M/s. Kamal Process, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Office,Ward-6(5)., Ahmedabad

ITA 1049/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 104920514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A TIRKEY
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 145; 37; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND SHRI A. MO HAN ALANKAMONY, AM) ITA. NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS, B/H,MASJID E. NOOR, OPP. ARJUN WAY BRIDGE, PIRANA PIPLAJ, AHMEDABAD P. A. NO. AADFK 3017E VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (5), AYKAR BHAVAN, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR WITH URVASHI SHODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. TIRKEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14-11-2012 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 12-03-2012 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XI/435/WD-6(5 )/10-11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED U/S 250 READ WITH SE CTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN ITS APPEA L WHEREIN GROUNDS NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4 RELATE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 0,52,877/- WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT BEING CENVAT PAID DURING THE EARLIER YEARS THE CREDIT OF WHICH COULD NOT BE AVAILED. GROUNDNO.5 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 23 4B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND THEREFORE, DISMI SSED AS SUCH. GROUND NO.6 RELATED TO INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C) OF THE ACT WHICH WE ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 2 CONSIDER AS PREMATURE AND, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS SUCH. THUS, ONLY GROUNDS WHICH REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED ARE GROUND S NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F JOB WORK OF PROCESSING TEXTILES FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 08-10-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,88,370/-. AFTER THE RETURN BEI NG PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED O N 13-12-2010 WHEREIN THE LEARNED AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,52 ,877/- BEING THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING CENVAT AND EXCISE BALANCE SHOWN IN T HE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. 4. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOW ED EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHEREIN CENVAT RECEIVED AND CE NVAT PAID WAS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE IN THIS ACCOUNT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. CENVAT RECEIVED AN D PAID WAS NEVER REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE, THE CENVAT RECEIVED HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED AS RECEIPT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT, THE LEARNED AO OPINED THAT THE CENVAT CREDIT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.20,52,877/-. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING THE ISSUE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO ON A DIFFERENT PREMISE THAT THE E XPENDITURE OF RS.20,52,877/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. I HAVE PERUSED VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELL ANT. IT IS SEEN ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 3 THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE IN CEN VAT ACCOUNT OF RS.20,52,877/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT HAS WRITTEN OFF THIS AMOUNT IN THE P & L A/C. AND C LAIMED THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT IS CONTEND ING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT. SINCE IN THE EARLIER YEARS THIS CENV AT CREDIT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ON HIGHER INCOME. 3.3 IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIME D U/S. 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. A. O. THE BASIC CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 37 (1) ARE AS UNDER: I) EXPENDITURE MUST BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. II) IT MUST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED FULLY AND EXCLU SIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, CARRIED ON B Y THE ASSESSEE. III) IT MUST NOT BE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 30 TO 36. IV) EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. V) EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE PRE VIOUS YEAR. VI) EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR T HE PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENSE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE FULFILLED IN MAKING AN ALLOWABLE CLAIM U/S. 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT. IT IS CLEARLY HE LD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GHATKOPAR E STATE AND FINANCE CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (1989) REPORTED AT 17 7 ITR 222 THAT BEFORE MAKING ALLOWANCE U/S. 37(1) IT SHOULD BE ASC ERTAINED THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER THIS SECTION ARE FUL FILLED. 