The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Symphony Comforts System Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1896/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2427 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT S SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 32; 10; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ITA. NOS: 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, SANSKRUT, NEAR GUJARAT HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009 V/S V/S SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, SANSKRUT, NEAR GUJARAT HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009 JY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA. NO: 2280/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, SANSKRUT, NEAR GUJARAT HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009 V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACCS6739B ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 2 APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.D.R . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHARAT S. SHAH, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 06 -06-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-08-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST EACH OTHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOULD LI KE TO DISPOSE OF ALL THESE APPEALS TOGETHER. 2. IN ITA NO. 1817/AHD/2014, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THE PART OF IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDE NCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND BINDING JUDGMENTS OF THE COUR T, CONTRARY TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. SUCH ADDITION OF RS./6,22,753/)- CONFIR MED BY LEARNED CIT (A) BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DESERVES T O BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. IT MAY BE SO HELD NOW. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF DEPRECIATION LOSS OF RS. 66,30,969/- FOR AY 1998-99 AS PER HON'BLE BIFR ORDER DATED 13.01.2009 (CASE NO 338/2002), WHICH HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AS UNDER:- '1. TO ALLOW SET OF LOSSES BEYOND EIGHT YEARS PERIO D TILL THE NETWORTH OF THE COMPANY BECOMES POSITIVE BY RELAXING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 72 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON FROM AY 1997-98 TO 2001-02 TO THE YEAR WHEN THE NET WORTH OF THE COMPANY BECOMES POSITIVE UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.' ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 3 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. HAS WITHDRAWN GROUND NO. 3 WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION LOSS. NOW ONLY GROUND REMAINS WITH US U/S. 14A. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE T HE APPELLANT IS LIMITED COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING & TRADING OF AIR COOLER AND OTHER CONSUMER DURABLES. THE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2009. THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) AND THE LEARNED A.O. DETERM INED TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.14, 44,69,112/- AFTER MAKING CERTAI N ADDITION AND THEREAFTER IN APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,22,753/- U/S. 14A READ WITH R ULE 8D OF INCOME TAX ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE AND NOT GIVING THE CORRECT CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. WHEREAS APPELLANT STATED THAT NO BE ARING FUND HAD BEEN USED IN MAKING INVESTMENTS ON WHICH THE INCOME IS EXEMPT. APPELLANT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND INVESTING OR PARKING SURP LUS MONEY ON A REGULAR BASIS IN MUTUAL FUNDS (DIVIDEND PLAN) AND GETS DIVI DEND INCOME CREDITED TO ITS BANK ACCOUNT. SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME DOES NOT FORM PA RT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 10 (34). SINCE THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC LOAN U SED FOR INVESTMENT, EXCEPT THE CASH FLOWS GENERATED FROM OPERATIONS BY WAY OF PROFITS, NO IDENTIFIABLE COST COULD BE ATTRIBUTED FOR THE INVESTMENT. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. A.R. FILED VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTE NTION AND STATED THAT HIS RESERVE AND SURPLUS ARE OF RS. 156067282/- AND HIS INVESTMENT OF RS. 125383779/- AND SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 5. THEREFORE, SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS NOT APP LICABLE TO HIM READ WITH RULE 8D IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 4 TAX VS. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. 2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM 24 (SC) HAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD SURPLUS FUND AGAINST WHICH MINOR INVESTMENT WAS MADE, NO QUESTION OF MAKING AN Y DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AROSE AND THEREFORE , THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID APEX COURT JUD GMENT, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. NOW WE COME TO ITA NO. 1896/AHD/2014. IN THIS CASE, DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,36,005/- MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES FOR WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SERVICES HAD BEEN RECE IVED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. 2.THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,56,000/- MAD E U/S.68 OF THE ACT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING GENUINENESS AND CREDI T WORTHINESS OF DEPOSITOR. 3.THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,55,828/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARKET RESEARCH EXPENSES BY TREATING THEM AS CAPITAL EXPENSES , SINCE, THE B ENEFIT FOR THE SAME WASN'T RESTRICTED TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY. 4.THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW FT AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,23,558/ - MADE U/S.145A OF THE ACT. 5.THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,93,488/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS WITHOUT ASSESSEE COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN U/S.36(2)(I) OF THE ACT. 6.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-A-SIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 5 7. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES ON A CCOUNT OF COMMISSION AT RS. 52,58,367/- AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND COPIES OF AGREEMENTS WITH SUC H PERSON IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID. HOWEVER, IN RESP ECT OF CLAIM OF MISCELLANEOUS SALE COMMISSION OF RS. 5,36,006/-, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE SUPPORTIVE DETAILS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL, NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS CONTENDED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT DETAILS OF SOME RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION DETAILS COULD NOT BE S UBMITTED BECAUSE OF SMALL AMOUNT BEING NON PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE BECAUSE MOST OF THE BUSINESSMAN ARE SMALL WHICH ARE SPREAD OUT IN THE OTHER STATES AND TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED FOR SUCH PARTIES, IS HARDLY LESS THAN RS. 50,000/- APPR OXIMATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 9. SO FAR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM S OME OF SUCH PERSONS. AND HE SUBMITTED PERTAINS TO M/S. SAIYAM ELECTRICALS, M /S. A.C. CLINIC, M/S. ATLANTIC AIR CONDITIONING, M/S. AYUSHI SERVICES, M/ S. T.P. AGENCY, AND M/S. GAYATRI REFRIGERATION & ELECTRONICS. LD. A. R. ASK ED ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE REMAINING 21 PERSONS FROM WHO M SMALL DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2000 TO 25,000/- AND AL L TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONT ENTION, ASSESSEE CITED A JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITED COMM. AND ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 6 INDUSTRIAL CO. PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 187 ITR 596 (C AL.) WHEREBY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS IN ITS ACCOUNT. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE PRIMA FACIE THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITORS, TH E CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND LASTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ONLY WHEN THESE THINGS ARE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE AND ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE AFORESAID FAC TS DOES THE ONUS SHIFT ON TO THE DEPARTMENT. 10. IN APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,56,000/- MADE U/S. 68 HOLDING THAT HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTAL VOLUME OF APPELLANTS BUSINESS AND NATURE OF APPELLANTS BUSINESS, SUCH T RADE DEPOSITS AS SECURITY FROM SMALL DEALERS SHOULD NOT BE HELD NON-GENUINE BECAUS E APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM THESE DEALERS IN ALL THE C ASES. IN MOST OF THE CASES ADDRESSES WITH PAN ARE AVAILABLE. HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. RANCHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAWA (TAX APP EAL NO. 50 OF 2011) THE APPELLANT STANDS DISCHARGED FROM BURDEN CASTED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT SINCE NAME, ADDRESSES, PAN AVAILABLE AND TRANSACTIONS ARE THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. IN SUCH CASE, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. SO FAR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,55,828/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARKET RESEARCH EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, APPELLANT HAD ENTER ED INTO AGREEMENT WITH ONE M/S. DIRECT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LTD., USA FOR UNDE RSTANDING THE POTENTIALITY OF FOREIGN MARKET BY MAKING RESEARCH ON MARKET DEVE LOPMENT. AND IT HAS BEEN HELD IN NUMEROUS JUDGMENT THAT RESEARCH EXPENSES CA N BE CONSTRUED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT WITH ITS NAT URE OF EXPENSES AND ITS ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 7 EXPEDIENCY AND FACTS OF THE CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE EXPENSES IS INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUGMENTING THE BUSIN ESS SIMILARLY AKIN TO ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES THEN THE NATURE IS OF THAT R EVENUE AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SAME ARE FULLY ALLOWABLE U/S. 3 7. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 12. SO FAR GROUND RELATING TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,23,558/- MADE U/S. 145A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25,2 3,578/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED/CLOSING BALANCE ON ACCOUNT OF MODVAT/CEN VAT CREDIT UNDER LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE CONS TANT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND TREATMENT BY FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVELY METHOD OF ACCOUN TING VAT AND EXCISE/SERVICE TAX WHERE BY THE TOTAL PURCHASES AT THE NET VALUE OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES AND THE CLOSING STOCK CONSEQUENTLY VALUED EXCLUDING THE CENVAT/VAT RECEIVABLE. THIS SYSTEM IS CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF RECOGNITION OF SUCH TREAT MENT BY THE ICAI. 13. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS LTD. 261 ITR 275 THAT MODVAT CREDIT WAS AN IRREVERSIBLE CREDIT AVAILABLE TO MANUFACTURERS AND WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO INCOME WHICH WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE MODVAT / CENVAT CREDI T BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER INCOME NOR ANY INCENTI VE OR SUBSIDY WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, W E DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 14. NOW WE COME TO THE GROUND CONCERNING THE ADDITION O F RS. 10,93,488/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS. ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 8 15. THE DETAILED LEDGER ACCOUNT REFLECT THAT RS. 10.93. 488/- DEBITED AS AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF IN THE NAME OF M/S. LEEL. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAME AS BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF BUT THE SA ME IS CLAIMED AS LOSS INCURRED AND DIRECTLY EMANATING FROM BUSINESS OF AP PELLANT. THIS LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN BY M/S. LEEL FOR SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL IN VIEW OF AN AGREEMENT FOR MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY OF A.C. AND SPARE PARTS OF A.C. BUT M/S. LEEL NEITHER SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL NOR RESPOND ED THE LEGAL NOTICES AND AS EVIDENT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. LEEL FOR 01.04. 07 TO 31.03.09, THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT WERE WRITTEN OFF. 16. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. ABDUL RAJAK & CO. (1982) 136 ITR 825 HAS HELD THAT THE DEBT WHICH SPR ING DIRECTLY FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWABLE AS A BAD DEB T AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE, A TRADING LOSS U/S 28(1) OF THE ACT WHIC H SPRING UP DIRECTLY FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 36(1)(VII) IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 36(2) CAN STILL BE HELD AS ALL OWABLE AS A TRADING LOSS U/S 28(1) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,93,488/-. THEREFORE, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDING PARAS, THIS APPEAL IS PART LY ALLOWED. NOW ITA NO. 2280/AHD/2016 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A .Y. 2011-12 18. IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SOLELY GROUND THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED PART AMOUNT OF RS.2,30,000/- OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,30,000/- OF SMALL SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF TH E CASE THEREFORE SUCH ITA NO. 1817 & 1896/AHD/2014 & ORS. . A.YS. 2009-1 0 & 2011-12 9 ADDITION BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND RELEVANT P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 19. IN THIS CASE, OUT OF RS. 6,30,000/- OF SMALL SECURI TY DEPOSITS, ASSESSEE COULD SUBMIT DETAILS OF RS. 4,00,000/- WITH ADDRESSES AND PAN NUMBER OF THE DEPOSITORS BUT FOR REMAINING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,30, 000/-, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY RELATED AND SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS. THERE FORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED A PART A MOUNT OF RS. 2,30,000/-. THUS, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, ITA NOL. 1817/AHD/2014 IS ALLOWED AN D ITA NO. 1896/AHD/2014 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PARTLY ALLOWED A ND IN ITA NO. 2280/AHD/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 08- 2018 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/08/2018 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