The DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat V. Dipesh L.Shah, Surat

ITA 1147/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 114720514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR VAKIL
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 5(2); 32; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA. NO. 1141/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT APPELLANT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION PVT. LTD. 102, VISHAL HOUSE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, RING ROAD, SURAT - 395002 RESPOND ENT PAN: AAACV8087F & ITA. NO. 1146/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT APPELLANT VS. KANCHANBEN L. SHAH 102, VISHAL HOUSE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, SURAT - 395002 RESPONDENT PAN: ADRPS1651D & ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - ITA. NO. 1147/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT APPELLANT VS. SHRI DIPESH L SHAH 102, VISHAL HOUSE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, SURAT - 395002 RESPONDENT PAN: AFSRS3839J / BY REVENUE : SHRI SAMIR VAKIL, SR. D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) /DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2015 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 IN CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE FROM SEPARATE ORDERS OF T HE CIT(A) - II, AHMEDABAD, DATED 19.03.2012 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.271AAA O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HEREINAFTER THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUES SOLITARY SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IDE NTICAL IN ALL THREE CASES CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)S ACTION IN DELETING SECTION 271AAA PENALTIES OF RS.41,10,205/- IN FIRST CASE AND RS.10LACS EACH IN THE REMAINING TWO CASES. 3. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES B EHEST DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE CASE FILES REVEAL THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE CHOSEN TO PLACE ON RECORD ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. WE ACCORDINGLY TAKE NOTE OF C ONTENTS THEREIN. ALL THERE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL ACCORDINGLY. 4. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE DEPART MENT CONDUCTED A SEARCH ACTION IN CASE OF M/S. VISAHL FASHION PVT. LTD. ON 20.01.2009. SHRI DIPESH SHAH, ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR GOT RECORDED ITS STATEMEN T ON THE SAME DAY MAKING TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.7.5 CRORES INCLUDING A SUM O F RS.4,11,02,053/- IN THE FIRST APPEAL AND RS.1 CRORE EACH IN LATTER TWO CASES. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER FRAMED REGULAR ASSESSMENTS IN THE THREE CASES ON 31 .12.2010 IN FIRST TWO APPEALS AND 28.12.2010 IN THE LAST ONE INTER ALIA ASSESSING INCOME OF RS.6,38,84,520/-, RS.95,02,860/- & RS.2,14,21,580/- INCLUDING THE ABO VE STATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HE INITIATED SECTION 271AAA PROCEEDINGS A GAINST ALL THESE ASSESSEES AND LEVIED IMPUGNED PENALTIES VIDE ITS DIFFERENT OR DER HOLDING THEREIN THAT THEIR ACTION IN DECLARING ABOVE STATE UNDISCLOSED INCOMES DID NOT DESCRIBE MANNER OF DERIVING THE SAME OR THEY HAD NOT PROVIDED FOR SPEC IFIC DETAILS. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT FIRST AND SECOND CONDITIONS IN THE EXEMPT ION PROVISION U/S.271AAA(2) HAD NOT BEEN FULFILLED IN THESE THREE CASES. THIS RESULTED IN IMPOSITION OF IMPUGNED PENALTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.41,10,205/- IN T HE FIRST CASE AND RS.10LACS EACH IN THE LATTER TWO I.E. @ 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOMES HEREINABOVE. 5. THESE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) DELETES THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES. WE TREAT ITA NO.1141/AHD/2012 AS THE LEAD CASE COMPRISING THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE MENTION ED BY THE AO, THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AR ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. 5.1 THE LD. AR'S ARGUMENT THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DEFINED IN EXPL.(A) TO SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE A SSESSEE HIMSELF MADE DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT. HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS REPRESENT ED BY UNACCOUNTED GREY STOCKS, RECEIVABLES AND OTHER DISCREPANCIES AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESS EE FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - RS.4,11,02,053/-, IS CLEARLY COVERED UNDER THE DEFI NITION OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' REPRESENTED BY UNACCOUNTED ASSETS AS PER EXPL.(A) T O SECTION 271AAA OF THE I.T.ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE CASE FALLS IN EXCEPTION OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271 AAA AS ALT THE THREE CONDITIONS ARE LAID DOWN IN THREE CLAUSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION ARE SATISFIED. 