The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat V. Shri Shakti G. Karnawat, Surat

ITA 1504/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1926 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITHA V NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH ANCHALIYA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Bogus loan; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 6; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 ITO, WARD-2(3)(8) SURAT. VS. SHRI SHAKTI G. KARNAWAT H-4, NEW DTC, HAT FALIA HARIPURA, SURAT. PAN : ACFPK 2096 K. ITA NO.1381/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SHAKTI G. KARNAWAT H-4, NEW DTC, HAT FALIA HARIPURA, SURAT. PAN : ACFPK 2096 K. VS. ITO, WARD-2(3)(8) SURAT. ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH ANCHALIYA, AR REVENUE BY : SMT.SMITHA V. NAIR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2018 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) -3, SURAT DATED 20.3.2017 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08. 2. ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY I SSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 2 3. AS FAR AS SECOND FOLD OF GRIEVANCE IS CONCERNED, IT IS COMMON WITH GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,15,84,690/- ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS PURCHASE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED PROFIT ELEMENT INVOLVED IN ITS MODUS OPERANDI AT 12.50% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THUS, REVENUE IS CHALLENG ING DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE LD.CIT(A) OVER AND ABOVE 12.50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SECOND FOLD O F GRIEVANCE IS CHALLENGING RETENTION OF ADDITION BY 12.5% OF THE A LLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FIRSTL Y IMPUGNED UPHOLDING OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHA SE OF DIAMOND ON COMMISSION BASIS. IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS A COMMISSION AGENT BY FACILITATING SALE AND PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS ON BEHALF OF HIS PRINCIPAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,43,180/-. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI HAS TRANSMITTED A REPORT EXHIBITING THAT DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI HAS CONDUCTED SE ARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN AND OTHERS ON 3.10 .2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT REVEALED THAT SHRI BHANWARL AL JAIN AND OTHERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND BILLS TO ENABLE OTHERS TO ACCOUNT THEM AS PURCHASES, SALES OR LOANS ETC. THUS, ON THE STRENGTH OF THAT INFORMATION, THE LD.AO RECORDED REASONS AND SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASS ESSMENT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE REASONS REPRODUCED IN THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE AO OBJECTIONS AGAINST RE-OPENING. COPY OF SUCH LETTER IS FILED ON PAGE NO.17 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED REASONS. T HE LD.COUNSEL ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 3 FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THESE REASONS, WHI CH READ AS UNDER: 'IN THIS CASE, A LETTER IS RECEIVED FROM DIT (INV.) - II, MUMBAI THROUGH THE CIT- III, SURAT. AS PER ANNEXURE - A ENCLOSED THE NAME O F THE BENEFICIARY VIZ M/S SANKET EXPORTS IS INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TAK EN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PERTAINING TO BOGUS LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGAT ING TO RS.10,13,41,508/- FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES, -WHICH ARE ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES ONLY AND NO REAL TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. SR.NO. NAME OF THE CONCERN PAN NO. AMOUNT 1 M/S. DAKSH DIAMONDS AURPS3696K 42934153/- 2 M/S JEWEL DIAM ABUPV3494J 24929147/- 3 M/S KOTHARI & CO. ABQPK7967H 33381111/- 4 M/S LITTLE DIAM AABFL1469R 970971- TOTAL 101341508/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP, WHICH IS LEADING ENTRY PROVI DER OF MUMBAI, THE GROUP IS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS AND ADVANCES THROUGH BENAMI CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEEE M/S SANKET EXPORTS IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY AND HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PERTAINING TO BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES AGG REGATING TO RS. 10,13,41,508/- WHICH ARE ENTRIES ONLY AND NO REAL TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS OFRSJ0,13,41,508/- FROM ABOVE MENTI ONED PARTIES, THE GENUINE OF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE IDEN TITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS HAD ALSO NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 10,13,41,508/- IS BOGUS AND MERE ACCOMMODATION AND HAS BEEN ESCAPED A SSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2007-08 BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN S OF RS.10, 13,41,508/- ARE AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ARE NOT A GENUINE UNSECUR ED LOANS AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THIS IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE KNOWING THAT IT IS BOGUS TRANSACTION, WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, A NOTICE U/S 148 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 IS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE A.Y.2007-08, TO REOPEN THE CASE' ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 4 5. BY TAKING US THROUGH THESE REASONS, THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSE HAD AVAILED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.10,13,41,508/- FROM THESE FOUR CONCERNS. HOWEVE R, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITI ON UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOA NS. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TREATED IT AS PURCHASES FROM T HESE CONCERNS WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WERE BOGUS. THUS, ON THE ST RENGTH OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD., 331 ITR 236, HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT, 3 36 ITR 136 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 355 ITR 172 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOHMED JUNED DADANI, HE CONTENDED THAT IF NO ADDITION WAS BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF AN ISSUE, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED, NO ADDITION ON OTHER ISSUE CAN BE MADE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO IN FORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT BECAUSE IF HE HAS INFORMATION ON ACCOUNT OF AVAILING UNEXPLAIN ED/UNSECURED LOANS FROM THESE FOUR CONCERNS, THEN HOW HE COULD T REAT THIS TRANSACTION AS OF BOGUS PURCHASES. IN OTHER WORDS, LIVE-LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION ALLEGED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH TH E AO VIS--VIS FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT UNDER A PARTICULAR HEAD IS NOT AVAILABLE. HE POINTED OUT T HAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, REOPENING WAS QUASHED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VARSHABEN SANATBHAI PATEL VS. ITO, 64 TAXMANN.COM 179. HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS. ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 5 6. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT NO DOUBT THE AO HAS SO UGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSING UNEXPLAINED LOA NS, BUT ULTIMATELY AFTER REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, HE CA ME TO KNOW THAT THESE WERE BOGUS PURCHASES AND NOT OF UNSECURE D LOANS. THE LD.AO HAS TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION AT THE TIME REOPENING WHICH CAN BE CHANGED SUBSEQUENTLY. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS EXTRACT ED (SUPRA) WOULD REVEAL THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON ACCOUNT OF A VAILMENT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM THESE CONCERNS. THE EXPRESSIO N AND ALSO EMPLOYED IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE THREE HONBLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT PROPOUNDING THEREIN THAT IF AN ADDITION IS BE ING NOT MADE ON AN ITEM, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS BEING REOPENED, TH EN ANY OTHER ITEMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT AS E SCAPED INCOME CANNOT BE ADDED. ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT EXPRESSION AND ALSO MEANS THAT IF ADDITION IS BEING MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESCAPED INCOME FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT W AS REOPENED, THEN ANY OTHER ITEM FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF RE- ASSESSMENT OF INCOME COULD ALSO BE ADDED. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE LD.AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED/UNSECURED LOANS AVAILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO OTHER ITEM CAN BE ADDED. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO FAILED TO EST ABLISH THE LIVE- LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO HIM VIS--VIS FORMATION OF HIS BELIEF, BECAUSE HE CONSTRUED THE INFORMATION AS OF AVAILING OF BOGUS LOANS, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE TRUE WHEN HE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; THEN WHAT TYPE OF BELIEF HE HAS F ORMED ? IF AN ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 6 ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHAS E, THEN THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED FOR THAT REASO NS. IN THE CASE OF VARSHABEN SANATBHAI PATEL (SUPRA) THE ASSES SMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF SOME INFORMAT ION SUPPLIED BY THE DGIT (INVEST). HONBLE COURT WAS OF THE VIE W THAT FORMATION OF BELIEF AT THE END OF THE AO WAS NOT BA SED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DGIT (INVEST). IN OTHE R WORDS, THERE WAS NO LIVE-LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION VIS--VIS FORM ATION OF BELIEF. DISCUSSION MADE IN PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE ABOVE JUDGME NT IS WORTH TO NOTE, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 15. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, TH E RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 1 47(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPO N THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, THERE IS NO ASSE RTION AS REGARDS ON WHAT BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHAS ES IN THE TRADING AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS EXPENDIT URE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT ON VERIFICATION O F THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE BOGUS PURCHASES; HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC AVERMENT S ARE MADE AS REGARDS WHICH DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD REFLEC TED SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPO N THE MATERIAL FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE WHICH DOES NOT FOR M PART OF THE RECORD. HOWEVER, THE SAID ASPECT IS NOT REFLECTED I N THE REASONS RECORDED. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE L EARNED COUNSEL IS NOT IN A POSITION TO POINT OUT ANY MATERIAL ON T HE RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE FOR MED SUCH BELIEF. WHAT IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE STATED BY WAY OF T HE ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT-I N-REPLY FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITIONS IS THAT THE FORMATION OF BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION W HICH IS RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL P OSITION AS HELD BY A CATENA OF DECISIONS THAT THE SUBSTRATUM FOR FO RMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME LIABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT HAS TO FORM PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE SUBSTRATUM FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF, AS INDICATED IN THE ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT-I N-REPLY, IS THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI, WHICH GOT NO ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 7 RELATION WITH THE REASONS RECORDED, WHICH ARE STATE D TO BE BASED UPON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, COULD NOT HAVE FORMED BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ANY ESC APEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX SO AS TO VALIDLY ASSUME JU RISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AS HELD BY THE SUPREM E COURT IN A CATENA OF DECISIONS, THE REASONS RECORDED CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OR BY THE ORDER REJEC TING THE OBJECTIONS. THE MATERIAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, TH E BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FORMED, HAS TO FIND PLACE IN THE REASONS ITSELF. 16. IN THE AFORESAID PREMISES, THE FORMATION OF BEL IEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOT BEING BASED UPON RECORD, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SUBSTRATUM FOR REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT IS NOT LAID IN THE REASONS RECORDED, BUT ON MATERIAL EXTRA NEOUS THERETO. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. TH E IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 8. IN PRESENT CASE ALSO, ACCORDING TO THE FORMATION OF BELIEF, THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED UNSECURED LOANS FROM CONCERNS OF SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN. HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT LOANS WERE NOT AVAILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OBJECTION HAS BEEN CONTENDED TH AT HE HAS NO CONCERN WITH SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN. HE IS A COMMISSI ON AGENT WHO PURCHASED AND SOLD GOODS ON BEHALF OF PRINCIPAL ON COMMISSION BASIS AND ACCOUNT ONLY COMMISSION IN THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS NEITHER TRANSMITTED THE INFORMATION RECE IVED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE NOR CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 16.2.2016 VIDE WHICH OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED, BUT THE AO HAS JUST MADE GENERAL DISCU SSION OF THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF SECTION 147. HE HAS NOT DEALT WITH SPECIFIC OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA RE-OPENING. SIMILARLY, BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIED SPECIFIC OBJE CTION ABOUT ITA NO.1504/AHD/2017 AND NO.1381/AHD/2017 8 FORMATION OF BELIEF VIS--VIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT DEALT THOSE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AO GOT INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEF ICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM ENTRY OPERATORS. IN OUR O PINION, THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING EXACT NA TURE OF ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTEN DED THAT REOPENING WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AVAILING UNSECURED/UNEXPLAINED LOANS, WHEREAS THE ADDITION W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THERE IS A VAST DIFFER ENCE IN-BETWEEN BOTH THESE ASPECTS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WI TH THIS ASPECT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, DELHI HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT EXPLAINING THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION AND ALSO EMP LOYED IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/12/2018