Himson Textile Engg.Indus.Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. THE ACIT.,Circle-1, Surat

CO 42/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9315 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: RN VEPARIAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Tax effect; Revised return
• Section: 14A; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND .., SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. , ! ! ! ! ITA NO. 2677/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, ROOM NO. 108, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001 V/S . M/S HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. HIRALAL COLONY, ASHWINIKUMAR ROAD, SURAT-395004 PAN NO. A AACH5825K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 42/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 M/S HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. HIRALAL COLONY, ASHWINIKUMAR ROAD, SURAT-395004 V/S . THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, ROOM NO. 108, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) '# $ % / BY REVENUE SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, SR. D.R. # $ % /BY ASSESSEE SHRI R. N. VEPARI, A.R. &'#( $ ) /DATE OF HEARING 27.01.2014 *+, $ ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.02.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF REVENUE AND C.O. AT TH E BEHEST OF ASSESSEE FILED, WHICH HAVE EMANATED FROM THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-I, SURAT, DATED ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 17.09.2012 FOR A.Y. 09-10. BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHE R AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE ITA NO. 2677/AHD/2012 (REVENUE'S APPE AL) 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,19,52,335/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 145A ON ACCO UNT OF ADJUSTMENT. 3. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,19,52,335/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY ON OPENI NG STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED B EFORE THE A.O. THAT IT HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE OPENING STOCK EXCISE DUTY IN A. Y. 08-09 BY AGGREGATING THE SAME TO THE CLOSING STOCK AND ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FIL ED THE CHART FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ST ATED THAT SECTION 145A IS TAX NEUTRAL AND DOES NOT LEAD TO ENHANCEMENT OF PRO FIT IN ANY WAY. THE VERY OBJECTIVE OF BRINING IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A WAS TO REVIEW THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LAKHA NPAL NATIONAL LTD. (162- ITR-240) IN TERMS OF ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION WH ILE NOT INCLUDING THE ELEMENT OF DUTY IN CLOSING STOCK. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ASSESSEES REPLY, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE A.O. THAT SECTION 145A HAS BEEN IN TRODUCED TO ENSURE THAT THE VALUE OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK REFLECTED TH E CORRECT VALUE. AS PER SECTION 145A, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE ADJU STMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DUTY, TAX, CESS ETC. IN OPENING STOCK, PURCHASE, SA LE AND CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE SHALL CONFINED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY ONLY IN RESPECT OF STOCK DISCLOSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION WITHOUT ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 MAKING CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT IN OPENING STOCK OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF S ECTION 145A HAS TO BE MADE IN A MANNER PRACTICABLE WHEN IT IS A LEGAL FRICTION IS CREATED IF THE CONTENTION THAT THE OPENING OF STOCK ALSO REQUIRED REVISION ON ACCO UNT OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 145A OF THE ACT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED. IT WO ULD MEAN THE RE- COMPUTATION OF CLOSING STOCK VALUED OF THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK INCLUSIVE OF THE TAXES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,19,52,235/- U/S. 145A OF THE IT ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY ANALYZING THE INCLUSIVE METHOD AND EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF MODVAT CRE DIT AND HELD THAT SINCE THE EXCISE COMPONENT IN THE OPENING STOCK EXCEEDS, THE EXCISE COMPONENT IN THE CLOSING STOCK, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE A PPELLANTS INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 U/S. 145A OF THE IT ACT ON THIS ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VIEW THAT THE ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE ONLY IN CLO SING STOCK AND NOT IN THE OPENING STOCK IS NOT CORRECT AS SECTION 145A APPLIE S TO BOTH THE OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O., WAS DELETED. 5. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O., WHEREAS THE LD. A.R. FOR THE APPELLANT SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT BY AP PLYING INCLUSIVE METHOD AS WELL AS EXCLUSIVE METHOD ON THE INCOME AS VARIOUS H ONBLE HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS TRIBUNALS HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CONSISTENCY AND TAX NEUTRALIZATION. ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE INCLUSIVE METHOD AS WELL AS EXCLUSIVE METHOD IN APPEAL ORDER AND FINALLY, HE DID NOT FIND LOSS OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF MODVAT CREDIT INCLUSION IN THE CLOSI NG STOCK. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERVENE IN THE ORDER OF CI T(A). ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. NOW WE TAKE ASSESSEES C.O. NO. 42/AHD/2013 7. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES C.O. ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN N OT APPRECIATING THAT SECTION 145A IS TAX NEUTRAL AND T HE WORKING AS PER INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE METHOD REMAINS SAME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE TOWARDS PF AND ESI TO THE TUNE OF RS.614337/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE TUNE OF RS.140965/-. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN N OT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO WORKING OF CAP ITAL GAIN WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE A LOSS INSTEAD OF GAIN OF RS.76025/ -. 8. THE FIRST GROUND OF ASSESSEES C.O. IS IN SUPPOR T OF THE REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY US IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO SEPARATE FINDING IS REQUIRED TO BE GI VEN. ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 9. THE SECOND GROUND OF ASSESSEES C.O. IS AGAINST CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PF AND ESI TO THE TUNE OF RS.614337 /- (CORRECT FIGURE IS RS.61,437/-) BY THE A.O. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT AS SESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE PF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE EMPLOYEES TOWARDS T HE CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND INTO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN THE D UE DATE PRESCRIBED FOR THIS PURPOSE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: UNIT DUE DATE DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT (RS.) BORSANA MACHINE KIM 15.06.2008 19.06.2008 8,455 -DO- 15.07.2008 19.07.2008 8,424 -DO- 15.09.2008 18.09.2008 8,459 -DO- 15.10.2008 17.10.2008 10,595 -DO- 15.11.2008 17.11.2008 10,540 SILVASSA MACHINES 15.09.2008 27.09.2008 3,008 -DO- 15.02.2009 17.02.2009 11,956 TOTAL 61,437 THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE ASPECTS WERE CERTI FIED BY THE C.A. IN 3 CD REPORT THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AFTER DUE DATE . THUS, A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.61,437/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND ON THE BASIS OF DECISION TAKEN BY HIM IN A.Y. 08-09 . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE HONBLE D BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS IN GROUND NO.2 OF ITA NO.2217/AHD/2008 & ITA NO. 1178/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN BOTH APPEALS & GROUND NO.3 OF ITA NO. 714/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND REQUESTED TO DECI DE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE HONBLE BENCH ON THIS ISSUE. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II VS. GUJARAT STATE ROA D TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJARAT) , ORDER DATED 26.12.2013, WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE COURT THAT IF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED IN THE RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENT ITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 28 OF THE ACT. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THIS ISSUE, THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CO-ORDINATE D BENCH TO THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THEN BENCH AND LEGAL POSITION AT THAT TIME W AS THAT EVEN ASSESSEE CREDITED THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IN THE RELEVAN T FUND BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF RETURN, WERE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. BUT NOW TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS INTERPRETED AND HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT PAID ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO S ECTION 36(1)(VA), THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT PA ID ON OR BEFORE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF TH E ACT. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES C.O. IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. IS AGAINST D ISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,40,965/-. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.4,32,645/- (DIVIDEND INCOME) DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, NO EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE A.O. ANALYZING THE SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AND APP LIED THE RULE 8D AND CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RULE AT RS.1,40,965/-. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR A.Y. 08-09. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN REPLY BEFORE THE A.O., WHICH HAS NOT BEEN C ONSIDERED BY HIM AND HE HAS ALSO TAKEN WRONG FIGURES OF INTEREST WHEN SUCH INTERESTS WERE PAID TO THE BANK AND DOES NOT PART OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A. T HUS, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY THE CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL DECIDED BY THE HONB LE BENCH FOR A.Y. 05-06, 07-08 & 08-09. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING MIXED FUND FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS INVESTING IN THE SHARES. THE LD. COUNSEL H AD NOT POINTED OUT EXACT FIGURE OF BANK INTEREST WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D IN COLUMN NO. A I.E. AMO UNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST AT RS.73,71,439/-. IN ABSENCE OF AN Y DETAIL WHETHER IT IS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HAVE INCLUDED IN THE DISALLOWANCE FIGURE OF INTEREST, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN CASE OF ASSES SEE. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS YEARS. THUS, WE ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 ALSO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS VERY REASONA BLE, MADE BY THE A.O. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES C.O. IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES C.O. IS AGAINST WO RKING OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.76,025/-. THE A.O. OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.19,62,660/-. ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT ACTUAL CAPITAL GAIN WOULD BE RS.27,28,685/-. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND AS PER THE DETAIL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,66,025/-. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED WR ONG CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF YEAR OF PURCHASE AND INDEXATIO N THERE ON BEFORE THE A.O. AND HE ALSO REVISED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WORKING AT RS.27,28,685/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,66,025/- WAS ADDED BACK IN T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: 10.2 AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT HAD TAKEN WRONG INDEXATION AS YEAR OF AC QUISITION TAKEN WAS INCORRECT, AND ONCE IT IS CORRECTED, THERE WILL BE A LOSS AND NOT CAPITAL GAIN AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT APPELLANT ITSELF HAD SHOWN LTCG OF RS 19, 62,660/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCREASED IT TO RS. 2 7, 28, 685/- AS CERTAIN MISTAKES WERE DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN SHARES. NOW, THE APPELLANT W ANTS TO REDUCE THE LTCG TO BELOW WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN I. E. IT WANTS TO CONVERT IT INTO LOSS BY CLAIMING THAT INDEXATION OF SOME OTHER SHAR ES WAS TAKEN WRONGLY. SINCE NO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED, MAKING THIS CLAIM IS IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD, REPORTED IN 157 TAXMAN 1 ONCE, THIS FACT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE A.R., HE STATED THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND N O. F OF THE APPEAL MAY ITA NO. 2677/AHD/12 & C.O. NO. 42/AHD/13, FOR A.Y. 09-10 ACIT VS. M/S. HIMSON TEXTILE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 9 BE ALLOWED WHEREIN A REQUEST FOR SET OFF OF CARRY F ORWARD LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AGAINST THE LTCG AGAIN ASSESSED MAY BE ALLOWED. SINCE, THIS ASPECT RELATES TO SEPARATE GROUND NO. F, IT IS BEING DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. ' E ' IS DISMISSED. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SERIOUSLY PRESSED THIS ISS UE AS HE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THE WRONG CALCULATION BEFORE THE A.O. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT ON THIS GROUND. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE ASSESSEES C.O. ON THIS GROUND. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AND ASSESSEES C.O. IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THESE ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.02.2014 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA - - - - $ $$ $ .)/ .)/ .)/ .)/ 0/,) 0/,) 0/,) 0/,) / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. '# / REVENUE 2. # / ASSESSEE 3. 44 ) &5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. &5- / CIT (A) 5. /#9 .)' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ - , >/ 4' , !