M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

CO 77/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2156 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 28

Judgement Text

, D - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT &SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-12 DCIT CIR-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD. SUZLON, 5, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NEAR KRISHANA COMPLEX, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD- 380009 PAN:AAD CS0 472 N VS. M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD. SUZLON, 5, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NEAR KRISHANA COMPLEX, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD- 380009 DCIT CIR-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD PAN:AAD CS0 472 N (APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRIJAMESKURIAN, SR. DR REVENUE BY : SHRITUSHARHEMANI, CA /DATE OF HEARING : 13/06/2019 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/06/2019 #$ / O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY- JM : THE INSTANT APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) -7, AHMEDABAD DATED 07.12.2016 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED. 06.02.20 15 PASSED BY THE DCIT CIRCLE- 4(1)(1) AHMEDABAD UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 201 1-12. ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 2 BOTH THE MATTERS ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. I.T.A NO. 619/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12(REVENUES APPE AL):- 2. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS RIGHT IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION BEING UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,45,92,645 /- WHILE DETERMINING ARMS LENGTHS PRICE UNDER THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISION. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15M77,90,288/- MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT TO DETERMINE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. 3. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT WHILE DETERMINING ARMS LENGTHS PRICE UNDER THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISION. SUCH ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO CORPORATE GUARANTEE PROVIDED BY T HE ASSESSEE TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT S UCH CORPORATE GUARANTEE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBSIDIAR Y COMPANY IS IN THE NATURE OF QUASHI-CAPITAL OR SHAREHOLDER ACTIVITY AND NOT IN T HE NATURE OF PROVISION OF SERVICE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID TRANSACTION IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW THAT IN ASSESSEESOWN CASE OF A.Y. 2010-11 THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN PLEASED TO DELETE THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE GU ARANTEE. COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY THE LD . AR. HOWEVER, LD. DR FAILED TO CONTROVERT SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR. 4. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE ORD ER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR. FURTHER THAT THE LD. TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE IN ITA NO. 2791/AHD/2014 INFAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN REVENUES APPEAL DISCUSSED AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 3 7. SIMILARLY, THE TP ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CORP ORATE GUARANTEE FOR WORKING CAPITAL AND CORPORATE GUARANTEE FOR FINANCING AND OTHER ARR ANGEMENTS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 24 OF ITS ORDER. THE RELEVANT FIN DING READ AS UNDER:- 24. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. HAVING SAID THAT, WE MAY ADD THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ON THE SAME ISSUE, IS ADMITTED BY HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BUT THEN IT IS NOT, AND IT CANNOT BE, ANYBODYS CASE TH AT MERE ADMISSION OF APPEAL CAN VITIATE BINDING NATURE OF THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. IN ANY CASE, WHATEVER WE HOLD IS, AND SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN, SUBJECT TO WHATEVER HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS TO HOLD ON THE ISSUE, AND HONBLE HIGH COURT, THOUG H IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE I.E. MICRO INK (SUPRA) IS ALREADY SEIZED O F THE MATTER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BEN CH, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE EXTENDING CORPORATE GUARANTEES TO ITS AES, PARTICUL ARLY ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA S DONE SO IN THE COURSE OF ITS STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES FOR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, DOES N OT CONSTITUTE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, AND, AS SUCH, NO ALP ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, ENTIRE ALP ADJUST STANDS DELETED. AS FOR THE QUANTUM OF THIS ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS MAINLY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF G RIEVANCE RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL, ONCE THE ENTIRE ALP ADJUSTMENT STANDS DELET ED, THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS WHOLLY ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICAT ION BY US. 25. GROUND NO. 3 IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS, AND GROUNDS NOS. 4,5,6, AND 7 IN THE A SSESSEES APPEAL ARE THUS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 26. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF TH E MATTER THAT THE VIEW SO TAKE, BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AN D DELETE THE IMPUGNED ALP ADJUSTMENTS. 27. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT NO SUCH ALP ADJUSTMENT IS PERMISSIBLE, GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH RESPECT TO QU ANTIFICATION OF ALP ADJUSTMENT, ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 28. AS WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY ADD THAT A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE, IN THE CASE OF MICRO INK LIMITED THE DECISION FOLLOWED BY US IN COMING TO OUR AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS, HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE ISSUE IS THUS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATIO N BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION, EVEN BY DECIDING THIS APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN SHIFTING OF JUDICIAL FORUM BEF ORE WHICH THE MATTER IS NOW TO BE AGITATED. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, REFRAINED FROM DEALI NG WITH ELABORATE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ON MERITS AT THIS STAGE. 29. IN THE RESULT, AND SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE OBSERV ATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE CONFIRM THE SAME. ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 4 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2:- 7. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 15,77 ,90,288/- MADE TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER S. 115JB IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION O F SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. THE SHORT POINT INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER IS AS TO W HETHER THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A CAN BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB . IN APPEAL THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALLOWED THE SAME FOLLOWING THE DECISION P ASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2009-10 AND 2011-12 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IT IS RELEVANT TOMENTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO RELIED UP ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE MATTER OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 2324/AHD/2009 WHERE THE HONBLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO AGREE WITH T HE APPELLANT THAT NO POSITIVE ENHANCEMENT TO THE BOOK PROFIT IS JUSTIFIED AND DEL ETED SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO BEEN HANDED OVER T O US BY THE LD. AR. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 9. HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE HOLDING THAT AMOUNT OF SUCH DISA LLOWANCE UNDER S. 14A CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB, THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 12. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE PO SITIVE ADJUSTMENT U/S. 14A WHILE DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. 13. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT PARA 38 WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 7 OF REV ENUES APPEAL WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJA RAT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC LTD. IN ITA NO. 1249 OF 2014. 14. AS NO DISTINGUISHING DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 5 10. RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE SAME WE FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, AND THUS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED . C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12(ASSESSEES APPEA L) 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTI ON TO PF AND ESIC AMOUNT TO RS. 15,20,519. SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE LD . AO ON THE ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEPOSIT SUCH SUM WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE WHICH WAS, IN TURN, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). BOTH THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF PF AND ESI C IS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE MONTH OF SALARY AND NOT FROM THE PAYMENT OF SALARY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE SQUARELY COV ERED IN ASSESSES OWN CASE IN SUZLON ENERGY LTD. VS. DCIT PASSED BY THIS LD. COORDINA TE BENCH IN ITA NOS. 764 & 765/AHD/2018 FOR A.YS. 2013-14 & 2014-15; COP Y WHEREOF ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND WE HAV E ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM TH E RECORD THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. AO RELIED U PON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPORTED IN (2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM100 ( GUJ.) HOLDING THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (EPF) EMPLOYEES ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 6 STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) DEPOSITED BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD NOT BE E LIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 43B OF THE ACT EVEN AFTER DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF TAX RETURN. UPON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH WE COULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE LD. TRIBUNAL PLEASED TO DIRECT T HE AO TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DELAY OR NOT IN MAKING SUCH PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ANY DELAY DEPOSIT OF PF/ESIC IS TO BE DISALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT AS CITED ABOVE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE A FORESAID ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 366 ITR 170 (GUJ. ), WHEREIN IT IS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF DELAYED DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRI BUTION TO PF, THE SAME WILL NOT BE DEDUCTABLE IN COMPUTING INCOME UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. THE LAW SO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON US. THE MERE FACT THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DECISION IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DILUTE BINDING NATURE OF THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. AS REGARD DISMISSAL OF SLP IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 185 (SC), IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT WHEN A SLP IS DISMISSED BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, IT DOES NOT CONS TITUTE A LAW DECLARED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AND AS SUCH, IT IS NOT BINDING UNDER ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE AUTHORITY, FOR THIS PROPOSITION, IS CONTAINED IN A SERIES OF JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, IN THE CASES OF STATE OF MANIPUR VS. THINGUJAMBROJENMEETAI, (1996) 9 SCC 29; OM PRAKASHGARGI V. STATE OF PUNJAB , (1996) 11 SCC 399 AND SUN EXPORT CORPN V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AIR 1997 SC 2658. WE , THEREFORE, SEE NO LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT ST ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA), DISMISS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE. WE MAY, HOWEVER, ADD THAT A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF RAJJRATNA ME TAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. ACIT (ITA NO.940/AHD/2015; ORDER DATED 22.09.2017), HAS OBSER VED AS FOLLOWS:- '3. ASSESSEE'S LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' ACTION DISALLOWING/ADDING A SUM OF RS. 3,85,810/- U/S. 36(1 )(VA) R.W.S. 2(24) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYE ES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI IN QUESTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ) UPHOLDS SUCH A DISALLOWANCE IN PRINCIPLE. THE ASSESSEE'S CA SE HOWEVER IS THAT RELEVANT DUE DATE HAS TO BE SEEN NOT FROM THE RELEVANT MONTH OF SALARY BUT THE ONE PERTAINING TO ITS PAYMENT. HE THEN FILES A COMPUTATION CHART INDICATI NG IT TO HAVE PAID ABOVE EMPLOYEES' PF/ESI CONTRIBUTIONS ON 22.05.2009 AND 2 8.05.2009 AS AGAINST THE DUE DATES THEREOF FOLLOWING ON 20.06.2009. THE REVENUE FAILS TO DISPUTE THIS FACTUAL POSITION. WE THEREFORE QUOTE THIS TRIBUNAL'S CO-ORD INATE BENCH DECISION IN KANOI PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT 75 TTJ 448 THAT TH E RELEVANT DATE IN SUCH CASE IS THAT OF MONTH OF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF WAGES/SALARI ES. WE THEREFORE RELY ON THE ABOVE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AS WELL.' ITA NO. 619/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 77/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 7 4. IN EFFECT THUS WHILE ANY DELAYED DEPOSIT OF PF/E SI IS TO BE DISALLOWED, IN TERMS OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GUJARA T STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA), THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A DELA Y OR NOT MAY BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATIONS BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH. THE ASSESSEE WILL GET RELIEF, IF FOUND ADMISSIBLE, ON THAT BASIS. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE SAME WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY DELAY OR NOT AND TO PASS ORDERS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. [ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25-06-2019.] SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/06/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY #$%&'(#' /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. %+)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. '-.% , / DR, ITAT, 6. ./0 / GUARD FILE. #$ / BY ORDER 1 / 2 (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD