The ACIT,Navsari Circle, Navsari V. M/s. Desai Fruits & Vegetable Pvt.Ltd., Navsari

ITA 1707/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0285 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1707/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE NAVSARI. VS M/S.DESAI FRUITS & VEGITALES PVT.LTD. AT & POST AMADPORE TA. DIST. NAVSARI. PAN : AABCD 0223 G ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVIN SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 26/09/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/10/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 23.5.2012 PASSED FOR THE AS STT.YEAR 2009-10. 2. GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER. IN THESE GROUNDS, GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,71,622/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING COLD CHAIN PROJE CT, MAINLY, TRADING AND PROCESSING OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN COLD S TORAGE UNIT. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13.9.2009 ELECTRONICALLY DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME AT ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 2 RS.NIL. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED T O THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.35,71,622/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID TO TWO FIVE FOREIGN AGENTS. THE LD.AO HAS CON FRONTED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW REQUISITE DETAILS AS TO HOW THIS COMMISSION PA YMENT CAN BE ALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED A LETTER THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON 16.12.20112. THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO ON PAGE NOS.2 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELEVANT PART OF THE EXPLANATION READS AS UNDER: [5.1] SHRI 3. M. NAIK, C.A., THE A.R. OF THE ASSE SSEE VIDE LETTER DTD'. 16.12.2011 FURNISHED DETAILED EXPLANATION WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: S. NO. NAME OF THE FOREIGN AGENT AMOUNT OF COMMISSION 1 CONTRACT FARMING INDIA AG 2,366,785/- 2 CARL TRADING LTD 56,329/- 3. MAP HYPERMARKET LLC CARREFOUR 348508/- 4 FRESH FRUIT COMPANY 100000/- 5 PETER VAN OUWERKERK 7,00,000/- 'YOUR ASSESSEE IS AN EXPORTER OF BULK DRUGS AND FIN E CHEMICALS WHICH ARE SOLD/ EXPORTED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR YOUR ASSESSEE ENGAGED SEVERAL COMMISSION AGENTS, WHO PRO CURE BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE BY BOOKING ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. TO TAL AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO AGENTS AGGREGATES TO RS. 35,71,6 22/- REMITTANCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO THEM DURING THE YEAR. IN OTH ER WORDS, THE AGENTS HAVE BROUGHT BUSINESS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ON WHICH COMMISSION IS PAID TO THEM. THESE ORDERS WERE SENT DIRECTLY BY THE FOR EIGN PURCHASERS REMITTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA AND EVEN THE PAYM ENTS FOR EXPORT WERE RECEIVED BY THE /ASSESSEE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY DIREC TLY FROM FOREIGN PURCHASERS. FOR PROCURING THE EXPORT ORDERS THE ASS ESSEE HAS USED THE ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 3 SERVICES OF THE OVERSEAS COMMISSION AGENTS WHO PROV IDED CONFIRMED EXPORT ORDERS AND THEY RENDERED THEIR SERVICES ABRO AD. THE COMMISSION AGENTS, RENDERED SERVICES OUTSIDE IN DIA AND WHICH HAS BEEN UTILISED ALSO OUTSIDE INDIA. ALL THESE COMMISSION AGENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY PLACE O R PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA. THEY WHILE WORKING ABROAD H AVE PROCURED ORDERS. THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO THEM IN PROPORTIO N TO QUANTITY OF MATERIAL SOLD THROUGH THEM AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF S ALES IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION T O THEM NO TDS LIABILITY ARISES AS IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCT ED AS THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED ABROAD. SINCE OVERSEAS AGENTS EARNED COMMISSION INCOME NOT ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS .CONNECTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PERMANEN T ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA, THESE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA AS PER RELEVANT DTAA. SINCE THESE AGENTS DO NOT CARRY ON BUSINESS THROUGH PE SITUATED IN INDIA THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDI A AS NO OPERATION BEING CARRIED OUT IN INDIA NO INCOME HAS ACCRUED OR AROSE IN INDIA. 4. AFTER MAKING AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPLANATION, THE LD.AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: [5.1] THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS C AREFULLY CONSIDERED BUT THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO SERVICES RENDERED BY THE F OREIGN AGENTS TO WHOM ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENGAGED TO PROCURE BU SINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY BOOKING ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED LIST OF FOREIGN AGENTS, COMMISSI ON PAID TO HIM AND GIVEN SALES INVOICE NUMBER FOR WHICH COMMISSION PAI D. THESE DETAILS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. THERE IS NO REGISTERED WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE FOREIGN AGENT. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THERE IS AN AGRE EMENT THEN ALSO ONUS RESTS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT TH E SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE FOREIGN AGENTS TO MAKE HIM ELIGIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROCUREMENT ORDER OR INDENT PLACED BY THE FOREIGN AGENTS FOR SUPPLY OF GOOD TO CONCERNED FOREIGN COMPANIES. ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 4 IN THE CASE OF LACHMINARAYAN MODAN LAL V. CIT (1972 ) 86 ITR 439 9 (SC), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF THER E IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SELLING AGENTS OR PAYM ENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS COMMISSION, ASSUMING THERE WAS SUCH PAYM ENT, THAT DOES NOT BIND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO HOLD THAT THE PA YMENT WAS MADE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSE SSEE'S BUSINESS. THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '.... ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SUCH AN AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE AND THE PAYMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE, IT IS STILL OPEN TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DETE RMINE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE COMMISSION PAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO TH E SELLING AGENTS OR ANY PART THEREOF IS PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTI ON 37 OF THE ACT.' IN THE CASE OF SCHENEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA LTD. V. CI T 304 ITR 360, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE AMOUNT OF THE COMMISSION PAID WAS EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO BRING NECESSARY MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE FOREIGN AGENTS COR RESPONDED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF MATER IAL AND OTHER THINGS FOR FOREIGN BUYER AND ACCORDINGLY PLACED PRO CUREMENT ORDER ON ASSESSEE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FOREIGN COMPANY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE PAYMENT OF RS. 35,71,622/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT COMM ISSION IS DISALLOWED AS .NON-BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. WHILE DISALLOWING TH IS CLAIM, PRINCIPAL OF RES JUDICATA IS DULY CONSIDERED, WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. A PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(L)(C) OF THE'L.T. ACT IS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N: DECISION :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E, MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THER E IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON TO EVEN DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISS ION PAID TO FIVE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS, AS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED SUF FICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND EXPENDITURE O N THIS FRONT IS INEVITABLE AND HAS BEEN INCURRED YEAR AFTER YEAR. S INCE THE COMMISSION ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 5 HAS BEEN PAID TO THOSE FIVE FOREIGN AGENTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEIR IDENTITY IS PROVED AND CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEE N OBTAINED FROM THEM, I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THAT THE SAID EXPENSE IS A GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. SECONDLY I FIND THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT COMMISSION OF RS .35,71,622/-PAID TO FIVE DIFFERENT NON-RESIDENT AGENTS HAD ANY OPERATIO N CARRIED OUT IN INDIA AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(I)(I) OF I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT AHME DABAD, IN CASE OF AIA ENGINEERING LTD. V/S. ADDL.CIT (ITA NO.580/AHD/ 2011) HAS HELD THAT INCOME OF A NON-RESIDENT IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE O R ARISE IN INDIA ONLY IF ANY PART OF INCOME IS REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA AND IF NO OPERATION IS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA BY THE NON-RESIDENT, THERE WOULD BE NO INCOME DEEME D TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. UNDER THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITI ON, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM T HE PAYMENT MADE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE AS ENVISAGED IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE WITH REGARD TO THE CAPTIONED PAYMENT TO FIVE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS REFER RED TO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FILED SUFFICIENT MAT ERIAL INCLUDING CONFIRMATION THAT THE FOREIGN AGENTS ARE NON-RESIDE NT AND THEY HAVE NEITHER CARRIED OUT ANY OPERATION IN INDIA NOR HAVE RENDERED ANY SERVICES IN INDIA, NO TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE PA YMENT MADE TO THEM AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 R.W.S. 40( A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THIS ADDITION OF R S.35,71,622/- MADE BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IN GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LD.AO HAS ASSIGNED TWO REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FIRST FOLD OF REASONING, HE OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBITING SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ALLEGE D FOREIGN AGENTS. IN THE SECOND FOLD OF REASONING, THE LD.AO HAS OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AGENT. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW THE ALLEGED COMMISSION AGENT HAS NO BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND HOW THE REMITTA NCES GIVEN TO THEM ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH FOLDS. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF ANY ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 6 EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1), THE FOLLOWING COND ITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED I.E. (I) THERE MUST BE EXPENDITURE, (B) SUCH EXPEND ITURE MUST NOT BE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 30 TO 36, (C) THE EXPE NDITURE MUST NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE, AND (D) THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN OR EXPENDED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE EXP RESSION WHOLLY REFERS TO QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE, WHILE EXPRESSION EXCLUSIVE LY REFERS TO THE MOTIVE, OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS QUANTIFIED THE EXPENDITURE, HENCE, TO SOME EXTENT FULFILL EXPRESSION WHOLLY, BUT IT FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THIS LIMB CO ULD BE FULFILLED, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ALLEGED COMMISSION AGENT. THE LD.AO HAS RECORDED A SPECIFI C FINDING THAT EXCEPT PRODUCING CERTAIN INVOICES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OR RAISING OF I NVOICES ARE NOT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED SOM E CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AGENTS OR HOW THE AGENTS HAVE HELPED THE ASSESS EE TO PROCURE THE ORDERS. THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE HA VE SPECIFICALLY PERUSED PAGE NOS.9 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN ALLEGED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE OF EXPORT COMMISSION HAS BEEN PLACED. THE SE DOCUMENTS ARE ONLY INVOICES LEDGER OR DETAILS OF PAYMENT. AT PAGE NO. 15 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONTRACT FARMING INDIA AG AND DESAI FRUITS AND VEGETABLES P.LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A COMMISSION OF RS.23,66,785/- TO THIS CONCERN I.E. CONTRACT FARMIN G INDIA AG, BUT THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE, COMPLETE NAME OF SIGNATORY, ANY STAMP. IT WAS NOT REGISTERED. IT APPEARS TO BE PREPARED I N A FORMAT STYLE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 7 7. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED, IT IS SECOND FOLD OF REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. SINCE, WE H AVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIC PREMISES THAT EVIDENCES D EMONSTRATING RENDERING OF SERVICES WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER OTHER FOLD OF REASONING. ADD ITION OF RS.35,71,622/- IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,38,915/-. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION, THE LD.AO HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: [7] FROM SCHEDULE 12 OF P & L ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED COMMISSION EX PENSES OF RS70,42,232/-, BUT ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF CO MMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.57,03,317/- ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS THE REMAINING EXPENSES BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCED DETAILS OF RS. 13,38,915/- ONLY. A S DIE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE REMAINING DETAILS, SO ADDITION OF RS . 13,38,915/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF ME CLAIM MADE FOR THE EXPENSES.. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITI ON. 10. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN CURRED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.70,42,232/-. IT WAS PAID TO INDIAN AGENTS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE DETAILS QUA FOUR AGENTS VIZ. P.D. KHEDEKAR, SHAIKH MOINUDDIN, KUMAR BABAN BORATE AND R.K. FRUIT SUPPLI ER. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SU PPLIED THEIR COMPLETE DETAILS, THEIR PANS. IT HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TAX UNDER SECTION 194H. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON COMMISSIO N EXPENSES PAID TO THESE FOUR CONCERNS. ITA NO.1707/AHD/2012 8 11. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.AO HAS NOT DOUBTED RENDERING OF SERVICE S BY THESE CONCERNS. HE SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT DETAILS. THAT OBSERVATION WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE RE ASON ASSIGNED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED. DETAILS OF AGENTS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE, AND THE ASSESSEE H AS PROVIDED PANS. OF THESE FOUR AGENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS O F THE LD.CIT(A), WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE IN IT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 12. GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. THEY DO NOT CALL FOR RECORDING OF ANY FINDING, HENCE, THEY ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/10/2016