Neo Structo Construction Ltd., Surat V. The Addl.CIT.,Range-1, Surat

ITA 1155/AHD/2013

AI Insights

Neo Structo Construction Ltd. filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) dated 08-03-2013. The first appeal (ITA No. 1155/Ahd/2013) contested quantum additions made to the income for the assessment year 2009-10, including disallowances on various expenses and the inclusion of excise duty in closing stock. The second appeal (ITA No. 2038/Ahd/2013) challenged the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal examined each ground of appeal, referencing previous judgments and the specifics of the case, and made determinations on the nature of the expenses and the appropriateness of the penalties imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131405 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2013
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri, CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co., CIT Vs. Union Types, ACIT v. Torrent Cables Ltd., Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd., Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd, PCIT v. Lok Advisory Services (P.) Ltd., Onmobile Global Ltd., Intercontinental Hotels Group India (P.) Ltd., Vision Research & Management (P.) Ltd, Gurunanak Oil Agency
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37; 271(1)(c); 40A(3); 37(1); 251; 153

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Neo Stru cto Construction Ltd . 301, Mahan Terrace, Opp : Bhulka Bhavan Schoo l, Adajan Road, Surat PAN: AAACN7 717H (Appellant) Vs Ad dl. CIT, Range-1, Surat (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri A. C. Shah, A. R. Revenue by : Shri Pooja Parekh, Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 14-12 -2 022 Date of pronouncement : 15-02 -2 023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of Ld. CIT(Appeals) both dated 08-03-2013. The first appeal (ITA No. 1155/Ahd/2013) involves quantum additions while the second appeal (ITA No. 2038/Ahd/2013) involves appeal against the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1155 & 2038 /Ahd/2013 Assessment Year 2009-10 I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 2 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal for assessment year 2009- 10. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,82,584/- being 10% of office expenses. 2. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,18,311/- being 25% of Attimari Coolie expenses. 3. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that even otherwise provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are applicable to payments of Rs.1,16,433/- 4. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in enhancing the assessment by including excise duty component of Rs.4,89,852/- in closing stock of consumables. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance out of consultancy expenses by treating the following expenses as capital in nature : i) Matters with due diligence 30,27,548/- ii) Property valuation matter 11,236/- iii) Business financial consultant 70,78,680/- iv) Management consultant fee for software 1,29,032/- V) Management consultant in finance matters 3,00,000/- v) Fee for rating matters 2,07,525/- Total 1,07,54,021 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 3 4. The assessee has also raised the following additional Grounds of appeal: “The following ground was left out to be raised at the time of filing of Appeal before ITAT through oversight: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing and disallowing the following expenditure though such disallowance was not made by the A.O. in the assessment order: (a) payment of Rs. 1,16,433/- under Section 40A (3); (b) including the excise duty component of Rs. 4,89,852/- (c) disallowance of consultancy expense of Rs. 1,07,54,021/- Cases relied : CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistri 44 ITR 891 (SC) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) CIT Vs. Sardari Lal and Co. 251 ITR 864 (Del) FB CIT Vs. Union Types 240 ITR 556 (Del) Your honours are prayed to admit additional ground and obliged.” Ground number 1: disallowance of 2,82,584/- being 10% of office expenses: 5. This addition is with regard to disallowance of 10% of office expenses. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the only reason why Ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowed these expenses were because the appeal against the order passed by his predecessor for assessment year 2007- 08 on similar issue was pending adjudication before ITAT Ahmedabad. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT Ahmedabad in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 in ITA number 1287/Ahd/2010 vide order dated 09-07-2010 allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal may be allowed on this issue accordingly. In response, DR placed reliance upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 4 6. With respect to ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal, we note that ITAT Ahmedabad in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007- 08 in ITA number 1287/Ahd/2010 vide order dated 09-07-2010 allowed the appeal of the assessee on this identical issue. The relevant extracts of the ruling is reproduced below for reference: “4. On consideration of the above facts and submissions of the learned DR, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The AO has not brought any material on record to show as to which of the bills/vouchers of the expenditure has not been produced before him. Even, no quantum of amount is specified as to how which expenditure was not supported by any bills/vouchers. The AO has also not pointed out as to which of the expenditure was inadmissible in nature. It, therefore, appears that the AO has made ad hoc addition of 15% out of the total expenditure. The learned CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition. 5. As a result, departmental appeal is dismissed.” 7. In view of the above observations made by the ITAT, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground number 2: disallowance of Attimari Coolie expenses: 8. The brief facts in relation to this disallowance are that the assessee claimed Attimari Coolie expenses amounting to 4,73,245/ - out of which Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed disallowance of 25% amounting to 1,18, 311/- under section 37 of the Act for want of supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that considering the fact that the entire expenditure has been made in cash, the genuineness of expense cannot be verified. He accordingly disallowed 25% of such expenses under section 37 of the Act. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 5 9. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in the assessee’s own case vide order dated 04-07-2018 in ITA number 3476/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12, had restricted the disallowance to 25% of Attimari Coolie expenses. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that it shall not be pressing ground number 2 and 3 (which are also related to the same disallowance) in light of the above decision passed by ITAT Mumbai in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12. Copy of the judgement is reproduced at pages 55-60 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The relevant extracts of the ITAT ruling and the assessee’s own case is reproduced below for reference: “3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of mechanical engineering & construction contract during the year under consideration. The AO noticed during the course of assessment proceedings that it has claimed Attimari Coolie Expenses of ? 28,47,339/-. The assessee was asked to explained these expenses with evidences. The assessee stated that it has incurred specific expenses with headload workers and construction workers from the unorganized sectors. It was explained that Attimari Coolie Expenses were incurred due to government patronage in union control in the state of Kerala and assessee has no alternative other than to pay these expenses in the system established. Since the assessee could not produce any evidence and could not explain the business connection with these expenses, the AO disallowed the entire Attimari Coolie Expenses. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at 25% of the expenses and deleted the balance by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of G.G. Joshi vs CIT (1994) 209 ITR 324 (Guj) by observing in Para 8.2 as under: - "8.2 I have gone through the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions. The appellant enclosed date-wise details of payments with photo copies of claimed bills and vouchers. It is noticed the payment for the labour work have been shown made to various claimed workers' unions, rather than payment being made directly to the labourers or contractors etc. The following pertinent observations are culled out from them: I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 6 1) The claimed bills from the workers' unions have neither address nor phone number on them. Therefore, they are not verifiable. 2) All payments are shown in cash, even one of them is not by cheque. Now going by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Joshi v CIT (209 ITR 324) wherein the High Court has observed that observed that in order to be entitled to deduction of payments made to persons whose names are not disclosed, the assessee has to: a) Establish the practice prevailing in That line of business for making such payments: b) To adduce satisfactory evidence to establish The payments: and c) To satisfy the authorities that the payments were made for the purpose of business. The appellant may have sufficiently established the practice prevailing but the payments have not been established nor the extent of the requirement or purpose for business. Looking to the entirety of the facts, I restrict the disallowance to 25% of the expenses. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.28,47,339/- is upheld to the extent of Rs. 7,11,835/- and the remaining disallowance is directed to be deleted." 5. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative, relied on the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed copy of CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, wherein similar disallowance deleted by CIT(A). In AY 2009-10, the CIT(A) in appeal No CAS-l/231/11-12 vide order dated 08.03.2013 deleted the addition by observing in Para 7.4 and 7.5 as under: - "7.4 From a perusal of bills, it is noticed that the entire payment to workers' associations has been made in cash. Moreover, on certain dates, the payment to a particular association exceeds Rs.20,000/- (supra). The issue involved is whether the Union can be treated as agent of laborers. It is true that an Union or Association represents its members, but in order to constitute agency, the principal should be bound by every action of its agent. The appellant ahs not been able to establish this requirement, in respect of the Union/ Association to whom payments have been made. Therefore, the appellant's contention is not accepted and it is held that rule 6DD (k) is not applicable in the case of appellant. 7.5 Moreover, considering the fact that the entire expenditure has been made in cash, the genuineness of expenditure cannot be verified. However, except the above mentioned payment of Rs. 1,16,433/- remaining did not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, considering the nature of payment, AO's argument, and the appellant's submission, it is considered reasonable and fair, if the disallowance made is restricted to 25% of the addition made. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 7 Consequently, the addition made of Rs. 4,73,245/- is reduced to Rs. 1,18,311/-. No separate addition is being made under section 40A(3) of the Act as the addition has been sustained under section 37(1) of the IT Act." 6. It was stated by the Ld Counsel that no appeal was preferred by revenue against the deletion of disallowance of Attimari Coolie Expenses and for consistency also he argued that the deletion is bad. 7. Now, before us, the assessee filed ledger account of Attimari Coolie Expenses and also vouchers for payment of such charges on sample basis which are enclosed at pages 5 to 163 of the assessee's paper book. We find that similar disallowance in earlier years have not been challenged by Revenue, deleted by CIT(A). Going by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of G.G. Joshi (supra), and findings of CIT(A), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.” 10. In light of the submission by the counsel for the assessee, ground number 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed as being not pressed. Ground number 3: applicability of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act to Attimari Coolie expenses: 11. As per the counsel for the assessee, since ground number 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal are with respect to the same issue, and the ITAT Mumbai in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 has confirmed the addition to the extent of 25%, the assessee shall not be pressing for grounds of appeal number 3. 12. In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is being dismissed as not pressed. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 8 Ground number 4: inclusion of excise duty component of 4,89,852/- in the closing stock of consumables 13. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) enhanced the assessment order by including the excise duty component of 4,89,852/- in the closing stock of consumables. The counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground of the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions on this issue. In response, DR relied on the observations made in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in enhancing the scope of additions made during the course of assessment proceedings. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 15. We are in agreement with the argument of the counsel of the assessee that on merits, this issue is covered by various decisions, including the decision rendered by the Gujarat High Court on this issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of ACIT v. Torrent Cables Ltd.[2012] 26 taxmann.com 334 (SC), the Supreme Court held that while valuing closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting year, excise duty is to be excluded. In the case of Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd.[2012] 26 taxmann.com 331 (SC), the Supreme Court held that where assessee is following net method of valuation of closing stock, excise duty is to be excluded from value of closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting period. Further, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Narmada Chematur I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 9 Petrochemicals Ltd[2010] 194 Taxman 103 (Gujarat) held that excise duty cannot be included in value of closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting period. The facts of the case were that the assessee had filed its return of income along with its annual report. A note was made in Schedule 23 of the annual report stating that the company had not accounted for the liability for excise duty on finished goods as the same would become due as and when the goods would be sold and cleared from the factory premises. The Assessing Officer held that since the goods had been manufactured and were ready for dispatch, the liability of excise duty relating to closing stock of finished goods had accrued and, therefore, the same should have been shown as part of closing stock inasmuch as the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. According to the Assessing Officer, excise duty would be part and parcel of the cost of the finished goods. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.[1991] 188 ITR 44/ 54 Taxman 499 as well as accounting practices of the ICAI, the Assessing Officer held that excise duty would be part of manufacturing expenses and, hence, an integral element for valuation of inventory of finished goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In appeal, the High Court held that under excise law, an assessee incurs liability to pay excise duty only upon both events taking place, namely, manufacture of excisable goods and removal of excisable goods and for purpose of Income-tax Act, position in law is not different. Therefore, excise duty cannot be included in value of closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting period. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 10 16. In view of the above decisions including one rendered by the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals supra, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground number 5: CIT erred in enhancing the assessment by making disallowance out of consultancy expenses by treating the expenses as capital in nature 17. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals), he held that certain expenses more particularly payment towards due diligence study to M/s AZB Partners amounting to 30,27,548/-, payment of 70,78,680/- made to M/s Sagacious Financial Services Private Limited for business financial consultancy (services primarily related to financial consultancy for raising private equity finance) and payment of 1,12,60,215/- to M/s BJ Services Middle East Limited was capital in nature and could not be claimed as revenue expenditure. Besides the above, Ld. CIT(A) also held that some other expenses amounting to 4.40 lakhs approximately were also required to be capitalized by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) added the above amounts to the income of the assessee and also directed that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be also initiated in respect of the aforesaid additions. 18. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that looking into the nature of expenses being consultancy expenses, the same are clearly revenue in nature and therefore Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in holding that the I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 11 same were required to be capitalized. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that the assessee has placed on before us the Agreement/ Work Order with M/s AZB Partners, M/s Sagacious Financial Services Private Limited and M/s BJ Services Middle East Limited along- with other supporting documents in order to substantiate the nature of the expenses incurred. From the facts placed on record viz. service agreement and the invoices, we observe that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 70,78,680/- to M/s Sagacious Financial Services Ltd towards financial advisory services for raising private equity finance from potential financial investors. A perusal of the terms of the Agreement indicates that the purpose behind availing such advisory services was to generate more funds with a view to expand the existing business of the assessee. In the case of PCIT v. Lok Advisory Services (P.) Ltd. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that where assessee-company paid an amount to its foreign associate entity which helped assessee to identify potential investors in different countries and its efforts had benefitted assessee in its business, impugned payment made by assessee was to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. A perusal of the contents of the business consultancy services suggests that the expenses are revenue in nature incurred during the course of business, with a view to expanding the existing business. The Ld. CIT(A) has not given any specific reason why this expenditure qualifies as a capital expenditure. Now, coming to agreement with M/s AZB Partners, we observe I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 12 that the assessee has paid a sum of 30,27,548/- towards due diligence services. This expenditure was incurred keeping in line the strategy of the assessee company to attract investors to invest in the assessee company. These services were availed at the behest of M/s Franklin Templeton, who wanted a due diligence study conducted on the company so as to decide whether financial investments could be made in the assessee company. In the case of Onmobile Global Ltd. [2021] 129 taxmann.com 254 (Karnataka), the High Court held that Legal and professional expenditure incurred for conducting due diligence in report of a company which was to be acquired by assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Again, in the case of Intercontinental Hotels Group India (P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 153 (Delhi - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee in course of providing support services to its foreign based parent company engaged in hotel business, availed services of a Singapore based company for carrying out due diligence and risk analysis of target hotels, payments made in respect of said services was to be allowed as business expenditure. Therefore, looking into the facts of the instant agreement, we are of the considered view that the payment towards due diligence services made to M/s AZB Partners is revenue in nature. The assessee also paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,60,215/- to M/s B.J. Services Middle East Ltd. with respect to a contract with M/s Toyo Engineering. M/s Toyo Engineering were the LSTK contractors to Government of India’s Petronet LNG Ltd for executing the work of regas piping and related equipment erection contract. As per the terms of contract with M/s Toyo Engineering, the assessee had to test some long loops of piping done at very high pressure and for this purpose, the assessee availed the services of M/s B.J. Services, since they had prior I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 13 experience of working with ONGC on similar projects. The assessee has produced copy of the contract with M/s B.J. Services for our perusal as well. A perusal of the terms of the contract indicates that these expenses have been incurred for carrying out high pressure pneumatic testing of piping system by use of liquid / gaseous nitrogen and the same have been incurred during the course of business of the assessee. We further observe that in the appellate order, Ld. CIT(A) has not given any specific reason why these expenses are required to be capitalized by the assessee, incurred during the course of execution of contract of the assessee with M/s Toyo Engineering. Therefore, looking into the facts of the instant agreement, we are of the considered view that the services are revenue in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) also required the assessee to capitalize some other expenses viz. management consultancy for software development and management consultancy fee for finance matters etc. amounting to 4.40 lakhs, however no specific reason has been assigned why the above expenses were required to be capitalized by the assessee. In result, looking into the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the expenses are revenue in nature and in the light of above discussion, ground Number 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 20. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 21. Regarding the additional grounds raised by the assessee, since the issue under consideration the additional Grounds of appeal have already been adjudicated upon in the preceding paragraphs, we are not separately discussing the additional Grounds of appeal. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 14 22. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 2038/Ahd/2013 23. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in respect of the aforesaid additions. 24. In the quantum proceedings, we have allowed the assessee’s appeal on merits in respect of some of the Grounds (Grounds 1, 4 and 5), while some grounds were not pressed by the assessee (Grounds 2 and 3). With respect of Grounds of Appeal number 2 and 3, the assessee has agreed to follow the order of ITAT of earlier years, in which the Hon'ble ITAT has restricted the disallowance to 25% of the expenses on estimated basis. In the case of Vision Research & Management (P.) Ltd [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow - Trib.), the ITAT held that imposition of penalty upon assessee under section 271(1)(c) on basis of ad hoc and estimated disallowance/addition, without bringing any clinching material suggesting concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, was not justified. Again, in the case of Gurunanak Oil Agency [2013] 35 taxmann.com 562 (Jodhpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where additions were based on estimated disallowance of expenses, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case of imposition of penalty. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for penalty proceedings. I.T.A Nos. 1155 & 2038/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. Neo Structo Construction Ltd. vs. Add. CIT 15 26. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee with respect to quantum proceedings is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee with respect to penalty proceedings is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-02-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 15/02/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद