Oswal Chemicals, Ahmedabad V. The Addl.CIT.,Range-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1127/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76669 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: P D SHAH
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !' !' !' !' # # # #0 00 0 0 00 0 $# $# $# $#, , , , % % % % & & & & BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAAFO2681F V/S ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT)/ '( (RESPONDENT)/ ) '( APPELLANT BY/ '( * + : SH. P.D. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY/ ) '( * + : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. DR -#!. * /% / DATE OF HEARING : 23-04-2014 012 * /% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-04-2014 ( 3 3 3 3 )/ ORDER PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 17.02.2011. 2. THE SOLE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF PROPORTIONATE TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS 2 ,58,049/- IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INWARD TRANS PORT CHARGES OF ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 2 - RS 68,87,724/- BUT WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK, THIS EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS BEING A DIRECT EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INCLUDED PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON INWA RD TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS 2,58,049/- IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THERE IS CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS BOUN D TO BE TAX EFFECT IN THE YEAR OF CHANGE, BUT OVER THE YEARS IT IS TAX NEUTRAL. 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERO MOT OCORP LIMITED VS. ACIT ITA NO. 1980/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ORDER DATED 11.06.2013 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE S IMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD THAT ADJUSTMENT SOUGHT TO BE MADE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL AND AT BEST MAY RESULT IN PREPONEME NT OR POSTPONEMENT OF REVENUE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS 68,87 ,724/- ON INWARD TRANSPORT CHARGES WHICH ARE DEBITED IN THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE, B UT WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INC LUDED THE SAME IN ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 3 - ITS CLOSING STOCK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R INCLUDED THE PROPORTIONATE INWARD TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS 2,58,0 49/- IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS 2,58,049/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED O N APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WILL BE IMP ACT IN THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF CHANGE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BUT WILL BECOME NEUTRAL IN NATURE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED ( SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE WHETHER FREIGHT EXPENSES INCURRE D ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF CLOSI NG STOCK OR NOT, HELD AS UNDER: 7.13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE IN Q UESTION IS REGARDING METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. TH E PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAD TO MAKE E MERGENCY PURCHASES AND THAT THESE STOCKS SO PURCHASED WERE IMMEDIATELY CONSUMED. IN SUCH EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIO NS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DIRECTLY ACCOUNTED THE FREIGHT AND IMP ORT CLEARING CHARGES TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. TH IS MEANS THAT SUCH RAW MATERIAL STOCKS ARE NOT PART OF CLOSI NG STOCK AT ALL. FURTHER, THIS FACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DR. 7.14. THOUGH TECHNICALLY IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT TH E VALUE OF CLOSING INVENTORY MUST INCLUDE FREIGHT/IMP ORT CLEARING CHARGES, THE FACTS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE THAT THE PURCHASES IN QUESTION ARE DONE UNDER EXCEP TIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (WHICH ARE WELL KNOWN IN THIS TYPE OF INDUSTRY) FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION. THEY ARE IN FACT CONSUME D IMMEDIATELY I.E. AS SOON AS RAW MATERIAL ENTERS THE FACTORY PREMISES WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER , HENCE THE QUESTION OF SUCH PURCHASES BEING PART OF CLOSIN G STOCK DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WHEN FR EIGHT/ IMPORT CHARGES ARE DIRECTLY DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C ALONG WITH THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASES, NATURALLY THE QUESTION OF TREATING THEM AS PART OF CLOSING INVENTORY DOES NOT ARISE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED AND ACCOUNTED IN A PROPER AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD. THEREFORE, THE RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THIS COUNT ALONE. ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 4 - 7.15. ALTERNATIVELY, THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE SA ID METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND THE REVENU E HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THESE FACTS AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITHOUT ANY DEMUR. 7.16. THE CONTENTION OF THE DRP THAT, THE PRINCIPL E OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT TO COME TO INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION AND IS NOT BOUND BY PAST ACC EPTANCE OF A FACTUAL LEGAL POINT BY THE DEPARTMENT IS UNTEN ABLE. TECHNICALLY THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA MAY NOT A PPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AS EACH YEAR IS AN INDEPENDE NT YEAR, YET THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY AS PROPOUNDED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321, WHE N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL. IT IS A JUDICIALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THE FACTS ARE SAME, A UNIFORM VIEW SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. UNLESS THERE IS A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS, WHICH IS NEITHER DEMONSTRATED BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOR DRP, THE VIEW WHICH IS TAKEN EARLIER, SHOULD NO T BE CHANGED, AS HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS. WE NOW DISCUSS SOME OF THE CASE LAWS. 7.17. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA), ON THE THEORY OF CONSIS TENCY, HAS HELD AS UNDER: ' ..STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT WAS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MIGHT NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR'. 7.18. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEO PLOY PA CK (P) LTD [2000] 245 ITR 492 AND THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT [2011] 336 ITR 28 7. 7.19. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LIMITED (2 008) 307 ITR 202 HELD THAT: ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 5 - 'IN CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TAX AN ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF THE LIABILITY ARISING IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, IT SHOULD ALWAYS ASCERTAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST AND WHETHER CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS WARRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PROFIT IS BEING UNDERESTIMATED UNDER THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS, HE MUST GIVE FACTS AND FIGURES IN THAT REGARD AND DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THAT THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. OTHERWISE, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THAT EXERCISE HAD NEVER BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE BOTH THE METHODS, ONE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT.' 7.20. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BILAHARI INVESTMENT P. LTD. 299 ITR 1 (SC) HEL D AS FOLLOWS: 'EVERY ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ARRANGE ITS AFFAIRS AND FOLLOW THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS EARLIER ACCEPTED. IT IS ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT RECORDS A FINDING THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN DISTORTION OF PROFITS THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN INSIST ON SUBSTITUTION OF THE EXISTING METHOD.' 7.21. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES L TD. (2011) 399 ITR 382 (DEL.), THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'IF A PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND ACCEPTED AND THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE REASON TO DIFFER WITH IT, THE DOCTRINE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD COME INTO PLAY. THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CANNOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. ACCORDING TO PAST BUSINESS PRACTICE, THE EXPENDITURE SPILLED OVER ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 6 - THE NEXT YEAR AND WAS DEBITED IN THE SECOND YEAR AND WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION DISALLOWED RS. 13,46,299 CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE OF PRIOR PERIOD ALLOWABLE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AND THIS WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE VOUCHERS FOR SUCH EXPENSES FROM THE EMPLOYEES/BRANCH EMPLOYEES WERE RECEIVED AFTER MARCH 31 ST OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IT HAD BRANCH OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. IT DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE SPILL OVER THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN ALLOWING IT IN THE PAST. THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY IT AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN DISTORTION OF PROFITS OR THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DID NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT PICTURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, THERE WAS NO WARRANT OR JUSTIFICATION TO DEPART FROM THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS.' 7.22. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE HAS REJECTE D THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS CONSISTENTLY FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE MAY BE CHANCE WHERE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSEE MAY RESULT IN UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH FACTS AND FIGURE S THAT THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING MAY RESULT IN MATERIA L UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS. ON THE CONTRARY, THE AS SESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOU NTING FOR YEAR UNDER APPEAL WOULD RESULT IN LOSS TO THE R EVENUE AS THE OPENING STOCK WOULD ALSO REQUIRE SIMILAR ADJUST MENT AND THE CASCADING EFFECT WILL BE LOSS TO REVENUE. WE OB SERVE THAT IN MANY OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS CASE BY THE R EVENUE, THE CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS UNNECESSARIL Y DISTURBED, THOUGH IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN MANY YEAR S. IN OUR VIEW SUCH TINKERING WITH THE METHOD IS UNJUSTIFIED WHEN THE EXERCISE DOES NOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE PROFITS. THE FACTS AND FIGURES IN MANY ADDITIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ISSU E RAISED IS REVENUE NEUTRAL IN THE LONG RUN. SUCH PETTY ADDI TIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED ON THE GROUND OF MATERIALITY, AS AS-1 ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 7 - WHICH TALKS ABOUT MATERIALITY, CONSISTENCY, PRUDENC E ETC. IS PART OF THE I.T. ACT AFTER IT IS NOTIFIED U/S 145(2 ). 7.23. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOINGS AND PROPOSITION LA ID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE H IGH COURTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ADJUSTMENT OF RS . 31.38 LACS MADE TO TOTAL VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 27 5 CRORES AND CONSUMPTION OF STOCK OF RS. 7178 CRORES IS UNCA LLED FOR. IF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS CHANGED THEN THE V ALUE OF OPENING STOCK SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED ON THE SAME BA SIS OR METHOD. THE CLOSING STOCK OF A PARTICULAR YEAR IS T HE OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STO CK IS MATERIALLY AFFECTING THE ACCOUNTS AND PROFITS DISCL OSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADJUSTMENT SOUGHT TO BE MADE IS REVE NUE NEUTRAL AND AT BEST MAY RESULT IN PREPONEMENT OR POSTPONEMENT OF REVENUE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH EXERCISE IS AT ALL REQUIRED ON THE GROUND OF MATERI ALITY. MATERIALITY IS A CONCEPT WHICH IS WELL RECOGNIZED B OTH IN ACCOUNTANCY AND LAW. ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT U/S 145(2) MANDATE THAT THE CONCEPT OF MATERIA LITY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN FINALIZING THE ACCOUN TS OF AN ASSESSEE. 7.24. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 AT PAGE 103 (SC), HAS NOTED WITH APPROVAL, THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN COMMUNICATION NETWORK PVT. LTD. VS. IAC (1994) 206 ITR (AT) 96 (DELHI). AT PAGE 114 IT OBSERVED THAT: 'BEFORE WE PART WITH THE GROUND, WE CANNOT HELP FEELING THAT THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED SINCE IT WAS QUITE IMMATERIAL, WHETHER FULL DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN ONE YEAR OR PARTLY IN ONE YEAR AND PARTLY IN THE NEXT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND RATE OF TAX IS UNIFORM. THE GAIN TO ONE AND THE LOSS TO THE OTHER IS ILLUSORY SINCE WHAT IS DEFERRED IN ONE YEAR, WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED IN THE NEXT. IN THAT SENSE, NOBODY HAS WON AND NOBODY HAS LOST.' 7.25. EVEN ON THIS PLEA ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEED S. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY AS, IN A NUMBER OF GROUNDS, THIS ISSUE WOULD BECOME APPLICABLE. IN VI EW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSES SEE. ITA NO. 1127/AHD/2011 M/S OSWAL CHEMICALS VS. ACIT, R-2, AHD AY 2008-09 - 8 - 8. NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS CITED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,58,049/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INWARD TRANSPORT CHARGE S. THUS, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 25 TH OF APRIL, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/04/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY 3 * )/4 542/ 3 * )/4 542/ 3 * )/4 542/ 3 * )/4 542// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. '' / -7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. -7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. 4!: )/# , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ; <. / GUARD FILE. 3#- 3#- 3#- 3#- / BY ORDER, = == =/ // / '> '> '> '> ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD