The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s Shree Jivraj Township, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 151/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9060 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MJ RANPURA
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT VS. M/S. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP, SOOR PRABHAV, 14, PANCHNATH PLOT, RAJKOT PAN : ABHFS 3670 C [ / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J. RANPURA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 17/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/05/2017 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-20 11 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.01.2015 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-11 /485-R/CC.2/2014- 15, ARISING OUT OF ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 25.03.2013 FRAMED B Y THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AT RS.53,43,074/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FORM THE REC ORD, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF R EAL ESTATE AND BUILDING ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 2 CONSTRUCTION. RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 WAS FILED ON 08.07.2010 SHOWING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AT RS.53,43,074/-. CASE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) FOLLOWED BY 142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED. NECESSARY REPLIES WITH DETAILS AS CALLE D FOR WERE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CALLE D JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP WHICH WAS COMMENCED DURING FY 2006-07. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BY OBSE RVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO GET APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT B Y THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS SEPARATE BUILDING PLANS FOR EACH OF THE UNITS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED AS LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.M. AND BROTHERS, REPORT ED IN (2014) 2 TAXMANN.COM 24, AND OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT MORE THAN ONCE AN D IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDIN G PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AN D ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO AVAIL THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 IN ITA NO.209/RJT/2015, PRONOUNCED ON 05.12.2016, WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL RAISING SIMILAR ISSUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 3 COURT IN THE CASE OF B.M. AND BROTHERS (SUPRA), AGA INST WHICH DEPARTMENT HAS FILED SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AG AINST THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN THE CONSTRUCTION PRO JECTS. WE OBSERVE THAT LD. COUNSEL AS REFERRED AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.209/RJT/2015 (SUPRA) FOR AY 2011-12, WHERE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES A PPEAL BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 8. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PR OPERTIES 27 DTR 282 WHEREIN 'IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE APPROVAL FOR SEP ARATE BUILDINGS CAN BE GRANTED AND THAT MIL NOT AFFECT THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT.' IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLAN IN PIECEMEAL IS NEEDED TO BE SUBMITTE D SEPARATELY AS PER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE STATUTES IN THIS REGARD . AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) DREW SUPPORT FR OM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B. M. AND BROTHERS 42 TAXMANN.COM 24, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF B.M. AND BROTHERS (SUPRA) IS AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI PRANAV DESAI, LEARNED COUNSE L APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-REVENUE AND CONSIDERED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT AS WELL AS CIT(A). IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED THAT THE LAYOUT PLAN OF THE 'HOUSING PROJECT' NAMED 'MANINAGAR' AT RAJKO T CAME TO BE APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER ON 30/03/200 2 AS ALSO BY THE COLLECTOR, RAJKOT ON 17/04/2002 I.E MUCH BEFORE THE DATE 01/04/2004, WHICH IS THE CUT-OFF DATE. THE SAID 'HOUSING PROJEC T' WAS WITH RESPECT TO 119 UNITS. IT WAS FOUND THAT, OUT OF 119 UNITS, ON MOST OF THE PLOTS, AFTER GETTING NECESSARY APPROVALS, CONSTRUCTIONS WE RE ALREADY COMPLETED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, ITAT GRANTED DEDU CTIONS UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE UNITS CONSTRUCTED AND COMPLETED PRIOR TO 31/03/2008. THE C1T(A) WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH R ESPECT TO THOSE ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 4 UNITS APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2004 AND GRANTED PRIO R TO 31/03/2003 HAS OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 3,4 AS UNDER: 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR OF THE APPELL ANT. THE MAIN BASIS OF NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB(10) BY THE A.O . APPEARS TO BE THE AVERMENT OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 69 APPROVALS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUE D APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THE A.O. IS OF THE VIEW THAT S. 80- IB(10) EXPLANATION (I) ENVISAGES APPROVAL TO BE OBTAINED FOR SUCH HOUSING PROJECT, BUT DOES NOT ENVISAGE MULTIPLE APPROVAL OR APPROVALS IN PIEC EMEAL MANNER. THE A.O. IS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 80-IB(10) USE S THE WORD 'APPROVAL' AND NOT 'APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO FULFILL THE BASIC CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80-IB(10) AND THAT IS WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE CONTEN TIONS OF THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. FIRSTLY, HE HAS NOT CLEARLY POINTED OUT WHICH OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80-IB(10) ARE NOT FULFILLE D BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDING HIS AVERMENT THAT SECTION 80-IB(10) US ES THE WORD 'APPROVAL' AND NOT APPROVALS' FOR HOUSING PROJECT IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT PROPERLY GONE THROUGH THE OTHER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 80- IB(10). THE WORD 'APPROVAL' CAN BE TAKEN AND CONSID ERED AS SINGULAR AND ALSO MULTIPLES WHEN MORE THAN ONE PROJECTS ARE THERE. IN THIS CONNECTION, SPECIFIC REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE SECTI ON 80-IB(10) AND THE EXPLANATION THERE BELOW. THE EXPLANATION READS AS U NDER: (I) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLA N OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORI TY. THUS, FROM (I) ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT MORE THAN ON E APPROVALS HAS ALSO BEEN ENVISAGED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE ACT AND TH AT IS WHY IT IS MENTIONED 'IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE..,'. THUS, THERE IS NO BAR IN THE ACT FOR OBTAINING MORE THAN ONE APPROVAL. THE BASIC FAC T IS THAT THE A.O. IS TO SEE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 80-IB( 10) ARE CUMULATIVELY FULFILLED OR NOT? HERE, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE HOUSING PROJECT 'LAY OUT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER TO RMC ON 30/03/2002 AS ALSO BY THE CO LLECTOR, RAJKOT ON 17/04/2002, WHICH IS MUCH BEFORE THE DATE 01/04/ 2004 WHICH IS THE ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 5 CUT-OFF DATE. AS FAR AS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS NO RELEVANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS ONLY SPEAK ABOUT THE APPROVAL OR DAT E OF COMPLETION. AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF THE AREA OF PROJECT IS CONC ERNED IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE ACRE, HERE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE PR OJECT 'MANINAGAR HAVING 119 UNITS -WAS CONSTRUCTED ON AN AREA OF 3.3 3 ACRES. SIMILARLY, THE CONDITION REGARDING BUILT-UP AREA PER UNIT SHOU LD BE LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THAT IN T HE APPELLANT'S CASE ALSO BECAUSE ALL THE 119 UNITS ARE HAVING LESS THAN AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. AS REGARDING THE DATE OF COMPLETION IT HAS BEEN LAID D OWN IN SECTION 80- IB(10) THAT THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31/03/2008. HERE, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, IT IS F OUND THAT MOST OF THE UNITS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31/03/2008. HOWEVE R IT IS FOUND THAT OUT OF 119 UNITS, CONSTRUCTION OF SOME OF THE UNITS WAS COMPLETED AFTER 31/03/2008 AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE ON PAGES 7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IS T HAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY 21 UNITS HAVE BEEN SOLD AN D IN CASE OF ALL THESE UNITS- CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BEFORE 31/0 3/2008. HOWEVER, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE UNITS CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER 31/03/2008 WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S. 80- IB(10) IN ANY YEAR. FROM THE COPIES OF THE COMMENCE MENT AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RMC IT IS FOUN D THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT-FIRM M/S. B.M. & BROTHERS FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS 'MANINAGAR ON RAJYA 'ROAD AND THE SAME IS GIVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. FUR THER ALSO BROCHURE ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT-FIRM SAYS THAT 'MANINAGAR IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT WHEREIN LAYOUT PLAN ALSO SHOWS THAT VARIOUS HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED ON ADJOINING PLOTS FROM SR. NOS. 1 TO 1 19 AS PER THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN GIVING PLACE FOR ROADS AND PUB LIC PLOTS. THESE FACTORS ALSO INDICATE THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUS ING PROJECT KNOWN AS 'MANINAGAR' HAVING COMPOSITE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPE RTIES [27 DTR (MUM) 282 (2009)], WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THAT THE APPROVAL FOR SEPARATE BUILDINGS CAN BE GRA NTED AND THAT MIL NOT AFFECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSES U/S. 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE HON'BLE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BRIGADE ENTE RPRISES (P) LTD, (119 ITJ 269) HAS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH SEPARATE APPRO VALS ARE OBTAINED FOR DIFFERENT UNITS, IF PARTICULAR UNIT SATISFIED T HE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80-IB(10) DEDUCTION IS TO BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, KE EPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE A.O'S AVERMENT THAT ON THE BASIS OF MU LTIPLE APPROVALS 80-IB DEDUCTION CAN BE DISALLOWED - IS HELD TO BE I NCORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE APP ELLANT U/S. 80-IB IS ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 6 ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,45,67,940/- I S HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO SEE IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY UNIT IS COMPLETED AFTER 31/03/2008 DURING THE Y EAR THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT ON THE SALE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE 80-I B(10) DEDUCTION. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE A. Y. 2008-09 ALSO HE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT WHATEVER UNITS -WHICH A RE SOLD AFTER A.Y. 2008-09 AND WHERE DATE OF COMPLETION IS AFTER 31/03 /2008 NO DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB(10) SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUT OF ELIGIBLE PR OFIT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND H AS DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 6. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WHEN THE 'HOUSING PROJECT NAMED MANINAGAR' AT RAJKOT WAS A PPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2004 AND DIFFERENT UNITS WERE CONSTRUCTED BEF ORE 31/03/2008, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ITAT HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR GR ANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO ONLY THOSE UNITS OF 'HOUSING PROJECT' NAMED 'MANINAGAR' APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2004 AND OF WHICH CONSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED PRIO R TO 31/03/2008. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE 'HOUSING PROJECT' NAMED 'MANINAGAR' WAS ALREADY APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2004 WITH RESPECT T O DIFFERENT UNITS. THE 'HOUSING PROJECT' WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2 004 AND CONSTRUCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT UP HAVE BEEN COMPL ETED PRIOR TO 31/03/2008. 9. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. A T THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED TO THIS. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E UNDERLYING FACTS IN THE ISSUES BEFORE US. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS CONSID ERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). AS NO DISTINGUIS HING FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. D.R. NOR ANY DISTINGUI SHING DECISION HAS BEEN CITED BY THE ID. D.R, WE HAVE ALREADY EXTRACTED THE RELEVANT PART OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT'S DECISION WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOW ED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR I NFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. ITA NO. 151/RJT/2015 ACIT VS. SHREE JIVRAJ TOWNSHIP AY : 2010-2011 - 7 9. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE WAS UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, I.E., AY 2010-11 WITH THE FACTS DEALT BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2011-12. ALSO, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONCEDED TO THE FACT THAT THE SPECIA L LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF B.M. A ND BROTHERS (SUPRA) HAS STILL NOT REACHED FINALITY AND THEREFORE, PRESENTLY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WILL PREVAIL. WE, THEREF ORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA), WHER EIN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.M. AND BROTHERS (SUPRA), FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND MAY 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 02/ 05/2017 BT** / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. # % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. # , # , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT, 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) # ITAT, RAJKOT