5.2 THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(2) ARE NOT FULFILLED B Y THE APPELLANT. THE THREE CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 2 71AAA ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (I) IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDER SUB-S ECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES TH E MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (II) PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RES PECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. CLAUSE (I) LAYS DOWN THE FIRST CONDITION THAT UNDIS CLOSED INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4 ) AND ASSESSEE SHOULD SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN DERIVED. SHRI DIPESH L SHAH, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.01.2009, IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATED IN RE PLY TO QUESTIONS NO.34 THAT HE WAS DISCLOSING RS.4,11,02,053/- FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 -09 REPRESENTING CURRENT YEAR INCOME. HE CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOM E WAS DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS INCOME. THIS CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT THE INCOME IS EARNED IN CURRENT YEAR FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STA TEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) DISCLOSED RS.4,11,02,053/- AS CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME AND TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND SO ASSESSEE SPECIFIED THE MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED. CLAUSE (II) LAYS DOWN THE SECOND CONDITION THAT ASS ESSEE SHOULD SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED . THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DID NOT ASK ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION ON SUBSTANTIATING THE MAN NER IN WHICH INCOME WAS DERIVED, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY MENTIONED IN A STATEME NT RECORDED IN SECTOR 132(4) THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS INCOME . IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES OF CIT V. MAHENDRA C. SHAH [2008] 299 ITR 305 (GUJ.) AND SECOND CIT V. RA DHA KRISHNA GOEL [2005] 278 ITR 454/[2006] 152 TAXMAN 290 (ALL.), ARE ALSO SQUA RELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE . IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAHENDRA C. SHAH, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE STATEMENT IS BEING RECORDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION 5 IN ENTIRETY TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANNOT STOP SHORT AT A PARTICULA R STAGE SO AS TO PERMIT THE REVENUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH LAPSE IN THE STATEMENT. T HE REASON IS NOT FAR TO SEEK. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE STATEMENT IS BEING RECORDED IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM AND THERE. WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR AN ASSESSEE TO STAT E AND MAKE AVERMENTS IN THE EXACT FORMAT STIPULATED BY THE PROVISIONS CONSIDERING THE SETTING IN WHICH SUCH STATEMENT IS ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - BEING RECORDED. SECONDLY, CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL EN VIRONMENT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPECT FROM AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER LITERATE OR ILLITE RATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE SECOND E XCEPTION WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NO T SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOME IS DECLARED AND TA X THEREON PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTING ANY FURTHER D ENIAL OF THE BENEFIT. 5.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RADHA KRISHNA GOEL [2005] 278 ITR 454, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT GAVE SIMILAR FINDINGS AND LAID DOWN SIMILAR PRINCIPLES AS UNDER- '...FROM A PERUSAL EXPLANATION 5, IT IS EVIDENT THA T THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OTHERWISE DID NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C), NOW BY A DEEMING PROVISION ATTRACT PENALTY PROVISIONS: BUT A N EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 WHERE THE DEEMING PROVI SION WILL NOT APPLY IF DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE STATEMENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY ETC. FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS INCOME WHIC H HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED SO FAR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO SPECIFIES I N THE STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME....UNDER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE ACT, UNLESS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUTS A SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH RE GARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM TH E PERSON TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD AND IN CASE IN THE STATEME NT THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED HAS NOT BEEN STATED BUT HAS BEEN STATED SUBSEQUENTLY, IT AMOUNTS TO COMPLIANCE WITH EXPLANATION 5(2). IF THERE IS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 13 2(4) OF THE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT SUCH UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS WHICH HE WAS CARRYING ON. THE OBJ ECT OF THE PROVISION IS ACHIEVED BY MAKING THE STATEMENT ADMITTING THE NON- DISCLOSURE OF MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, ETC. THUS, MUCH IMPORTANCE SHOU LD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. IT CAN BE INFERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. THEREFORE, MERE NON-STATEMENT OF T HE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED WOULD NOT MAKE EXPLANATION 5(2) INAPPLICABLE.'