3.4 IN THE INSTANT CASE I FIND THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,52,877/- BEING DEBIT IN CENVAT ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THESE EX PENSES WERE INCURRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SINCE THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURR ED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE BASIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERION O F 37(1) IS NOT FULFILLED IN THIS CASE. ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 4 3.5 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT H AD SURRENDERED THE EXCISE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME OR NOT . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EXCISE DUTY IS NOT ATTRACTE D ON THE COLOURS AND CHEMICALS MANUFACTURED BY IT. HOWEVER, THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THIS CLA IM. I FIND THAT PROVISIONS OF CENVAT IS STILL APPLICABLE ON A BASKE T OF GOODS. IT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE CLA IM OF EXPENSES HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING POLICY CON SISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WILL BE WORTHW HILE TO MENTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE POLICY OF NEITHER CREDITING NOR DEBITING THE CENVAT RECEIPTS OR PAYMENTS IN THE P & L A/C. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY DEMANDS T HAT THIS ACCOUNT BE GIVEN A TREATMENT IN THIS YEAR AS IT WAS TREATED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON ITO VS KUNDANMAL SURANA (2004) 83 TTJ 586 (JODH. TRIBUNAL). 3.6 THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON PLETHORA O F CASE LAWS. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPEL LANT WAS REQUESTED TO CITE FEW CASES WHERE SPECIFIC RELIANCE ARE PLACED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUERY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HEAVILY RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- (1) CIT VS GWALIOR RAYONS MFG. AND WEAVING CO. LTD. , 237 ITR 263 (2) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD. VS CIT REPORTED AT 201 ITR 87. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYONS MFG. & WEAVING CO. LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF PAYMENTS AGA INST IMPORT LICENSES, WHEN THEY COULD NO LONGER BE USED. THE ST RIKING FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE IMPORT LICENSES WERE ALWAYS CREDIT TO THE P & L A/C. AND TAXED DULY PAID. IN THE INSTANT CASE CENVAT ACC OUNT WAS DECLARED IN THE BALANC SHEET. INVIEW OF THESE FACTS I FIND THAT THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYONS MFG. & WEAVING CO. LTD., WA S DELIVERED ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY IN MY CONSIDERED VI EW THE RATIO OF THIS CASE LAW WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. PERUSAL OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., CASE REVEALS THAT THE COMPANY NAMELY BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATIO N LTD., WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. ON 24/1/76. THE SALE PRICE OF REFINED PRODUCT INCREASED BY THE GOVERNMENT W. E. F. 3/11/1973 AND THEREBY PRICE OF ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 5 CRUDE OIL ALSO INCREASED. THE COMPENSATION FOR FLUC TUATION IN CRUDE OIL WAS PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE ADVENTITIA G AINS ARISING ON STOCK OF PRODUCTS ON 2.11.1973, ON ACCOUNT OF INCRE ASE IN SELLING PRICE WAS TO BE SURRENDERED BY BPCL TO THE GOVERNME NT, AS PER GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE DATED 24/6/74. THIS WAY, IN TH IS CASE THE GAINS ARISEN HAS BEEN SURRENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY M/ S. BPCL. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CENVAT CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN SUR RENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE RATIO OF THIS CASE LAW WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLAN T. 3.7 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF RS. 20,52,877/- U/S. 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS .20,52,877/- IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT UP TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, EXCISE DUTY AND MODVAT RECEIVABLE WAS SET OFF AND BALANCE REMAINING AS ON 01-04-2007 AMOUNTING TO RS.20,37,02 1/- FOR MODVAT RECEIVABLE, PLUS RS.4,585/- BEING ACCRUED MODVAT CR EDIT, PLUS EXCISE PLA ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.11,271/- WHICH IN ALL AGGRE GATE TO RS.20,52,877/- HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS ON 31-03-2008 BY DEBITING T HE SAME TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, S INCE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD REALIZED THAT NO EX CISE DUTY WAS PAYABLE ON RAW MATERIALS OF WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, NO CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF MODVAT COULD BE ADJUSTED IN FUTURE. THUS , THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,52,877/- WHICH STOOD AS DEBIT BALANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT NO MORE REMAINED AS AN ASSET AND THEREFOR E IT HAD TO BE WRITTEN OFF. FURTHER, THE REGISTRATION NUMBER GRANTED BY CE NTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO TO BE SURRENDERED. ALL THESE FACTS RELATES TO CRYSTALLIZATION OF THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.20,52,877/- AS AN UNREALIZABLE ASSET WHICH HAD TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 READ WITH SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFO RE, PRAYED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,52,877/- IS UNWARRANTED. ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 6 7. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS EXAMI NED BY US REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED CENVAT / EXCISE ELEMENT FO R ITS PURCHASES IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT I N THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, THE CENVAT / EXCISE ELEMENT OF ITS SALES WAS ALSO CREDITED TO THE SAME ACCOUNT AND THE NET DIFFERENCE OF CENVAT / EXC ISE ELEMENT FOR THE VALUE ADDITION WAS PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER , WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM THE BUYER. IN THIS PROCESS THE DIFFERENCE OF T HE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEES SUPPLIERS TOWARD CENVAT / EXCISE FOR ITS PURCHASES AND AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM SALE PROCEEDS ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT/ EXCISE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CENVAT / EXCISE PAID AT THE TIME OF PURCHASES REMAINS AS AN ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNTIL IT I S ADJUSTED FOR THE CENVAT / EXCISE REALIZED ON THE SALES GENERATED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THIS IS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR R ECORDING THE TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO CENVAT / EXCISE WHICH IS REFERRED BY THE LEARNED AO AS NET OF EXCISE DUTY EXCLUSIVE METHOD. FROM THE EARLIER BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.20,52,877/- STANDING ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT / EXCI SE PAID TOWARD PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR S, WHICH IMPLIES THAT, TO SUCH AN EXTENT NO PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MAD E TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT / EXCISE COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEES SALE PROCEEDS. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR TH E ASSESSEE REALIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOUND TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT / EXCISE FOR THE REVENUE GENERATED BY IT IN FUTURE AND, THEREFORE, THE CENVAT / EXCISE PAID AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF MATERIALS COULD NOT BE ADJUSTED IN ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 7 THE FUTURE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD APP LIED FOR SURRENDER OF ITS REGISTRATION WITH THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT VID E ITS LETTER DATED 07-03- 2008 XEROX COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK PRODUCED BEFORE US. ALL THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. ON ANALYZING THE PRESENT SITUATION, IT IS APPARENT THA T THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAD REALIZED THAT THE CENVAT / EXCISE STANDING AS AN ADJUSTABLE ASSET AGAINST THE PROPOSED LIABILITY OF CENVAT / EXCISE PAYABLE TO GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER, NO MORE COULD BE CONSIDERE D AS AN ASSET, SINCE THE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF CENVAT / EXCISE CEASE TO EXIST. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A STAND THAT, SINCE THIS DEBIT B ALANCE HAS ARISEN DUE TO THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED TO TAKE CREDIT O F THE SAME FOR THE CENVAT / EXCISE PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER , AND NOW WHEN THE SITUATION HAS AROUSED, WERE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT / EXCISE PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER, THE CEN VAT / EXCISE SHOWN AS ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE NO M ORE REMAINED AN ASSET AND THEREFORE HAD TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THIS VIEW OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS COUNT. MOREOVER THE REASONING RELIED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THAT THE CENVAT / EXCISE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS WILL NOT HOLD ANY WATER, BECAUSE THE PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS CENVAT / EXCISE FOR THE PURCHASES DURING THE EARLIE R YEARS WAS SHOWN AS AN ASSET, BEING THE AMOUNT ADJUSTABLE FOR FUTURE PA YMENT TO GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER TOWARD CENVAT / EXCISE COLLECTED ON ITS S ALE PROCEEDS, WHICH CEASED TO EXIST AS AN ASSET DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR SINCE NO AMOUNT WAS ADJUSTABLE AS THE ASSESSEES SALE WAS EX EMPT FROM CENVAT / EXCISE, THUS THE ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE NO MORE REMA INED AS AN ASSET AND THEREFORE CRYSTALLIZED AS AN EXPENDITURE FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ITA NO.1049/AHD/2012 (AY: 2008-09) M/S. KAMAL PROCESS VS ITO, WARD-6(5), AHMEDABAD 8 THOUGH THE CENVAT / EXCISE PAYMENTS WAS INCURRED T OWARDS PURCHASES MADE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FAVOUR AND HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.20,52,877/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-12-2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 19-11-12 (PART DICTATION)/21 -11-12 - DIRECT 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 21-11-12 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: