Hipolin Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1079/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1423 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Non-deduction of tax; TDS; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 14A; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1079/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) HIPOLIN LIMITED, 4 TH FLOOR, MADHUBAN, NR. MADHALPUR UNDER BRIDGE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD. AND I.T.A. NO. 1178/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD. VS. HIPOLIN LIMITED, 4 TH FLOOR, MADHUBAN, NR. MADHALPUR UNDER BRIDGE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. [ PAN NO. AAACH 3876 J ] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. M. MEHTA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 06.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.06.2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE SAME ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD 2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THE SAME ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON O RDER. ITA NO. 1079/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012-13: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLA NT'S CASE, LEARNED. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.52,45,74 9/- MADE IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TO MARKETING AGENCIES TOWARDS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT' S CASE, LEARNED. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.87,130/- IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TO KRISHNA CLEARING AGENCIES TOWARDS T RANSPORTATION CHARGES, WHEN NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR TH E ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT' S CASE, LEARNED. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,19,120 /- IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TO MAHESHWARI ENTERPRISE TOWARDS TRANS PORTATION CHARGES, WHEN NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR TH E ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT' S CASE, LEARNED. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,49,100 /- IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS CONSULTANCY CHARGES, WHEN NO S UCH DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR THE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLAN T'S CASE, LEARNED. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,11,196 7- IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - 3. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS.52,45,749/- U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NON-DED UCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT MADE TO THE MARKEING AGENCIES TOWARDS SALES PROMOTI ON EXPENSES. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.87,130/- AND RS.2,19,120/- WAS A LSO MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE PAYMENT MAD E TO KRISHNA CLEARING AGENCIES AND MAHESHWARI ENTERPRISE RESPECTIVELY TOW ARDS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. FURTHER THAT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,49,100/- W AS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED AO U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS O N PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS CONSULTANCY CHARGES. SUCH DISALLOWANCE WERE ALSO CO NFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE T HE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYS BEFORE US FOR THE ADDITION TO BE RESTRICTED TO 30% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF DIFFERENT COURTS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUN AL, DELHI BENCH IN THE MATTER OF SMT. KANTA YADAV-VS-ITO IN ITA NO.6312/DE L/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012- 13. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE RE VENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT SUCH CONTENTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI ITAT BENCH WHILE DEALING IN THE I DENTICAL ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND T HAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR B ENCH IN THE CASE ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - OF SHRI RAJENDRA YADAV VS. ITO AND SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL VS. ITO. IN THESE ORDERS IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) TO BE RESTRICTED TO 30% OF THE ADDITION. IN THESE ORDERS THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF I.T. ACT. IN THESE ORDERS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR'S INVOLVE WAS 2007 -08 AND 2008-09. IN ITA NO. 6312/ DEL/2016 SMT. KANTA YADAV VS. ITO THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2012-13. THEREFORE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION S OF JAIPUR BENCH, WE SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 3 0% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTIONS AND/OR SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OB SERVATION MADE BY THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH AS ABOVE. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT. HENCE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 3 0% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13: 7. THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME U/S.14A OF THE ACT, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.52,45,749/ OUT OF DISALLOWANCE O F RS.81,55,903/- MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, UNDER THE HEAD SALES PROMOTION AND SALES INCENTIVE WITHOUT PROPERL Y APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3,06,250/- OUT OF DISALLOWANCE O F RS.81,82,676 MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND OR ADD NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 8. GROUND NO.1 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO T HE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 9. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING UPON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTI CED BY THE LEARNED AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,48,58,63 5/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES, DIRECT ORS REMUNERATION, SALARY ETC. IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT TH E ASSESSEE INVESTED IN SHARES, THE DIVIDEND INCOME WHEREOF IS EXEMPT UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED D IVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,06,939/- AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE SAID AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IT SELF DISALLOWED VOLUNTARILY RS.2,06,868/-. BUT APPLYING THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D THE LEARNED AO WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.2, 45,941/-. THUS, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.39,072/- WAS FURTHER DISALLOWE D U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN TURN RESTRICTED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL. HENC E, THE APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL TH E LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SERIES OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT INCLUDING THE CASE OF CHUDGAR RANCHODLAL JETHALAL-V S-THE DCIT (OSD) IN ITA NO.245/AHD/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF M/S. AMRUTA QUARRY WORKS-VS-ITO IN ITA NO .1481/AHD/2013 COPY WHEREOF WAS ALSO HANDED OVER TO US. HOWEVER, THE LE ARNED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO CONTROVERT T HE CONTENTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS RESPECT. 11. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEV ANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE SAME HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS PASSED BY DIFFERENT COURTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND INCOME IS OF RS.1,06,939/-. SINCE THE DISA LLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DI SALLOWANCE TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,06,939/-. WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A SINCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, THE AMOUNT OF DISALL OWANCE WORKED OUT TO RS.2,45,941/- WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY DISALL OWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,06,864/- ON ITS OWN. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITT ED THAT IT HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND OF RS.1,06,93 9/- AND HAD SUO- MOTO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,06,868/- WHICH IN ANY CASE EXCEEDED THE EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWAN CE WAS JUSTIFIED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON'BLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF CHUDGAR RANCHHODLAL JETHALAL VS. DCIT (OSD), RANGE-1 IN ITA NO. ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - 245/AHD/2013 DATED 20.03.2015 HAS HELD THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF EXE MPT INCOME. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PASSED B Y THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF M/S AMRUTA QUARRY WORKS, REL EVANT PORTION DEALING WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO GO WITH ANY OTHER FACTUAL ARGUMENTS EXC EPT THAT BY AMENDMENT IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) BROUGHT IN BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT , 2014, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- '14.4 ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT IN CASE OF NON-DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE OR NON- PAYMENT OF TAX SO DEDUCTED ON PAYMEN TS MADE TO RESIDENTS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE DISALLOWANCE SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 30% OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED.' 6.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEN CONTENDS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE INASMUCH AS IN CLAUSE 14.3 OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTES IN THIS BEHALF MENTIONED AS UNDER:- '14.3 AS MENTIONED ABOVE, IN CASE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OR NON- PAYMENT OF TAX SO DEDUCTED FROM CERT AIN PAYMENTS MADE TO RESIDENTS, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EX PENDITURE ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE IS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEA D 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. THE DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CAUSES HARDSH IP, ESPECIALLY IN CASE OF PAYMENT MADE TO A RESIDENT IN WHOSE CASE THE WITHHOLDING OF TAX IS ONLY A MODE OF COLLECTION OF TAX AND DOES NOT RESULT INTO FINAL DISCHARGE OF TAX LIABILI TY.' ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - 6.2 SINCE THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMENDMENT ASSUMES THE C HARACTER OF BEING CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND IS RETROSPECTIVELY APPL ICABLE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FIVE MEMBERS CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED , REPORTED IN (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IN CASE THE AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF BEING CLARIFICATO RY IN NATURE. 6.3 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BROUGHT IN BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT , 2014 MAY BE HELD AS RETROSPECTIVELY APPLICABLE; IN VIEW THEREOF 30% OF THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED MAY BE HELD AS DISALLOWAB LE U/S 40(A)(IA). 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS HEARD. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE L IMITED (SUPRA), THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT OF 2014 IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) , THE SAME IS HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE; T HEREFORE, THE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) SHOULD BE RES TRICTED TO 30% OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. SINCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS I N CONSEQUENCE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND T HE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RESTRICTING TH E DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SO FAR AS TO WARRANT INTE RFERENCE. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E. IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND THUS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1079/AHD/2016 & ITA NO.1178/AHD/201 6 HIPOLIN LTD. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 9 - 12. GROUND NO.2 & 3: THESE GROUND OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF T HE ISSUES ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.1079 /AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012- 13 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THESE GROUND OF APPEAL PRE FERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO.4, 5 & 6 ARE USUAL GROUNDS, HENCE NO ORDER NEED BE PASSED. 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/06/2019 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/06/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-7, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ', #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD