M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Tobacco Products Co.Ltd., Nadiad V. The ACIT., Circle, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

ITA 1985/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1118 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 32; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORAD , AM. ITA NO.1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 M/S CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL TOBACCO PRODUCTS CO. LTD., C.J. HOUSE, MOTA PORE, NADIAD. VS. ACIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAACC 9614R APPELLANT BY SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 27.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/7/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, BARODA DATED 13.03.2013 VIDE APPEAL NO.C AB-IV-N 332/2011-12 RELATING TO ASST. YEAR 2009-10. ASSESS MENT U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS FRAMED B Y DCIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD ON 29/11/2011. WE OBSERVE THAT THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 29 DAYS AND ON GOING THROUGH THE REASONS OF DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FRO M FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS AS ASSESSEE WAS AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2013 FILED FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 BEFORE LD. ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2 CIT(A)-IV, WHICH WAS REJECTED ON 5/6/2013 AND THIS ORDER OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 12.07.20 13. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING APPEAL IN TIME, WE ACCEPT THE SAME AND CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) FAILED TO UND ERSTAND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) ERRED HI NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND OF APPEAL NO 2 AS UNDER: 'THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.6,787/-ON OPENING WRITTEN DOWN V ALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS NAMELY PLANT & MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION @ 50% WAS ALLOWED IN PRECEDING YEARS ON INVALID GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF HIRING.' HONOURABLE IT AT, MAY ISSUE NECESSARY DIRE CTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONF IRMING DISALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,78,699/- ON ADDITION MADE DURI NG THE YEAR ON MOTOR VEHICLE IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEPRECIATION @ 50% IN T HE CATEGORY OF 'NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ACQUIRED DURING THE SPECIFIED P ERIOD' AS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE [3](VIA) OF THE NEW APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 ON INVALID GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSI NESS OF HIRING. (4) YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF ON ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (5) YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D, SUBSTITUTE OR WITHDRAWN ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL STATED HEREINABOVE. 2. GROUND NOS.1,4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 3 3. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.2 & 3 WHICH ARE INTER-R ELATED AND ARE AS UNDER :- (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND OF APPEAL NO 2 AS UNDER: 'THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.6,787/-ON OPENING WRITTEN DOWN V ALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS NAMELY PLANT & MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION @ 50% WAS ALLOWED IN PRECEDING YEARS ON INVALID GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF HIRING.' HONOURABLE IT AT, MAY ISSUE NECESSARY DIRE CTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONF IRMING DISALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,78,699/- ON ADDITION MADE DURI NG THE YEAR ON MOTOR VEHICLE IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEPRECIATION @ 50% IN T HE CATEGORY OF 'NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ACQUIRED DURING THE SPECIFIED P ERIOD' AS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE [3](VIA) OF THE NEW APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 ON INVALID GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSI NESS OF HIRING. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A L IMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF BIDI. IT FI LED ITS E-RETURN ON 29.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.34,15,285/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.8.20 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER WENT THROUGH THE DETAILS OF ASSETS REQUIRED FOR DEPRECIA TION CLAIM THEREON AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED A NEW MOTOR CAR I N MARCH, 2009 AT A COST OF RS.10,21,134/- AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATIO N @ 25% IN BLOCK OF DEPRECIATION @ 50% DEPRECIATION MEANT FOR NEW CO MMERCIAL VEHICLES UNDER THE BLOCK-III MACHINERY & PLANT (3) (VIA) OF NEW APPENDIX-I UNDER RULE-5 OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE BEING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF BIDI AND CARS ARE NOT USED FOR HIRING AND THEREFORE, THE ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 4 MOTOR CARS ARE SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND NO T 50% ON BLOCK RATE AND ACCORDINGLY REVISED DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ON THE W.D.V. OF THE CAR AS WELL AS CAR PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR AND DI SALLOWED EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,85,486/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UND ER :- 6. THE REASON FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEP RECIATION ON THE CAR AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ABOVE ENTIRE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS N OT FOUND TO BE TENABLE. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE NEW TOYOTA INNOVA CAR IN MARCH 2011 FOR WHICH COST OF ACQUISITION WAS SHOWN AT ? 10,21,134/- AND DEPRECIATION OF SAID TOYOTA CAR WAS SHOWN @ 25% AS THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER SEPTEMBER. IN THIS REGARD, IT I MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR CL AIMING THE DEPRECIATION @ 50% ON SUCH TOYOTA CAR AS THE BUSINESS OF THE APP ELLANT WAS NOT RUNNING THE CARS ON HIRE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION @ 50% UNDER THE BLOCK III, MACHINERY AND PLANT (3) (VIA) WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO THIS TOYOTA INNOVA CAR. I AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE MOTOR CAR OTHER THAN THOSE USED IN THE BUS INESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE WHICH IS ACQUIRED OR PUT TO USE ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1990, THE DEPRECIATION RATE OF 15% WILL BE ALLOWABLE ON S UCH CAR. THE APPELLANT HAS USED THE CAR FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE AND SUCH CAR HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HI RE AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 1 5% ON SUCH CAR. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,85,486/-AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRE CIATION OF THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 5 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE ( LMV) TOYOTA INNOVA CAR WAS PURCHASED AT THE COST OF 10,21,134/- IN MARCH, 2009. SUCH TYPE OF LMV WHICH ARE PURCHASED AFTER THE FIRS T DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 BUT UPTO FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION COMES UNDER CLAUSE (3) (VIA) OF PART- A OF NEW APPENDIX-I WHEREIN TABLE OF RATES FOR ADMISSIBLE DE PRECIATION IS HOWN IN THE I.T. RULES. FURTHER THE OPENING BALANCE OF B LOCK 50% RELATED TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ACQUIRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS WH ICH WERE COMING IN CLAUSE (3) OF PART-A OF NEW APPENDIX-I OF IT RUL ES. THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER BLOCK 50% CATEGORY ONLY AND LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .1,85,486/- MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED A ND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE O F DALEEP S. CHANDNANI VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.7307(MUM) OF 2003 AND 4059(MUM) OF 2004 FOR ASST. YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 VIDE ORDER DATED 12TH OCTOBER, 2006, WHEREIN SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUE WAS AD JUDICATED AND DECISION WAS DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL RELATE T O DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.6,787/- AND RS.1,78,699/- HITHER TO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON W.D.V. AND NEW MOTOR CAR PURCHASED FALL ING UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 50% BLOCK OF DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC OBSERVAT ION THAT ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6 BUSINESS IS NOT OF RUNNING CARS ON HIRE AND ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION UNDER 50% RATE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. 8. RATES FOR CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE AVAILABLE AT NEW APPENDIX-1 WITH RESPECT TO RULE 5 OF IT RULES AND IMPUGNED ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DISAL LOWED FALLS UNDER CATEGORY 3 OF PART-A RELATING TO MACHINERY A ND PLANT. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SPECIAL RATE OF DEPRE CIATION @ 50% FOR ACQUIRING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IN MARCH 2009 WHICH WA S FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2009 TO 30.09.2009 FALLING UN DER SPECIAL CLAUSE (3)(VIA) UNDER THE HEAD MACHINERY AND PLANT. WE FUR THER FIND THAT IN THE NEW APPENDIX I UNDER THE HEAD MACHINERY AND PL ANT THERE IS A SPECIFIC CATEGORY AT SL.NO.3(II) FOR DEPRECIATION @ 30% AVAILABLE TO MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES USED THEM ON HIRE. CERTA INLY ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THIS CATEGORY AS IT IS IN THE BUSI NESS OF MARKETING OF BIDIS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME SP ECIAL CLAUSES (III), (IV), (V), (V) & (VIA) HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN SL.N O.3 OF PART A OF NEW APPENDIX-I RELATING TO DEPRECIATION ON ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL/NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WITHIN SOME SPECIFIC TIME FRAME, WHICH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TO ACQUIRE THE NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 BUT BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 AND WHICH IS TO BE PUT TO USE BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION THEN ASSESSEE SO AS TO CLAIM 50% DEPRECIATION. 