(P.454).' 5.4 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDE R SECTION 1 32 (4) OF THE IT ACT AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONORABLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY REJE CTED THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENTS. THE HONORABLE COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IS TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISION TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASK THE R ELEVANT QUESTIONS ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED AND IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS APPLICABLE FOR SECTION 271AAA INSTEAD OF EXPLANATION 5 OF SECTION 271(1). IN THE WHOLE, STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) ON 20.01. 2009, THE A UTHORIZED OFFICER HAS NOT ASKED ANY FURTHER QUESTION BUT WAS SATISFIED WITH THE MAN NER THE INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND DURING SEARCH CLE ARLY SUBSTANTIATES THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED FROM BUSINESS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH. THE LEARNED DCIT HAS NEVER GIVEN THE APPELLANT ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OR AN ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS WITH REGARD TO HIS RESERVATION AND CONTRARY OPINION ABOUT THE EXPLANAT IONS, INFORMATION AND SPECIFIC MANNER IN WHICH THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE THEREOF, IT IS A CONSTRUCTIVE AND UNDISPUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAID DISCLOSURE, THE SPECIFIC MANNER THEREOF AND TH E SUBSTANTIATION THEREOF BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY OTHER SOURCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. CL AUSE (III) LAYS DOWN THE THIRD CONDITION REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF TAX ALONG WITH I NTEREST ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE TAX AND INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF STATED THE SAME IN THE PENALTY ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONORAB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE S THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHILE RECORDING A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND PAID THE TAXES WITH INTER EST. THE RETURNED INCOME INCLUDED DISCLOSURE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,11,02,053/- MADE DURING SEARCH WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT WHICH REPRESENTED BY UNACCOU NTED STOCK AND RECEIVABLES. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENT OR OBSERVATION ABOUT THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF INCOME, MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS DERIVED OR SUBST ANTIATING THE MANNER. THIS SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE INCOME OFFERED IN RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS NARRATED A BOVE IN PARAS 4.1 AND 5.3 OF THIS ORDER, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. THE VERY REASONING STANDS ADOPTED IN THE OTHER TWO CASES. 6. THIS LEAVES THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH ASSES SEES WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. RELEVANT FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE A RE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THESE THREE ASSESSEES DECLARED THEIR U NDISCLOSED INCOMES IN THE SEARCH STATEMENT. THE SAME STAND ASSESSED. THE RE VENUES CASE IS THAT NONE OF THESE THREE ASSESSEES SATISFY FIRST TWO CONDITIONS ENVISAGED U/S.271AAA(2) OF THE ACT I.E. ADMISSION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WEL L AS SPECIFYING THE MANNER OF DERIVING THE SAME FOLLOWED BY ITS SUBSTANTIATION . THE CIT(A) REFERS TO CASE LAW OF MAHINDRA C. SHAH (SUPRA) AND HOLDS THAT THE ASSESSEES IN SEARCH STATEMENT HAD ALREADY CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED UNDISCLO SED INCOME TO HAVE BEEN ITA NOS. 1141, 1146 & 1147/AHD/2012 (ACIT VS. M/S. VISHAL FASHION P. LTD. & ORS.) A.Y. 2009-10 - 7 - EARNED FROM THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. HE CONCLUDE S THAT THE SAME WAS NEVER REBUTTED AT ANY STAGE RIGHT FROM SEARCH TILL ASSESS MENT. WE FIND THAT A CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.1145/AHD/2012 DCIT VS. BHA RAT L. SHAH DECIDED ON 13.08.2015 ARISING FROM THE VERY SEARCH DATED 20.01 .2009 UPHOLDS SIMILAR ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING IDENTICAL SECTION 271AAA PENALTI ES ON THE VERY ASPECT OF NON SATISFACTION OF FIRST TWO CONDITIONS UNDER SUB- SECTION 2 THEREOF. THE REVENUE NEITHER POINT OUT ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS NOR DOES IT FILE ANY EVIDENCE DISPUTING THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS ON FACTUAL A SPECTS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD DECLARED THEIR UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD B USINESS. WE AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S ORDER DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES ACCO RDINGLY. 8. THESE THREE REVENUES APPEALS ITA NOS. 1141, 11 46 & 1147/AHD/2012 ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 06THE DA Y OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/11/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0