR BSE AND NSE IS 25.01.2006. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECISION REN DERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS HIREN J SHAH IS DATED 17.06.2011 WHEREAS, T HE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI TEJAS K SHAH (SUPRA) I S DATED 17.09.2010. IN THE CASE OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF HIREN J. SHAH (SUPRA), THE OTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF TEJAS K SHAH (SUPRA) WAS NOT CITED AND NOT CONSIDERED ALTHOUGH T HE MEMBERS CONSTITUTING BOTH THESE BENCHES WERE THE SAME. THI S IS NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND IF SUCH DECISION IS NOT CONSIDERED IN A LATER T RIBUNAL JUDGMENT, THEN SUCH LATER JUDGEMENT CANNOT HAVE THE PRECEDENCE VAL UE BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT LATER DECISION IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING T HE EARLIER DECISION HAVING CONTRADICTORY DECISION. UNDER THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LATER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF HIREN J SHAH (SUPRA) IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENCE AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TEJAS K SHAH (SUPRA) IS BINDING PRECEDENCE. WE ALSO FIND THAT I N THAT TRIBUNAL DECISION, I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 7 THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED THE DECISI ON OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. AS REPORTED IN 121 ITD 498(SB). OTHERWISE ALSO, IN VI EW OF THIS FACT THAT TWO STOCK EXCHANGE ARE SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFIED AS ON 22.05.2009 I.E. MCX STOCK EXCHANGE AND ON 25.02.2011 I.E. UNITED STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ALL THESE NOTIFICATIONS ARE RETROSPECTIVE AND ARE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.04.2005. UNDER THIS FACTUAL P OSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TEJAS K SHAH (SUPR A) AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO REFER THE MATTER TO HONBLE PRESIDEN T, ITAT FOR CONSTITUTION OF A SPECIAL BENCH BECAUSE THE CONTRAD ICTORY DECISION IN THE CASE OF HIREN J SHAH (SUPRA) IS NOT OF ANY PRECEDEN CE VALUE BECAUSE OF THIS REASON THAT IT IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EARL IER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TEJAS K SHAH (SUPRA). WE T HEREFORE, DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TEJAS K. SHAH (SUP RA). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE C.O. ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRE D IN TREATING BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 91,13,122/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ODITY DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS AS SPECULATIVE LOSS INSTEAD OF NON SPECULATIVE LOSS AND THEREBY NOT ALLOWING SET OFF A GAINST BUSINESS PROFIT FROM SHARES IN DERIVATIVE TRADING. THE LEARN ED CIT(A) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE GROUND AS HE ALREADY ALLOWED ASSE SSEE'S GROUND BY TREATING INCOME OF RS. 1,23,60,735/- FROM F&O TR ANSACTIONS AS SPECULATIVE INCOME AND THEREBY ALLOWING SET OFF AGA INST BUSINESS LOSS FROM COMMODITY TRADING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRE D IN NOT ASSESSEE THE REBATE CLAIM OF RS. 7,59,584/- U/S. 88E ON ACCO UNT OF STT PAID I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 8 DURING THE YEAR AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE GROUND AS HE ALREADY ALLOWED ASSE SSEE'S GROUND BY TREATING INCOME OF RS. 1,23,60,735/- FROM F&O TR ANSACTIONS AS SPECULATIVE INCOME AND THEREBY ALLOWING SET OFF AGA INST BUSINESS LOSS FROM COMMODITY TRADING. 3. IN CASE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED, THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE DECIDED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE C.O., WE FIND THAT NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 12. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 OF THE C.O. ALSO, WE FIND THAT NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE MAIN ASPECT REGARDING TREATING OF INCOME OF RS.1,23,60,375/- FROM F & O TRANSACTION AS SPECULAT IVE INCOME AND THEREBY ALLOWED SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS FOR C OMMODITY TRADING. ON THIS ASPECT, IT IS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS SET OFF OF LOSS IS ALREADY AL LOWED AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY INCREASE IN TAX LIABILITY. ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE C. O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 14. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP I.T.A.NO.2427/AHD/2009 C.O.201/AHD/2009 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 27/08/12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30/08/2012 .OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31/08/12 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31/8/12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31/08/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .