Sayaji Industries Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1333/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94650 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R I PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO: 1333/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. P.O. KATHWADA MAIZE PRODUCTS AHMEDABAD-382430 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7 (2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AADCS0861R APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT/ D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 15-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -10-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST AN ORD ER OF LD. CIT DATED 25.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 PASSED U/S.263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF STARCH AND ITS DERIVATIVES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 28.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 1,73,86,661/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER T HE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 4.02.2013 AND THE TOTAL LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,21,57,250/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON E XAMINING THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CIT NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 38,86,967/- IN RESPECT OF BIO-G AS POWER GENERATING ENGINE PLANT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITIONAL DE PRECIATION WAS ADMISSIBLE ONLY TO ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OR MAN UFACTURE OF ARTICLES OR THINGS AND SINCE GENERATION OF POWER DOES NOT RESUL T INTO PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLE OR THING ASSESSEE WAS NOT E LIGIBLE TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT A.O HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AS WELL AS MAKING RELEVANT INQUIRIES AND CALLING FO R THE DETAILS AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O WAS ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AND WITHOUT APPLYING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND APPLICATION OF M IND. HE ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 263 DATED 19.01.2015 AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE APPROPRIATE ORDER U/S. 263 BE NOT PASSED IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTERALIA OBJECTED TO TH E INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 AND ON MERITS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE LD. CIT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE A.O HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON THE ASPECT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRE CIATION ON BIO-GAS GENERATION ENGINE THE ORDER OF THE A.O DATED 4.02.2 013 PASSED U/S. 143(3) TO ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 3 BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE AND ACCORDINGLY SET IT ASIDE AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE. AG GRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS A ND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED IT IS SUB MITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 1.1 THE CIT ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (ACT) WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DIRECTING THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSES SMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 1.2 THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO ENQUIRE & EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON BIO-GAS POWER GENERA TING ENGINE WHEN IN FACT THE DETAILS OF ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS & DEPRECIATION WERE FILED IN REGULAR PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 1.3 THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WAS DULY SUPPORT ED BY JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICABILITY. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AS PER SECTION 2(29BA) OF THE ACT THROUGH THE USE OF BIOGA S POWER GENERATING ENGINE AND HENCE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF STARCH AND ACCORDINGLY IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.1 THE CIT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACT SIN CE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF STARCH IT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONA L DEPRECIATION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE BIOGAS POWER GENERATING ENGINE IS ENGAG ED IN MANUFACTURING OF ARTICLE OR THING. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW . 2.2 THE CIT ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING DECISION OF MADRAS H IGH IN CASE OF CIT V. VTM LTD. 319 ITR 336 WHICH IS NOW AFFIRMED BY SUPREME C OURT. ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 4 2.3 THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT GENERATION OF POWER D OES NOT RESULT IN PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLE OR THING WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT ELECTRICITY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE AN ARTICLE OR THING. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT TH OUGH ASSESSEE HAS VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO CHALL ENGING THE REVISIONARY ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE US, ON THE LEGAL ISSUE OF PASSING OF ORDER U /S. 263 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIO NS SPECIFIED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING S U/S. 263 LACKS JURISDICTION AND ARE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT LD. CIT CAN REVISE AN ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O ONLY ON THE SATISFACTION OF TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ERROR ENVISA GED TO SECTION 263 IS NOT ONE WHICH DEPENDS ON POSSIBILITY OR GUESSWORK BUT I T SHOULD HAVE AN ACTUAL ERROR EITHER OR FACTS OF OR LAW AND FURTHER THE ORD ER OF A.O CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW A ND FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S C). ON THE MERITS OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION WAS EXAMINED BY THE A.O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND ON BEING SATISFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) IS THE SETTING UP OF NEW MACHINERY OR PL ANT THAT SHOULD BE ACQUIRED OR INSTALLED BY AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ALREADY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 5 MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING W HICH WAS SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND WAS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR CLA IM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. REPORTED IN (2014 ) 42 TAXMAN.COM 193 (GUJ.) AND THE DECISION OF CIT VS. HITECH ARAI LTD. REPORTED IN (2010) 321 ITR 477 (MADRAS). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VTM LTD. REPORTED IN (2009) 319 ITR 336 (MADRAS). H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE LD. CIT, ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ALL THESE AFORESAID DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION BUT CIT IGNORED THE SAME. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (BOM) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISION S PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT BE QUASHED BOTH ON LEGALLY AND ON MERITS. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A SPECI FIC QUERY ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS RAISED BY THE A.O VIDE NO TICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 27.07.2012 BUT THERE WAS NO REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED TO PAGE 29 & 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED TO POINT NO. 12 WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CLAIM U/S. 32(1)( IIA) AND FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUERY OF THE A.O WAS NOT REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THER EFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN A.O, WITHOUT OBTAINING THE NECESSARY EXPLANATI ON PROCEEDED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A .O HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE AND THEREFORE LD. CIT WAS RIGHT IN HIS OB SERVATION THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT EXAMINED BY A.O. ON THE ISSUE OF MERITS OF ALLO WING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE BILL, 2012 WAS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2013-14 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE FOR T HE YEAR UNDER ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 6 CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED BY SETTING ASID E THE ORDER OF A.O, NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM, IF IS LEGALLY ALLOWABLE, WILL BE ALLOWED BY THE A.O. HE ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RAMESHBHAI PRAJAP ATI (2013) 29 TAXMAN.COM 64 (AHD TRIBUNAL) AND THE DECISIONS IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 17 TAXMAN.COM 203 (KARNAT AKA), CIT VS. JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE 24 TAXMAN.COM 215 (GUWAHATI), MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT 109 TAXMAN.COM 109 TAXMAN.COM6 6 (SC), CIT VS. AHSOK LOGANI 11 TAXMAN.COM 208 (DEL) AND GEE VEE EN TERPRISES VS. ADDITIONAL CIT 99 ITR 375 (DEL) & ORS. HE THUS SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT THE INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 BY LD. CIT. 7. S. 263(1) OF THE ACT, THE POWERS UNDER WHICH LD. CI T HAS ASSUMED POWER FOR REVISION, READS AS UNDER: THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECO RD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ITO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTE R MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT ING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 8. THE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS MAKES IT VERY C LEAR THAT THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION U/S 263(1) IS IN THE NATURE OF SU PERVISORY JURISDICTION AND ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 7 THE SAME CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED THEREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSI ONER TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION U/S 263, NAMELY (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONE OUS (II) BY VIRTUE OF BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE. 9. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 263 HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATT ER OF CONSIDERATION IN VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 WHERE THE HONBL E APEX COURT WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 263 AT PARA 7 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTR ACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SA TISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL OR DERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLIC ATION OF MIND . 10. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE FULL BENCH OF HONBLE GAUH ATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE (2012) 341 IT R 434 (GAU) (FB) HAS HELD THAT NOT HOLDING SUCH INQUIRY AS IS NORMAL AND NOT APPLYING MIND TO RELEVANT MATERIAL WOULD CERTAINLY BE ERRONEOUS AS SESSMENT WARRANTING EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AND THAT AN INC ORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS NON APPLICATION OF MIND AND OMISS ION TO FOLLOW NATURAL JUSTICE IS IN SAME CATEGORY. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT SECTION 263 H AS BEEN INVOKED BY LD CIT FOR THE REASON THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O WITHOUT EXAM INATION OF ITS ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 8 ALLOWABILITY. FROM THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DA TED 27.07.2012 ISSUE BY THE DCIT TO ASSESSEE WHEREBY VARIOUS DETAILS WERE C ALLED U/S. 142(1) IT IS SEEN THAT A.O HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS AND OTHER DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 32(1)(IIA). THE EXACT DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O IS REPRODUCED UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE. 10.COMPLETE DETAILS OF ADDITIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSE TS, INCLUDING WORK IN PROGRESS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF BILLS/VOUCHERS EXCEEDING RS. 10 LAKHS FOR SUCH ADDITIONS. 11.COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL THE DELETIONS MADE TO FI XED ASSETS, TREATMENT GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAME AND WHETHER ANY CA PITAL GAIN IS LEVIABLE ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS. 12.EXPLAIN WHETHER ANY CLAIM U/S. 32(1)(IIA) HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE COMPANY. IF YES, THEN COMPLETE DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR TH E SAME. 12. FROM THE ABOVE QUERY OF THE A.O, IT IS SEEN THAT AS SESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO GAVE COMPLETE DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM MADE U/S. 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAD INDEED FUR NISHED THE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM U/S. 32(1)(IIA) AND ITS JUSTIFICATION OF THE CLAIM. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DESPITE NO REPLY TO T HE SPECIFIC QUERY OF A.O ON JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM U/S. 32(1)(IIA), THE CLAIM O F ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA) WAS ALLOWED BY A.O. 13. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREINABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE HAS BEEN NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION BY THE A.O AND THEREFORE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE REVISIONARY POWER U/S. 263 OF T HE ACT. AS FAR AS THE ITA NO 1333/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-2 011 9 SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLA IMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY LD. A.R. IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT HAS DIRECTED THE A. O TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN LIGHT TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AND LD. CI T HAS NOT DIRECTED THE A.O TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WILL BE EXAMINED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND LAW BY THE A.O AND IF ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION, THE SAME WILL BE ALLOWED TO IT AND THUS NO PREJUDICE WILL BE CAUSED TO ASSESSEE. WE TH EREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT AND THEREFORE IT REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 - 10 - 2015. (S.S. GODARA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMED ABAD