DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1968/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8157 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NOS: 1968 & 1969/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06) DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD V/S M/S CORE HEALTHCARE LTD. (LIQUIDATED COMPANY) JIVABHAI CHAMBERS, B/H SWASTIK SUPER MARKET, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380015 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACC6252H APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. VAISHNAV, CIT/D R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 26 -11-201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 -01-2020 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.06.2017 PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2004-05 & 2005- 06. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 2 1.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY D ELETING THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,26,11,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL PERTAINING TO ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS . 2.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 19,81,45,000/- TREATED BY THE A.O. AS CAPITAL EXPENSES. 3.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY A LLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTEREST FREE LOANS AND AD VANCES TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANY RS. 4,77,04,203/-. 2. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 21,26,11,000/- AS BEING INTEREST PAID AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT CLAIMED AS EXPENSES IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILE D WITH THE RETURN. 3. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, INTEREST PAID ON BORROWIN GS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,26,11,0 00/- HAS BEEN TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE COMPANY AND AS PER ASSESSEE THIS AMOUNT IS FULLY DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 3 6(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE COMPANY HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS F OR ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST AND FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAS ALREADY SET UP. 4. BUT LD. A.O. WAS NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT INTEREST PAID PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH ASSET PUT T O USE SHALL BE CAPITALIZED AS PER THE PROVISIONS ACCORDINGLY ABOVE SAID INTEREST WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT A SSESSEE CLAIM IS PERMISSIBLE ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 3 UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS HE LD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT ITS OWN AP PEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. 6. NOW REVENUE HAS COME BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOR A.Y. 1992-93 AND 1993-04 ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND LD. CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT . THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SAME DOES NOT REQUIRED ANY KIND OF INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW WE COME TO GROUND RELATING TO DELETING DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 19,81,45,000/-. 9. LD. A.R. STATED THAT SIMILAR GROUND WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE SUPREME COURT AND SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN APPE LLANTS OWN CASE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.07.2016 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 TO A.Y.2002-03 IN TAX APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2010 TO 76 OF 2 010 WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 2. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE APPEALS IS AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST RELATING TO THE BORROWED FUNDS WHICH IS DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONCERN, WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF CIT(A) DELETING ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RELATING TO THE BORROWED FUNDS DIVERTED TO THE SIST ER CONCERN WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. BEING AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 4 PASSED BY THE ITAT, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE P RESENT TAX APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 4. MR.NITIN MEHTA, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO SUBSIDIARY/OTHER COMP ANIES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS AND EXPLAIN T HE ADVANCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STAT ED AS UNDER: (RS. IN LACS) SHARE CAPITAL 3398.79 RESERVES & SURPLUS (SHARE PREMIUM, CAPITAL RESERVE, CAPITAL REDEEM RESERVE ETC.) 31218.54 TOTAL 34617.33 (RS. IN LACS) GROSS INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS 97202.22 INVENTORIES 3422.24 RECEIVABLES 10009.15 TOTAL 110633.61 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: ... AS SHOWN ABOVE, ABOVE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMPANY WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR SUFFICIENT, ADEQUATE AND APPARE NT CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS. BY ADVANCING THESE AMOUNTS THE COMPANY HAD OBTAINED BENEFIT BY WAY OF ACQUISIT ION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS FOR EXPORT (WHICH INCREASED COMPANYS TURNOVER AND PROFITABILITY), DEVELOPMENT OF ALL INDIA DISTRIBUTION NETWORK, PARTICIPATION IN A PROJECT FOR MANUFACTURE OF A COMPONENT REQUIRED FOR COMPANYS PRODUCTS, ACQUISIT ION OF FACILITIES BY WAY OF OFFICE BUILDINGS ETC AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT W ORK FOR COMPANYS PRODUCTS. 4.2 MR. MEHTA SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAVE COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN [2008] 298 ITR 298 (SC) IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5. MR. S.N. SOPARKAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEAR ING WITH MR. B.S. SOPARKAR, LEARNED ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 5 ADVANCES WERE EITHER FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY TO I TS SISTER CONCERN OR THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SURPLUS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVA ILABLE WITH IT. HE HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. REPORTED IN [2013] 354 ITR 222 (GUJ). 6. HAVING HEARD MR. MEHTA, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARI NG ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND MR.SOPARKAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE QUESTION POSED FOR CONSIDERATI ON BY US WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RELATING TO THE BORROWED FUNDS WHICH IS DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT CHARGING INT EREST. IN THE CASE OF RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. (SUPRA), THIS COURT HAS HELD AS UND ER: WE MAY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT AT THIS STAGE GIVEN IN CASE OF S.A.BUILDERS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) REPORTED IN 288 ITR 1 (SC) WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER INTEREST ON FUN DS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE AN INTEREST FREE LOAN TO SISTER CONCERN SHO ULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND THE APEX COURT RULED THUS : WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE RESPECTIV E PARTIES. THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS ONLY ABOUT THE ALLOWABILIT Y OF THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AND HENCE WE ARE DEALING ONLY WITH THAT QUEST ION. IN OUR OPINION, THE APPROACH OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW ON THE AFORESAID QUESTION WAS NOT CORRECT. XXX IN OUR OPINION, THE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDG MENT, AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL AND THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE APPROACHED THE MATTER FROM AN ERRONEOUS ANGLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED T HE FUND FROM THE BANK AND LENT SOME OF IT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN (A SUBSIDIARY ) ON INTEREST FREE LOAN. THE TEST, IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH A CASE IS REALLY WHETHER THIS WAS DONE AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. XXX THE EXPRESSION 'COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY' IS AN EXPRESSI ON OF WIDE IMPORT AND INCLUDES SUCH EXPENDITURE AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN INCURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRE D UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, BUT YET IT IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS E XPENDITURE IF IT WAS INCURRED ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. XXX WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (BHART) LTD. (2002) 254 ITR 377, THAT ONCE IT IS ES TABLISHED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSI NESS (WHICH NEED NOT ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 6 NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF) , THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-CHAIR OF THE BUSINES SMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME THE ROLE TO DECIDE HO W MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE ITS PROFIT. THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIES MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MAT TER FROM THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. AS ALREADY STATE D ABOVE, WE HAVE TO SEE THE TRANSFER OF THE BORROWED FUNDS TO A SISTER CONCERN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIE W WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED FOR EARNING PROFITS ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE APEX COURT. IN THIS TAX APPEAL IT IS TO BE SPECIFIED HER E THAT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST FRE E FUNDS AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY THAT THE CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL HELD THE IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PERVERSITY IN SUCH FINDINGS. ON THE CONTRARY, THEY ARE CONFORMING TO THE WELL LAID DOWN GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON THE SUBJECT. IN THE PREMISE, QUESTION OF LAW NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY AND ST ANDS DISPOSED OF. 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL H AS CORRECTLY APPROACHED THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE PRESENT TAX AP PEALS. WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR TH E TRIBUNAL TO HOLD OTHERWISE, WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE IS APPROPRIATELY CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SA LES CORPORATION (SUPRA). IT IS BORNE OUT THAT THE ADVANCES WERE EITHER FOR COMMERC IAL EXPEDIENCY GIVEN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN OR THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SURPLUS INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID TWO DEC ISIONS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE QUESTION RAISED FOR CO NSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IS CONFIRMED. HENCE, THE PRESENT TAX APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. NO COSTS. ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 7 10. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO I NTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE SAME IS DISMISSED. 11. NOW WE COME TO NEXT GROUND ALLOWING INTEREST OF RS. 4,77,04,203/-. 12. LD. A.R. CITED A DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION 298 ITR 298 (SC): UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AFTER AMENDMENT OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1992, IN ORDER THAT INTEREST PAID ON BORROWINGS CAN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS PROFITS, EVERY ASSESSEE, INC LUDING A FIRM, HAS TO ESTABLISH, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THAT IT WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(L)(III); AND, IN THE CASE OF A FIRM, FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT FIXED BY SECTION 40(B)(IV). HELD, HOWEVER, ON THE FACTS, IN THIS CASE, THAT SIN CE THE ASSESSES HAD BORROWED THE MONEYS FROM ITS PARTNERS AS EARLY AS 1991, AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN BY THE PARTNERS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE INTEREST DID NOT EXCEED 18 PER CENT, PER ANNUM SIMP LE INTEREST THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON THE BORROW INGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1997-98. HELD ALSO, THAT SINCE THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE PR OFITS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AS ON APRIL 1, 1994, WAS RS. 1.91 CRORES, AND THE PROFITS WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE LOAN GIVEN TO A SISTER CONCERN OF RS. 5 LAKHS ONLY, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE LOAN GIVEN WAS FROM THE ASSESSEE'S OW N FUNDS. ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 8 DECISIONS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN M UNJAL SALES CORPORATION V. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 288 AND CIT V. MUNJAL SALES CORP ORATION [2008] 298 ITR 294 REVERSED ON THE FACTS.) 13. AND FURTHER STATED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED B Y THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE WHICH WE HAVE DI SCUSSED IN EARLIER GROUND. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY KIND OF INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S PASSED REASONED ORDER. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 15. NOW WE COME TO ITA NO. 1969/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y. 2005- 06, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY D ELETING THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,26,11,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL PERTAINING TO ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS . 2.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY A LLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTEREST FREE LOANS AND AD VANCES TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANY RS. 4,63,09,680/-/-. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 16. SINCE IN CONNECTED ITA NO. 1968/AHD/2017 WE HAVE CO NFIRMED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 196 8 & 1969/AHD/2017 . A.YS. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 9 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08 - 01- 2020 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 08/01/2020 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