Dilip Hiralal Mehta, HUF, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1454/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7503 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: T P HEMANI; PARIMAL B PARMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; TDS
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 40(a)(ia); 194C; 147; 63; 154

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH D BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT AND MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 DILIP HIRALAL MEHTA-HUF PROP. OF ISPAT INCORPORATE B-208, NIRMAN COMPLEX OPP: HAVMOR RESTAURANT NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : AAEHM 4045 F VS. ITO,WARD-5(2)(2) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.P. HEMANI, AND SHRI PARIMAL B. PARMAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 22/11/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/01/2020 %& / O R D E R PER MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMEBR: PRESENT APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 1 3.3.2015 PASSED BY THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD UNDE R SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WITH THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 2 143(3) RWS 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS BEYOND THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE REVISION AND THUS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOW ING RS.4,73,852/- U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23,894/- U/S.40(A)(IA) R.W.S. 194C OF THE ACT. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THEY FURTHER ER RED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFO RMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHE D. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN LEVYING INTER EST U/S.234A/B/C OF THE ACT. 2. TECHNICALLY, THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO THE JUR ISDICTIONAL ERROR OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH ULTIMATELY TOUCHES THE MERIT OF THE MATTER. WE THEREFORE THINK IT PROPER TO DEAL WITH THE MERIT ON THE ISSUE AS RAISED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. FIRST GROUND ON MERIT RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,73,852/- UNDER SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,48,860/- WHICH WAS FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 25.11.2011 UPON DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,01 ,160/-; AND ADDITION OF RS.52,3000/- WAS ALSO MADE. SUBSEQUENT LY AN OBJECTION ON ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 3 BEHALF OF THE AUDIT PARTY HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ULTI MATELY BY AND UNDER AN ORDER DATED 25.3.2014 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT-III, AHMEDABAD, THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO W ITH A DIRECTION TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PAR TY REGARDING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 5. PURSUANT TO SUCH DIRECTION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH DIRECTION UPON HIM TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE AND THE DETAILS OF TDS MADE ON FREIGHT, DALALI , COMMISSION AND CARTAGE EXPENSES. UPON VERIFICATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD.AO THAT THERE WERE SIXTEEN PAYMENTS IN CASH EXCE EDING RS.20,000/- FOR AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,73,852/ - WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS, IN TURN, CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD.ADV OCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.AO, SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, WAS NOT IN TERMS OF ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 25.3.2014 WHEREBY AND WHEREIN THE LD.AO HAS BEEN DI RECTED TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH AND TO ALLOW THE EX PENSES AFTER THOROUGH VERIFICATION, AND UPON BEING SATISFIED THA T THE EXPENSES WERE GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS. FURTHER MORE, THERE WERE NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. MORESO, THE LD.AO HAS CONSIDERED THE LABOUR PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERAT ION BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DURING THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS. IT WA S FURTHER ARGUED BY THE LD.ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD.AO OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION AND POWER IN RELATION TO ITEMS FORMING PART OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, NOR THE ITEM S WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 263 OF ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 4 THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM SINCE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) R.W.S. 263 IS BEYOND JURISDICTION OF THE LD. AO, IT DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.N. DOSANI, 280 ITR 275 (GUJ). A COPY THEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. HEARD PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERE D THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT DATED 25.3.201 4 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT DIRECTION THEREIN IS REPR ODUCED HEREINBELOW: 5.4 THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH. HE IS DIRECTED TO VERIF Y THE VOUCHERS TO BE PRODUCED IN ORIGINAL AND ALSO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE AND WHETHER THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASS ESSEE-HUF AND AUTHORIZED TO INCUR SUCH EXPENSES. THOUGH, PRIMA FA CIE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ARE ATTRACTED ON THE FACE OF THESE D ETAILS, BUT THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH AND ALL OW THE EXPENSES AFTER THOROUGH VERIFICATION AND SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE EXPENSES WERE GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT IS MADE. 9. IT APPEARS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE LD.AO WAS DIR ECTED TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF OFFICE EXPENSES PAID IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- AND NOT THE LABOUR PAYMENTS PAID IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000 /-. THUS, THE LABOUR PAYMENTS, WHETHER PAID IN EXCESS OF RS.20,00 0/- OR NOT, COULD NOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BY THE REVISI ONAL AUTHORITY DURING THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE LD.AO PROCEEDE D TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT AGGREGATED TO RS.473,852/- ON THE BAS IS OF CASH PAYMENT MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- ON SIXTEEN OC CASIONS; WHEREAS FROM THE DOCUMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 5 IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS STARTING FROM RS.25,000/- TO RS.43,200/- COMMENCING FROM 9.4.2008 TO 6.3.2009. IN FACT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, JURI SDICTION, WHICH HAS BEEN VESTED UPON THE LD.AO HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN CARE OF; RATHER THE LD.AO HAS ACTED BEYOND JURISDICTION, AS CONFERRED B Y THE LD.CIT UNDER THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2014 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD.ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF D.N. DOSA NI (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOW: 11. CONSIDERING THE ISSUE FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFEREN T ANGLE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX T O TENDER EXPLANATION QUA TWO ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW-CAU SE NOTICE. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT, IS APPA RENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COULD NOT HAVE TREATED A NY FURTHER ITEM OR PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSE E AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE, WHAT THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE DONE, CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NECESSARY TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE POWERS OF REVISI ON CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT, UNDER THE GUISE OF FRAMING FRESH AS SESSMENT, EXERCISE THE SAID POWERS IN RELATION TO OTHER ITEMS FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE PROVISION WHICH PERMITS EXER CISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE REQUIRES THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT. THE LOGICAL PRESUMPTION I S, THEREFORE, THAT BEFORE ISSUANCE OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS EXAMINED THE RECORD, AND FOUND PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS ANDPRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ONLY IN RELATION TO THE IT EMS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUB STITUTE HIS OPINION IN PLACE OF THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX IS NOT ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISION AND, THEREFORE, ALSO, THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXPANDING SCOPE OF CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS CAN NOT BE UPHELD. 12. THE SCHEME OF THE ACT HAS PROVIDED DIFFERENT PO WERS TO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES AND THESE ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED AFTER SATISFYING THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIONS AND JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DISTURB/REOPEN A FINALISED ASSESSMENT BY INVOKI NG HIS POWERS EITHER UNDER SECTION 154 OR UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, PROVIDED HE CAN SHOW THAT THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS ARE FULFILLED. IF, WHAT THE REVENUE CONTENDS TODAY IS ACCEPTED, THESE AND OTHER SUCH PR OVISIONS WHICH ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 6 EMPOWER DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES TO EXERCISE JURISDICT ION AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME IN DISTINCT SETTINGS WOULD BE RENDERED OTIO SE AND THAT CAN NEVER BE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. IT IS ALMOST AKIN TO PRO VIDING SEPARATE KEYS FOR SEPARATE LOCKED DOORS AND THE PERSON WANTING TO OPE N A PARTICULAR DOOR IS REQUIRED TO APPLY THE CORRECT KEY WHICH MATCHES THE CONCERNED LOCK. THEREFORE, IN PROCEEDINGS TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN ORDE R UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO UNDERTAKE AN EXERCISE NOT WARRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME. 13. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHT IN HOLDING T HAT THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HAD PRECEDED, NAMELY, THE DISCUSSION IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER, AND BOTH THE NOTICE AND THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, HAVE TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. THAT THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENTS IS AFTER LOOKING INTO THE ASPECTS D ISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN HIS ORDER AND THE DIR ECTIONS MADE IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER. THE SENTENCE RECORDED IN PARAGRA PH NO. 7 OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION, NOR C AN IT BE READ BY OMITTING A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE SENTENCE SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO PROCESS FURTHER I TEMS WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. T HE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION. 14. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GEO INDUSTRIES AND INSECTICIDES (I.) (P.)LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOS ITION THAT THE REVENUE IS CANVASSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN FACT, THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT PAGE 545 ACCORD WIT H THE VIEW THAT THIS COURT HAS EXPRESSED. WHAT IS STATED THEREAFTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CORRECT EXPRESSION OF THE LEGAL POSITION AND THIS C OURT IS IN RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. 15. THUS, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT, IN THE FRESH ASSESSME NT ORDERS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ONLY THO SE TWO ITEMS WHICH HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ANY OTHER ITEM AFRESH FOR MAKI NG ADDITIONS. THE QUESTION REFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COMMISSION ER IS, THEREFORE, ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE LD.AO SINCE EXERCI SED HIS JURISDICTION BEYOND TWO ITEMS, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT, DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HAS BEEN UP HELD BY THE HONBLE ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 7 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SIMILARLY, SINCE NOWHER E IN THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2014, THE LD.CIT UTTERS ABOUT THE ITEMS RELATE S TO THE LABOUR EXPENSES, AND THUS, CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE FIND T HAT THE LD.AO TRAVELLED BEYOND JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON HIM, W HICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE SAME, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AN D AGAINST THE REVENUE. 11. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONFIRMATION OF DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.23,894/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) R.W.S. 194C OF THE ACT. 12. HEARD PARTIES. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE LD.AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,51,239/- UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE LD.CIT( A) IN APPEAL PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.23,894/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO ONE HINDUSTAN ROADWAYS. THIS WAS ADDED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT A SINGLE PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- WAS PAID. HOW EVER, IT APPEARS FROM THE PAGE NO.87 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT AN AMOUN T OF RS.18,000/- WAS PAID TO THE SAID CONCERN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27. 6.2008 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON 1.7.2008 ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.5,894 /- WAS PAID. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN EXCEEDED RS.20,000/- IN A SINGLE MODE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT . THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT SINCE PAYMENTS DID NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/- QUESTION OF PAYING TDS UNDER SECTION 194 DOES NOT A RISE, AND THUS, DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ARGUED BY THE LD.AR WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS HAVING REAL FORCE, AND THUS THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE THER EFORE FIND NO MERIT IN ITA NO.1454/AHD/2017 8 SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE S AME IS, THEREFORE, DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MS.MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER