The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda V. M/s. Punjab Steel Rolling Mills(Baroda) Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 1876/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6112 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Competent authority; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1876/AHD/2014 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, BARODA M/S. PUNJAB STEEL ROLLING MILLS (BARODA) PVT. LTD. CHHANI ROAD, OPP. OLD STATION, NEAR PANDYA HOTEL BARODA-390002 V/S V/S M/S. PUNJAB STEEL ROLLING MILLS (BARODA) PVT. LTD. CHHANI ROAD, OPP. OLD STATION, NEAR PANDYA HOTEL BARODA-390002 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCP2459G APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJESH MEENA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08 -02-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -02-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 2 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, BARODA DA TED 31.03.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE READ AS UN DER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3.11 CRORES, TREATE D BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DIRECTING TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS MONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN' AND TO ALLOW THE COST OF ACQUISITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TRANSFERRED THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY IN 1972 TO M/S. STAR STEEL LIMITED ITSELF BY HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPER TY UNDER LEASE OF 98 YEARS AND THE RECEIPT OF RS. 3.11 CRORES WAS A LUMPSUM RECEIPT RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NO LITIGATION AND TO REFRAIN FROM CAUSING DELAY AND CR EATING LEGAL COMPLICATIONS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 59,48,904/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SCHEME FOR GRATUITY APPROVAL WAS APPROVED WITH EFFE CT FROM 07.01.2010 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (I.E. FROM THE DATE OF A PPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE), WHEREAS THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON 31. 12.2009 I.E. PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SCHEME. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF STEEL BARS. THE RETURN FO R THE YEAR WAS FILED ON 28.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6.12 CRORE S. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY STATUTORY N OTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 3 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS: IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,23,07,514/- AS UNDER: SALES CONSIDERATION (PROPER;TY-I) 3,11,00,000 COST OF ACQUISITION 13,67,715 COST INFLATION INDEX FOR F.Y. 2009-10 632 COST INFLATION INDEX FOR F.Y. 2009-10 100 LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION 86,43,956 LESS: EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRAN SFER 1,48,530 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON PROPERTY-I 2,23,07,5 14 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND O N PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF A P LOT OF LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN ON A LONG TERM LEASE OF 98 YEARS TO M/S. STAR STEEL LIMITED (SSL). THE A.O. FURTHER NOTICED THAT SSL WHO HAD THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND, CREATED A CHARGE ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND AS SECURITY FOR AVAILING V ARIOUS CREDIT FACILITIES FROM BANKS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, ETC. SSL SUFFERED HE AVY LOSSES IN ITS BUSINESS AND WAS REFERRED TO THE BIFR. IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECOM MENDED FOR THE WINDING UP OF SSL. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED. I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS/ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR AT, THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WENT THROUGH THE NECESSARY PROCEDURES TO EFFECT THE SALE OF SAID PLOT OF LAND FOR WHICH LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WERE HELD BY SSL. IN RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC NOTICES ISSUED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S. SILVER HEIGHTS BUI LDERS PVT. LTD. OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WHICH WAS ACCEPTED B Y THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WA S CONVEYED VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 09.01.2008 IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER. 6. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGREED TO RELEASE, RELINQUISH AND RENOUNCE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS THAT IT MAY HAVE IN THE SAID PLOT OF LAND FO R CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3.11 ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 4 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS ON THIS CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3.11 CRORES AND THE COMPUTATION IS EXHIBITED EL SEWHERE. 7. ON THE AFORE-STATED FACTS, THE A.O. WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OWNERSHIP RIGHTS ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND SINCE THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE IN THE YEAR 1972 WH EN THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS LEASED FOR A PERIOD OF 98 YEARS TO SSL. THE A.O. FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF IT IS TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION OF COST AGAINST THE SAID PROPERTY SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1972. THE A.O. CONCLUDED BY TAXING THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3.11 CRORES UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 8. ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY LEASED THE SAID PLOT OF LAND TO SSL AND THE OWNERSHIP ALWAYS REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS. 3.11 CRORESS CANNOT BE TAXE D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD . D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELATED ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 5 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES. THERE IS NOT DISPUTE THAT BY THE LEASE DEED DATED 11.07.1972 LEASE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GRANTED TO SSL. THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O. THAT TRANSFER OF LAND FOR SU CH A LONG PERIOD IS NOTHING BUT ACTUAL TRANSFER OF THE SAID LAND CANNOT BE ACCE PTED BECAUSE BY GIVING OF LEASE, THE SAID PLOT OF LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LOST ITS OWNERSHIP RIGHT OVER THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE L AND WHICH HAD BEEN LEASED OUT TO SSL DID NOT SEIZE TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE OWNERSHIP REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE. 12. WHEN THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED BY THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT SOLD THE LAND HELD BY SSL ON LEASE, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPLICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LA ND IN QUESTION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HELD THAT LEASE RIGHT ARE INTANGIBLE ASSET AND THEREFORE WHAT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HAS TRANSFERRED WAS THE LEASE RIGHT HELD BY THE LESSEE COMPANY. MOREOVER, THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDAT OR HAS SOLD THE LAND ON AS IS WHERE IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS. THE LAW I S VERY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE- NO ONE CAN TRANSFER A BETTER TITLE THEN WHAT IT HAS. THE PURCHASER WOULD HAVE GOT A LEASE HELD RIGHT OVER THE SAID PLOT OF LAND AND T O GET THE OWNERSHIP RIGHT RS. 3.11 CRORES WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE AGREE MENT DATED 04.09.2009 DEED OF CONFIRMATION AND RELEASE WAS EXECUTED FOR RELEA SE OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE LAND UNDER REFERENCE. 13. ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O F DELHI IN THE CASE OF SIMKA HOTELS & RESORTS 30 TAXMANN.COM 265 HAD THE OCCASIO N TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND HELD AS UNDER:- FACTS ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 6 THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST ANDING (MOU) WITH 'D' LTD. AND 'E' LTD. FOR THE PURCHASE OF 500 SQ. MTRS OF A LAND OR A RESIDENTIAL FLAT NOT EXCEEDING 300 SQ. ML FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS . 4,28,00,000. AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE MOU A SUM OF RS. 68,00,000 WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID IN T WO INSTALMENTS; THE FIRST INSTALMENT WHEN THE LAYOUT PLAN WAS SANCTIONED BY T HE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SECOND INSTALMENT AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION OF THE PLOT. ON 22-5-1998 THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A SUPPLEME NTARY MOU BY WHICH PLOT NO. A-1 MEASURING 500 SQ. MTRS WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 27-8-1998 APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ISSUED A NO OBJECTION CERTIFI CATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PLOT, FOR AN APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,28,00,000. ON 28-12-2005 THE ASSESSEE RELINQUISHED ITS OWNER SHIP RIGHTS IN THE SAID PLOT FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,05,00,000 ( INCLUDING RS. 68,00,000 PAID AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE MOU). IN TERMS OF THE RELINQUISHMENT AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE RELEASED AND DISCHARGED THE VENDORS FROM A LL OBLIGATIONS AND ALSO RELINQUISHED AND RELEASED ALL ITS CLAIMS, OWNERSHIP , RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE SAID PLOT. ON 28-3-2007 IT FILED ITS INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,94,19,345 ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF RS. 5,05,00,000 FOR SALE OF ITS RIGHTS/TITLE IN THE SAID PLOT. ON 11-9-2009 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ISSUED A NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND HELD THAT THE INCOME FOR RS. 5,05,00,000 EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET WAS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES' AND NOT 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND ACCORDINGLY, INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AND DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS A CAPITAL GAIN OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH IT WRONGLY REPO RTED, AS TO WARRANT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148? HELD FACTUAL ASPECTS OF CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE UNDENIABLE FACTS ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 68 LAKHS, AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE MOU, I.E., THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. THE TRANSACTION WAS REPORTED TO THE REVENUE; A NO OBJEC TION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED. NO DOUBT, THE MOU DID NOT ASSIGN A PARTICULAR DEFIN ED PLOT OF LAND. A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS LATER ENTERED INTO, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSEQUENTLY ALLOTTED A PLOT. [PARA 12] ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 7 INCOME FROM RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT IN A PROPERTY H AS TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAIN THE DECISION IN J.K. KASHYAP V. ASSTT. CIT [2008 ] 302 ITR 255/171 TAXMAN 390 (DELHI) IS AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EV EN WHEN AN ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED TO AN UNDEFINED AND UNDIVIDED SHARE IN A P ROPERTY, THROUGH AN AGREEMENT, WHICH HE LATER RELINQUISHES, THE GAIN HA S TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN, AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. [PARA 13] THE HIGH COURT AGREED WITH THE ABOVE REASONING. THAT APART, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED RIGHT TO A SPECIFIC PLOT; FURTHERMORE, THE INTEREST WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM, WHICH COU LD BE ASSERTED IN LEGAL PROCEEDING. THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAD ISSUED A NO OBJ ECTION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REPORT ING OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CAPITAL GAINS WAS CORRECT. MOREOVER, CALCUTTA DISCO UNT CO. LTD. V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) IS AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION TH AT AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE MAKES A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME, THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT CLAIM THAT AS FALLING UNDER ONE HEAD WHICH IS ULTIMATELY NOT ACCEPTED, WO ULD NOT MAKE IT A WRONG DISCLOSURE, OR SUPPRESSION. THE QUESTION AS TO THE PROPER ASSESSABILITY OF ANY AMOUNT, TO INCOME TAX FALLS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF TH E TAX ADJUDICATOR. [PARA 14] CONCLUSION IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY QUASHED. [PARA 15] 14. IN ANOTHER CASE OF J.K. KASHYAP IN 171 TAXMANN.COM 390 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE HOLDING THAT CONS IDERATION RECEIVED FOR RELINQUISHING THE RIGHTS IN PROPERTY ATTRACTED PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 45(1) MAKING IT LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 15. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 8 16. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 IS SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTOOL COMPANY LTD. 35 TAXMANN.COM 639. TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW : '...WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.5 5,84,754/- BEING THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTLY TO LIFE INSUR ANCE CORPORATION TOWARDS GROUP GRATUITY FUND UNDER SECTION 36 (L)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961?' 17. AND THE HONBLE SUPRME COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 8. HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE BACKGROUND FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. T RUE THAT A FISCAL STATUTE IS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AND NOTHING SHOULD BE ADDED OR S UBTRACTED TO THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THE SECTION, YET A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION DOES NOT RULE OUT THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONABLE CON STRUCTION TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENTION OF ANY PARTICULAR PROVISION O F THE ACT. (SEE : SHREE SAJJAN MILLS LTD. V. CIT [19851 156 ITR 585/23 TAXMAN 37 ( SO. FROM A BARE READING OF SECTIN 36(L)(V) OF THE ACT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE REAL INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISION IS THAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OV ER THE FUNDS OF THE IRREVOCABLE TRUST CREATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EM PLOYEES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIO NER AND AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRO L OVER THE FUND CREATED BY THE LIC FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSE E AND FURTHER ALL THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID FUND ULTIMATELY CAME BACK TO THE TEXTOOL EMPLOYEES GRATUITY FUND, APPROVED BY THE CO MMISSIONER WITH EFFECT FROM THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, THE CONDITI ONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 36(L)(V) OF THE ACT WERE SATISFIED. HAVING REGARD T O THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER AND AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE HIGH COURT, WARRANTING OUR INTERFERENCE. ITA NO. 1876 & C.O. NO. 251/AHD/14 . A.Y. 2010-11 9 9. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORD ER AS TO COASTS. 18. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORE-STATED RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 - 02- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12 /02/2018 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,AHME DABAD