Tripada Education Trust, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.DIT, (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1937/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1320 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST, OPP: NILKANTH MAHADEV, RANNAPARK GHATLODIYA, AHMEDABAD - 380061 PAN: AABTT0188M (APPELLANT) VS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI P.L. KUREEL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI M.K. PATEL , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 05 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 06 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GOD ARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE TWO ASSESSEE S APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 , AR ISE FROM SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) - 9, AHMEDABAD DATED 01 - 04 - 2015 AND 06 - 04 - 2015 IN APPEAL NO S. CIT(A) - 9/279/DDIT EXEM /2014 - 15 AND CIT(A) - 9/283/DDIT EXEM/2014 - 15 ; RESPECTIVELY , I T A NO S. 1936 & 1937 / A HD/20 15 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 2 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE S FORMER APPEAL ITA 1936/AHD/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 RAISES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,72,100/ - UNDER SECTION 115BBC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CONSIDERING THE CORPUS FUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS ANONYMOUS DONATION, SUCH ADDITION IS REQUESTED, TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ONE TIME ADMISSION FEES OF RS. 67,80,650/ - , SUCH ADDITION IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 3. LATTER APPEAL ITA 1937 /AHD/2015 RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IS ALSO FOUND TO BE INVOLVI NG THE VERY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES AS EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE SINCE THE ONLY DISTINCTION FORTHCOMING FROM THE CASE FI LE IS QUA THE SUMS INVOLVED OF R S. 5,92,000/ - AND RS. 83,59,500/ - ; RESPECTIVELY IN T HE TWO CORRESP ONDING GROUNDS . THE ASSESSEE HAS M OVED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS WELL ON 11 - 04 - 2016 IN BOTH THE APPEAL S RAISING AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE ASSESSED ITS INCOME IN COMMERCIAL MANNER AS MANDATED U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. LD. REPRESENTATIVES POINT OUT AT THE OUTS ET THAT THESE TWO APPEAL RAISE IDENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE AS WELL AS ALTERNATIVE PLEADINGS. WE TAKE I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 3 UP ITA 1936/AHD/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AS THE LEAD CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRU ST EXCLUSIVELY PERFORMING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. IT ALREADY ENJOY S SECTION 12A AS WELL AS SECTION 10(23)(IV) REGISTRATIONS W.E.F. 31 - 03 - 1981 AND 14 - 07 - 2010L; RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 09 - 02 - 2011 STATING DEFICIT OF RS. 31,82,101/ - . THE SAME WAS SUMMARILY PROCESSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SC RUTINY THEREAFTER. HE NOTICED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH DONATION OF RS. 21,72,100/ - IN QUESTION PROJECTED AS CORPUS FUND CREATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING SCHOOL BUILDING , FURNITURE, VEHICLE FOR STUDENTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT S. ITS BALANCE SHEET CLAIMED TO HAVE ALREADY UTILIZED ALL OF THE FUNDS IN ITS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25 - 03 - 2013 TREATED THESE DONATIONS AS ANONYMOUS ONES U/S. 115BBC OF THE ACT THEREBY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH COPIES OF DONATION RECEIPT SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS CORPUS OF THE TRUST FOLLOWED BY THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AT THE DONORS END ALONG WITH THEIR NAMES, ADD RESSES AND PAN DETAILS. ALL THI S RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 21,7 2,100/ - . 5 . THE ASSESSE PREFERRED APPEAL. IT FURTHER RAISED ADDIT IONAL SUBMISSIONS THEREIN. THE C IT(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IN FILING CONFIRMATIONS OF ITS DONORS IN SUPPORT OF ITS IMPUGNED CORPUS DONATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCURRED WITH ITS STANDS IN HIS REMAND REPORT . THE CIT(A) I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 4 STILL REJECTS ITS CORRESPONDING GROUNDS RAISED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: - 2.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ALREADY FURNISHED DETAILS OF DONATION RECEIPTS FOR VERIFICATION AT THE T IME OF HEARING BEFORE THE A.O. THE COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CORPUS FUND, RECEIPT OF DONATION CONTAINING THE DE TAILS OF NAME AND ADDRESS OF DONO RS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. AND ALL DONATIONS ARE LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - . THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF DONATION RECEIPTS ALONGWITH SUBMISSION. THE ID CIT(APPEALS) VISUALIZING THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND TO REPORT ON THE ISSUES. THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM A.O. IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: '2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS, - WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE FROM YOUR KIND HONOUR'S OFFICE WITH DIRECTION TO OFFE R COMMENTS/REPORT ON THE ISSUES. 3. THE DETAIL WAS CALLED ON RANDOM BASIS FROM SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS - WHO HAD GIVEN DONATION TO THE TRIPADA EDUCATIO N TRUST. THE REPLY - WAS RECEIVED FROM THEIR SIDE AND ALL HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN DONATION TO THE TRUST TOWARDS CORPUS. THE INDIVIDUALS - WITH THEIR CONFIRMATION LETTER HAVE PROVIDED THE COPY OF THEIR IDENTITY PROOF, RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK STA TEMENTS. 4. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIM. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THAT 'ALL CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED FROM THE DONORS ARE GENUINE AND FROM THE IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS HAVING SOURCES OF INCOME. SOME OF THEM ARE PARENTS, STAFF/WELL WISHER. THEY HAVE GIVEN DONATION WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO UTILIZE THE SAME FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING INVESTMENTS IN ASSETS.' THEY HAVE ALSO PROVIDED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ON RANDOM BASIS ALONG WITH RELEVANT PROOF. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ENQUIRY MADE FROM INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS FROM THE ASSESSEE ON RANDOM BASIS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 5 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE MADE PAYMENTS TO TRIPADA EDU CATION TRUST TOWARDS CORPUS FOR CREATION OF ASSET.' AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN UMPTEEN TIMES TO FURNISH COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS WHEREIN DONATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST AND A CONFIRMATION IN THIS REGARD FROM THE DONORS END. BU T ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME TILL THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THESE DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN TOWARDS THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST. IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO FU RNISH FULL DETAILS LIKE NAME, ADDRESS AND PAN OF ALL THOSE DONORS WHO HAVE DONATED TOWARDS THE TRUST IN EXCE SS OF RS. 20,000/ - BE IT UNDER CORPUS OR AS A GENERAL DONATION. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED ON THIS ACCOUNT TOO AND ON THE CONTRARY MERELY FURNISHED A LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH IN THE EYES OF THE A.Q. IS NOT TRUE AND COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS WHICH WOULD SUGGEST A TRUE PICTURE OF THE STATE AFFAIRS OF THE TRUST. THE A.O. O B SERVED WHILE PERUSING THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT THAT ALL THESE DONATIONS RECEIVED WERE IN CASH. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASON A.O.'S OFFICE IS BUT COMPELLED TO UNDERSTAND AND TO TREAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS DONATIONS AS ANONYMOUS IN NATURE U/S.115BBC OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE SAID DETAILS VERY L ATE IN SPITE OF GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE INTENT THAT VERIFICATION OF THE SAME SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE PROPERLY. SOME OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO MENTION THAT DONATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR CORPUS FUND. SIMILARLY, NO PAN, ADDRESS AND SIGNATURE ON THE RECEIPTS. WHY THESE DETAILS WERE NOT GIVEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT IS SILENT ABOUT THIS ASPECT. HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REMAN D REPORT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED NOW AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THER EFOR E, I AM INCLINED WITH ID . ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS DONATION BY THE APPELLANT AS ANONYMOUS IN NATURE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY IT. THE A NONYMOUS DONATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPULSORILY TAKEN FROM THE STUDENTS AND THAT TOO IN CASH, WHO HAVE OPTED TO TAKE ADMISSION IN THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE APPELLANT. THIS MAKES AMPLY CLEAR THE TRUST IS RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITH PROF IT MOTIVE. I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 6 THEREFORE, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH A.O. REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM AS ANONYMOUS DONATION AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR RS.21,72,100/ - U/S.115BBC OF IT. ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. BOTH PARTIES STICK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CIT(A) S ACTION UNDER CHALLENGE CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED SECTION 115BBC ADDITION IN QUESTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BY NOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED ALL VERIFICATIONS FROM ASSESSEE S DONO RS IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE C IT(A) HAS ADOPTED A HYPER TECHNI CAL APPROACH IN THE ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY INVOKED SECTION 115BBC IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND TH AT THIS APPROACH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ONLY AFTER BEING CONVINCED WITH ASSESSEE S GROUND RAISED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CIT(A) HAD HIMSELF DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT TRA NSPIRES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE CIT(A) IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THESE DONATIONS COMPULSORILY FROM ITS STUDENTS I N CASH. OUR VIEW DIFFERS FROM THE SAME SINCE NO SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE EMANATES FROM THE CASE FILE INDICATING ANY MAT ERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THIS FINDING. SUFFICE TO SAY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED ASSESSEE S CORPUS DONATION OF RS. 21,72,100/ - AS ANONYMOUS IN NATURE LIABLE TO BE ADDED U/S. 115BBC AND HE HAS SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING CONFIRMATION FROM THE CORRESPONDING DONORS IN COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS . THE IMPUGNED DONATIONS ARE NO MORE ANONYMOUS IN NATURE. WE FIND FORCE IN ASSESSEE S FIRST I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 7 SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING CORPUS DONATION AS ITS INCOME LIABL E TO ASSESSED. THIS FIRST SUBST A N TIVE GROU ND IS DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR. 7 . WE COME TO THE SECOND ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ADMISSION FEES OF RS. 67,80,850/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSE D THE ASSESSEE FOR HAVING COLLECTED THE ABOVE STATED ADMISSION FEE AS TO WHY THE SAM E HAD BEEN DIRECTLY CREDITED TO BALANCE SHEET WITHOUT FIRST TREATING IT AS INCOME IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SAME TO BE A ONE TIME ADMISSION FEE CHARGED FROM ITS STUDENTS IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM BENEFITS TO BE PROVIDED TO THEM. IT CLAIMED THAT THIS ADMISSION FEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS FUND IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS EDUCATION AL ACTIVITIES OBJECT TO BE TREATED AS CORPUS FUNDS EXEMPT U/S. 12 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS NO CHOICE LEFT FOR STUD ENTS PARENTS EXCEPT TO PAY THE IMPUGNED ADMISSION FEES. HE RELIED ON ASSESSEE S PRINTED REC EI P T ALLEGEDLY INDI CATING THE SAME WERE IN THE NATURE OF COMPULSORY DONATION. HE WOULD ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE S INSTITUTION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED W ITH PROFIT MOTIVE. ALL THIS DISCUSSION LED TO ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED ADMISSION FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 67,80,650/ - IN QUESTION . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE SAME. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. RELEVANT FINDINGS STAND PERUSED. WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO RE - NARRATE THE ENTIRE FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST PASSED RESOLUTIONS FOR I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 8 OBTAINING ADMISSION FEE SEPARATELY FROM ITS STUDENTS WITH SPECIFIC STIPULATION T HAT THE SAME WOULD BE USED IN EDUC AT I ONAL FUNDS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPEL CORRECTNESS THEREOF IN COURSE OF ARGUMENTS. THERE IS FUR THER NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE S STUDENTS OR FOR THAT THEIR PARENTS WERE EVER FORCED TO PAY THE IMPUGNED AD MISSION FEES AS ALLEGED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE IMPUGNED ADMISSION FEES AS PER ITS RESOLUTIONS TO BE UTILIZED IN ITS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ONLY. HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN (2003) 260 ITR 36 6 (GUJ) CIT VS. S.V. VANIK JAIN SANGH IS OF THE VIEW THAT A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION MADE WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO FORM PART OF THE CORPUS IS NOT TREATED TO BE AS INCOME. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY A CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN (2012) 136 ITD 111DIT VS. N.H KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST REITERAT ING THE VERY VIEW THAT CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS FUNDS ARE EXEMPT U/S. 12. SAME APPEARS TO BE THE RATIO OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN (2012) 345 ITR 362 (DEL) DIT VS. NASS COM HOLDING THAT A ONE TIME A DMISSION FEE PAID BY MEMBERS TO BE SPENT ONLY FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSET IS A CORPUS DONATION NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME. THE REVENUE FAILS TO POINTS OUT ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. WE ACCEPT SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 67,80,650/ - STANDS DELETED. 9. OUR FINDINGS ON ASSESSEE S TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS RENDER ITS ALTERNATE SUBMISSIONS (SUPRA) TO HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITS FORMER APPEAL ITA 1936/AHD/2015 SUCCEEDS. I.T.A NO S. 1936 & 1937 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE NO TRIPADA EDUCATION TRUST VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 9 10. WE COME TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 INVOLVING ITA 1937/AHD/2015 NOW. WE HAVE ALREADY NARRATED THAT THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES SECTION 115BBC ADDITION OF RS. 5,92,100/ - AND THAT OF ONE TIME ADMISSION FEE RECEIPT OF RS. 83,59,500/ - MADE BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES STATE VERY FAIRL Y THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOUT ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. WE ACCEPT ASSESSEE S BOTH SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE SAME TERMS. LATTER APPEAL ITA 1937/AHD/2015 IS ALSO ALLOWED. 11. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN BOTH OF ITS APPEALS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 29 - 06 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 29 /06 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,