The ITO, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad V. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2002/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1574 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Additional depreciation; Additional evidence; Procedural lapse; Documents seized
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2002/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06] THE ITO, WARD - 4(1) AHMEDABAD. VS GOPAL GLASS WORKS LTD. A/182, GANGAVIHAR FLATS KHANPUR, AHMEDABAD 380 001. )* / (APPELLANT) +, )* / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT - DR WITH SHRI A.K. REWER, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/04/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/05/2016 -./ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD DATED 11.3.2008 PASSED FO R THE ASST.YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUND NO.1, 2 AND 3 ARE INTER-CONNECTED WIT H EACH OTHER. IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS PLEADED TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE AO IN RES PECT OF REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND ESTIMATION OF GP AT 20% OF T HE TURNOVER BY ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 2 ENTERTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RU LE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.2,61,78,898/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED I N MANUFACTURING OF GLASS. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF RS.37.69 CRORES. IT HAS SHOWN GROS S PROFIT (GP) OF RS.5.22 CRORES WHICH COMES TO 13.86% OF SALES, WHER EAS GP IN THE PRECEDING YEAR SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 21.07%. T HE LD.AO HAS CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE GP OF RS.2 1.07% SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED DURING THIS YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF THE AO, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SALES HAVE INCREASED BY 92.5%. COMP ETITION HAS BEEN INCREASED, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO SCALE DOWN THE RATE S. THE RAW-MATERIAL PRICE OF SODA ASH, SILICA SAND, CULLETS ETC. HAS SU BSTANTIALLY INCREASED. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED NEW PLANT IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USING GAS SUPPLIED BY GAIL FOR PRODUCTION, BUT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THEREFORE, IT H AS TO PURCHASE FURNACE OIL FOR NEW PLANT. THE NATURAL GAS RATE WAS RS.3.7 8 PER MT., WHEREAS FURNACE OIL RATE WAS RS.11.60 PER LITRE. THUS, THE RE WAS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE INPUT COST. THE LD.AO WAS NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REJECTED BOOKS AND ESTIMATED THE GP AT RS.7,53,94,795/- WHICH IS 20% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER . ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 3 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N BY RECODING THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE A.R CAREFULLY. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE A.R. THAT THE A.O. HAS REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BASED ON THE PAPERS RELATING TO A.Y.2001-0 2 & 2002-03 WHICH WERE SEIZED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF EXCISE RAID ON 25.9.2003 AND FURTHER HE HAS RELIED UPON THE SUR VEY CONDUCTED BY ADI (INV.), MEHSANA ON 18.12.2006. THE DISCREPANCY IN THE EXPENDITURE AS PER THE BOOKS AND AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A/7 WHICH WERE SEIZED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT RELATED TO A.Y.2001-02 & 2002-03. THE A.O. HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEM ENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF SHRI MAYUR SHAH WHEREIN HE HAS ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.2 CRORES RELATING TO F.Y.2006-07. THUS, INCRIMINATI NG PAPERS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND EITHER BY EXCISE DEPARTMENT OR BY ADI (LNV) RELATING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. HAS NOT FOUND O UT ANY DEFECTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON BY WAY OF ANY INFLATION OF PURCHASES OR OMISSION OF SALES OR ANY MISSING VOUCHERS OR ANY UNACCOUNTED OR UNRECORDED EXPENDITURE. THE A.O. HAS I NOT ARRIVED AT ANY FINDING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED B Y THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLE TE. NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN WHETHER THE TRUE PROFITS CANNOT BE DEDUC ED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM IE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT OR FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE APPEL LANT. IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE A.R INCLUDING THE DE CISION OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND (P) LTD , THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RESORTED TO BY THE A.O IS HELD TO BE NOT PROPER AS HE HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECTS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ACCOU NTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX AUDIT. AS REGARDS ESTIM ATE OF G.P., THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT THE BOOK RE SULTS ARE NOT CORRECT AND RELYING ON THE MATERIALS FOUND FOR THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR OR EARLIER YEAR NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN FOR THE CURRENT YE AR IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY EVIDENC E OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . FURTHER, IT IS FOUND AS PER THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AT PAGE-19 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THERE HAS BEEN MISTAKE IN CALCULATION IN G.P RATE WHILE A DDING THE DIFFERENCE IN (INCREASE /DECREASE OF) STOCK. FOR EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF SUBTRACTING THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK OF RS.1,40,63,6777- FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE AUDITOR HAS ADDED THAT AND ACCORDINGLY THE G.P. HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT 13.84% AS PER THE WORKING OF THE AUDITOR WHERE AS T HE CORRECT WORKING OF G.P. SHOULD BE OF 39.71%. SIMILARLY, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE FIGURES OF G.P. HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT WRONGLY AND THE CORRECT WORKIN G OF G.P. FOR VARIOUS YEARS IS MADE AS UNDER: I) A.Y.2005-06 (IN RS.) (IN RS.) OPENING STOCK 15,57,431 NET SALES 30,76,68,632 ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 4 RAW MATERIALS & MFG. EXPENSES 24,13,54,150 CLOSING STOCK 1,56,21,108 GROSS PROFIT 8,03,78,159 32,32,89,740 32,32,89,740 G.P. IS 26.12% ON NET SALES. IF CALCULATED ON GROSS SALES OF RS.37.69 CRORES G.P . WORKS OUT TO 39.70%. II) A.Y.2004-05 (IN RS.) (IN RS.) OPENING STOCK 71,17,151 NET SALES 16,06,29,822 RAW MATERIALS & MFG. EXPENSES 12,48,10,229 CLOSING STOCK 15,57,431 GROSS PROFIT 3,02,59,873 16,21,87,253 16,21,87,253 GP. IS 18.83% ON NET SALES. IF CALCULATED ON GROSS SALES OF RS. 19.63 CRORES G .P. WORKS OUT TO 33.60% III) II) A.Y.2003-04 (IN RS.) (IN RS.) OPENING STOCK 1,12,11,419 NET SALES 13,51,98,855 RAW MATERIALS & MFG. EXPENSES 10,70,68,204 CLOSING STOCK 71,17,151 GROSS PROFIT 2,40,36,383 14,23,16,006 14,23,16,006 G.P. IS 17.77% ON NET SALES. IF CALCULATED ON GRO SS SALES OF RS.16.64 CRORES G.P. WORKS OUT TO 33.23%. IV) A.Y.2002-03 (IN RS.) (IN RS.) OPENING STOCK 66,67,930 NET SALES 13,19,17,857 ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 5 RAW MATERIALS & MFG. EXPENSES 10,85,31,523 CLOSING STOCK 1,12,11,419 GROSS PROFIT 2,79,29,823 14,31,29,276 14,31,29,276 G.P. IS 21.17% ON NET SALES. IF CALCULATED ON GROSS SALES OF RS.16.15 CRORES G.P WORKS OUT TO 35.62%. V) THUS THE FIGURES OF G.P. AS REPORTED BY THE A PPELLANT AND DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE -3 WOULD BE REVISED AS UND ER; ASSTT. YEAR G.P % AS WORKED OUT BY AUDITOR REVISED WORKING OF G.P % 2002-03 14.50(ON NET SALES ) 21.17 2003-04 23.83(ON NET SALES) 17.77 2004-05 21.07 (ON GROSS SALES) 33.60 2005-06 13.84(ON GROSS SALES) 39.70 FROM THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS SEEN THAT G.P. OF THE CU RRENT YEAR IS MORE THAN THE G.P. OF EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FALL IN G. P. AND THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BETTER RESULTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE REFORE THE ESTIMATE OF G.P IS HELD TO BE NOT -PROPER. EVEN ASSUMING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. TO BE CORRECT , THE APPELLANT HAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR VA RIATIONS IN G.P. AND AS THERE ARE NO MATERIALS TO SUPPRESSION OF GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITION OF G.P. BY THE A.O. IS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E AO, WHEREAS, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SUBMISS ION MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 6. IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A UDITOR, WHILE INCLUDING A SUM OF RS.1,40,63,677/- IN THE STOCK, T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH PAGE NO.39 OF THE PAPER BO OK AND POINTED OUT ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 6 THAT BEFORE THE PREPARATION OF BALANCE SHEET, THIS DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REDUCED INSTEAD OF ADDITION, AND DUE TO THIS REASON, THE GP HAS COME DOWN TO 13.84% OTHERWISE, IT WAS 26 .12%. THE NET SALE FIGURE IS THE FIGURE, WHICH IS AFTER EXCLUSION OF EXCISE AND SALES-TAX AND THE GROSS SALE IS THE FIGURE, WHICH IS BASED ON INCLUSION OF EXCISE AND SALES-TAX. FROM BOTH THE ANGLES, IF THE GP IS TO B E COMPUTED THEN, IT IS MORE THAN THE LAST YEAR, AND THEREFORE, NO ADJUSTME NT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONT ENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REFERENCE MADE TO ANNEXURE A/7 IS CONCERNED, IT IS A DOCUMENT FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITY WHICH CONTAINED SALE S ACCOUNTED FOR AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED. BUT THIS DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSTT.YEAR 2001-02 TO 2002-2003. SIMIL ARLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NOTHING FOUND RELATING TO THIS YE AR. THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE AO TO DOUBT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE GP. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD. SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS THE RELEVANT P ROVISION FOR THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF T HIS SECTION. IT READS AS UNDER : 145. (1) INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' OR 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' SHALL , SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), BE COMPUTED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICI AL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME [ACCOUNTING STANDARDS] TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEES OR IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. (3) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE THE METHOD OF ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 7 ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) [OR ACCOUNTI NG STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE], THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MAN NER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144.] 8. A BARE READING OF SECTION 145 WOULD REVEAL THAT IT PROVIDE THE MECHANISM HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDING TO SUB- SECTION 1, THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PRO FIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSES SEE REGULARLY, SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. SUB-SEC TION 2 PROVIDES THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICIAL GAZET TE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. THUS, IT INDICATES THAT INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTAN CY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE I.E. CASH OR MERCANTILE, SUCH METHOD HAS T O BE FOLLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME. SUB CLAUSE 3 PROVIDES A SITUATION, THAT IS , IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNABLE TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE THAN HE CAN REJECT THE BOOK RESULT AND THE ASSESSEES INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION OR ACCORDING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE IS REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND REQUIRED TO SEEK EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THOSE DEFECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E DEFECTS THAN ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOK RESULT, INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED AND AS SESSING OFFICER WOULD COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION KEEP ING IN VIEW THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR ESTIMATING SUCH INCOME. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IF WE EXAMINE THE REC ORD, THEN, IT WOULD REVEAL THAT THE LD.AO FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFEC T IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 8 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS RELATED TO THIS YEAR. REFERENCE MADE TO ANNEXURE A/7 IS CONCERNED, THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THIS ASSESSME NT YEAR. THESE DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE ASSTT.YEAR 2001-02 AND 2 002-03. SIMILARLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CARRIED ON 18.12.2006, NOTHING WAS FOUND RELATED TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY DE FECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. BY W AY OF ANY INFLATION OF PURCHASE OR OMISSION OF SALES OR ANY MISSING VOUCHE RS OR AND/OR UNRECORDED AND UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. THE GP SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE. IT IS THE MISTAKE OF THE AUDITOR TO CALCULATE THE GP AT A LOWER FIGURE. THIS ERROR HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AS FAR AS ENTERTAINING OF AL LEGED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY PROVIDED RE-WORKING OF THE GP BASED ON THE ENTRIES ALREADY GIVEN TO THE AO. THUS, IT WAS NOT A FRESH EVIDENCE AS SUCH. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS MISCONCEIVED. THE R EVENUE HAS NOWHERE DEMONSTRATED WHICH PARTICULAR DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE FIRST TIME. ON DUE CO NSIDERATION OF THE RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A). THESE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.95,49,346/-. THIS CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE AUDITOR WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ITA NO.2002/AHD/2008 9 REQUIRED PROFORMA I.E. IN FORM NO.3AA ALONG WITH TH E RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD.AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE CERTIFICATE IN PRESCRIBED PERFORMA ALONG WITH THE RETURN , AND SINCE IT FAILED TO FILE THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT(A) OBS ERVED THAT IT IS A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, AND IT HAS BEEN COMPLIED W ITH THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE DE NIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT OIL AND A LLIED INDUSTRIES, 201 ITR 325 AND ZENITH PROCESSING MILLS VS. CIT, 219 IT R 721 (GUJ). 11. ON DUE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY ENTERTAINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED ADDI TIONAL DEPRECIATION. 12. GROUND NOS.5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. THEY DO NOT CALL FOR RECORDING OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING. HENCE, REJECTED . 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 TH MAY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/05/2016