8.1 WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUE R ELATING TO MOTOR CAR BEING A LMV AND USED FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AS COMMERCIAL ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 7 VEHICLE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL RATE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DALEEP S. CHANDNANI VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDE R :- AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 32, IN RESPECT OF THE ASSET BEING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ACQUIRED BET WEEN 2-10-1998 AND 31-3-1999, THE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WDV THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(6)(C )(\\) WDV MEANS THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THAT BLOCK OF ASSET AS INCREASED BY THE ACTUAL COST OF A NY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND AS REDUCED BY THE MONIES PAYABLE TOGETHER WITH SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF TH E ASSETS FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH ARE SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DESTROYED DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE MA TERIAL PROVISION IS THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASS ET SO ACQUIRED WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT BLOCK IN THE YEAR O F ACQUISITION AND THEREAFTER THE WDV, I.E., THE ACTUAL COST LESS DEPRECIATION ALLOWED THEREON WOULD BE MATERIAL FOR COMPUTING DEPRECIATION IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. TH US, THE COST OF CAR WAS TO BE TREATED AS WDV FOR COMPUT ING DEPRECIATION THEREON AT THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAG E. FURTHER, THE EXPLANATION TO THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 32 DEFINES THAT THE EXPRESSION 'COMMERCIAL VEHICLE' WOULD MEAN 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE' AND THE 'LIGHT MOT OR VEHICLE' AS DEFINED IN THE , MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, MEANS ANY TRANSPORT VEHICLE OR OMINI BUS, THE GROSS PHYSICAL WEIGHT OF EITHER OF WHICH OR A MOTOR CAR OR A TRACTOR OR ROAD ROLLER THE UNLADEN WEIGHT OF WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED 7,500 KGS. THUS, A MOTOR CAR NOT EXCEEDING THE SPECIFIED WEIGHT IS COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE'. IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WOULD NOT INCLUDE 'MAXI-CAB ' AND 'MOTOR CAB'. THE 'MAXI-CAB' AS PER PROVISION OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT MEANS ANY MOTOR VEHICLE CONS TRUCTED OR ADOPTED TO CARRY MORE THAN SIX PASSENGER S BUT NOT MORE THAN TWELVE PASSENGER 1 ; EXCLUDING THE DRIVER FOR HIRE OR REWARD. SIMILARL Y, THE TERM 'MOTOR CAB' ALSO EXCLUDES ANY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE OR RE WARD. IF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 32 AND THE DEFINITION OF MAXI-CAB AND MOTOR CAB AS GIVEN IN THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ARE READ TOGETHER THEN MOTOR VEHICLES USED FOR HIRE OR REWAR D WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 32 AND SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES WOULD BE COVERED UNDER ENTRY (2)(\I) OF ITEM III OF PART A OF APPEN DIX I (APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89 TO 200 2-03) OF THE RULES. THIS CONCLUSION FURTHER LEADS T O AN INFERENCE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEES NOT ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AND MOTOR TA XIES ON HIRE AND DEFINING SUCH LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLES AS COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, THOUGH INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDING VEHICLES COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED FOR YIELDING INCOME FROM THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE FURTHER S UPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. DIFFERENT ENTRIES EXIST IN APPENDIX I FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICL ES FOR PROVIDING DEPRECIATION AT A SPECIFIED RATE, DEPENDING UPON THE PERIOD OF ACQUISITION AND THE PU RPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE DEPLOYED. THEREFORE, NOMENCLATURE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES SHOULD NOT BE S O CONSTRUED AS TO DEPRIVE THE ASSESSEE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION WHEN ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN T HE ACT AND THE RULES HAD BEEN MET BY THE ASSESSEE. LILT SUCH CAR \VAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET THE DEPRECIATION A T THE RATE OF 40 PER CENT AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO TO SEC TION 32. [PARA 8] 9. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG SPECIAL BLOCK OF ASSET FOR DEPRECIATION @ 50% IN THE PRECEDING YE AR AND IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON LMV I.E. TOYOTA CAR WHICH FITS IN T HE CATEGORY OF NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE BECAUSE IT WAS PURCHASED IN MARC H, 2009 AND IT CLEARLY FALLS UNDER THE HEAD MACHINERY AND PLANT AT SL.NO.3(VIA) OF NEW APPENDIX-I AS IT IS ACQUIRED AFTER 1 ST JANUARY, 2009 BUT BEFORE 1 ST ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 8 OCTOBER, 2009 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT T HAT THIS ASSET WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION UNDER BLOCK RATE 50%. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED AND DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,85,486/- IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 14/7/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 1985/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 13/07/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 14/07/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 15/7/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: