The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. Smt. Geetaben D. Patel, Baroda

ITA 2054/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1227 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D V SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA WITH GULAB THAKORE
• Section: 143(3); 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NOS. 2066 & 2054 /AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, BARODA V/S SHRI PRAFUL K. MISTRY, C-36, VIRAL PARK SOCIETY, B/H. NANDIGRAM APTS., GIDC VADSAR ROAD, BARODA PAN NO. ADAPM2004M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, BARODA V/S SMT. GEETABEN D. PATEL, 1, DAYALBAUG SOCIETY, MANJALPUR NAKA, BARODA PAN NO. ACQPP7189P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.V. SINGH, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.M. MEHTA WITH GULAB T HAKORE ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13-08-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -08-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CASE OF DIF FERENT ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 20 TH MAY, 2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE APPEALS ARE OF 2 DIFFERENT ASSESSEE BUT RELATES TO THE SAME ASSESS MENT YEARS AND THE FACTS ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 2 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH THE CASES ARE SIMILAR AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMMON FOR BOTH THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. LD. A.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND THUS PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 2066/AHD/2013. 3. A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF BARODA BUSHING GROUP ON 10.09.2009 AT THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESI DENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATEMENT OF SHRI DWARIKADAS P. PATEL, THE KEY PERSON OF THE FAMILY, WAS RECORDED U/S. 132(4) WHEREIN HE ADMITTE D UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 3,50,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF ALL HIS FAMILY MEMB ERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF I NCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 52,38,030/- WHICH INCLUDED VOLUNTARIL Y DISCLOSURE OF RS. 39,26,800/- THAT WAS MADE BY SHRI DWARIKADAS PATEL. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALIZED VIDE ORDER DA TED 27.12.2011 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 52,38,030/- BEING THE SAME INCOME AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT WA S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 39,26,80 0/- THAT WAS FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH T HE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED/UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND HAD PAID TAX ON THE SAME BUT IN THE STATEMENT THAT WAS RECORDED U/S. 132(4), NO PARTICULARS/DETAILS/SPECIFICATIONS OF THE UNACCOUNT ED INCOME WERE FURNISHED AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULFILLED THE CONDIT IONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 3,92,680/- U/S. 271AAA VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2012. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO D ELETED THE PENALTY BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 3 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 SECTION 271 AAA PROVIDES THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM , A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PRE VIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER, PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF THE ASSESSEE - ( I) IN A STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFICS THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR IMMUNITY FROM THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA, THE ASSESSEE IS R EQUIRED TO FULFILL ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS CUMULATIVELY AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS F URTHER PROVIDED THAT NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE LEVIED OR IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION. IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 274 AN D SECTION 275 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER THE NEW SECTION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, SPECIFIED PREVIOU S YEAR HAS BEEN DEFINED, SO AS TO MEAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR- (I) WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, BUT THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 FOR SUC H YEAR HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISH ED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE THE SAID DATE; OR (II) IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' HAS ALSO BEEN DEFINED, SO AS T O MEAN ANY INCOME OF THE 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RE PRESENTED BY (I) UNDISCLOSED ASSETS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OR ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 4 OTHERWISE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE CCIT/CIT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. (II) UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME (III) FALSE OR BOGUS EXPENSES CLAIMED DETECTED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH WHICH ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE. FROM THE BARE READING OF PROVISIONS OF S.271AAA, IT IS CLEAR THAT S.271 AAA IS APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' OF THE 'SPECIF IED PREVIOUS YEAR' IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSEE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED U/S. 132 O N OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE,2007. PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE CASE OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2007, WITH RESPECT TO THE 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' OF T HE 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' I.E. YEAR OF SEARCH AND IMMEDIATELY EARLIER YEAR IF DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN HAS NOT EXPIRED AND INCOME TAX RETURN FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT BEEN FILED, ARE CONTAINED AND GOVERNED BY SECTION 271AAA. THUS, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA ARE APPL ICABLE WITH RESPECT TO 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' OF THE 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' ONLY. DEPE NDING UPON THE DATE ON WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED, 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' SHALL BE TH E YEAR OF SEARCH ONLY IN SOME CASES, WHEREAS IN SOME OTHER CASES, ONE MORE YEAR MAY BE A VAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA. THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA AR E BRIEFLY STATED AS UNDER: (I) THERE IS DEEMING FICTION OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' RE LATING TO 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 271 AAA. (II) WITH RESPECT TO 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' RELATING TO 'S PECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR', PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' (III) THERE IS PROVISION FOR IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY IN CAS E DECLARATION OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' IS MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SEC TION 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROVIDED OTHER CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SE CTION 271AAA E.G. SPECIFYING AND SUBSTANTIATING THE MANNER OF DERIVING SUCH INCO ME AND PAYING OF TAXES AND INTEREST THEREON ARE FULFILLED. ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 5 (IV) WITH RESPECT TO 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' OF THE 'SPECIF IED PREVIOUS YEAR', PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 271AAA AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. 6.2 FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE A CT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THE F ACT OF EARNING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. IT IS ALSO CLEARLY ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT EARNING OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.30,24 ,630/- IS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, SUCH INCOME WHICH IS BASED ON THE UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS FOUND AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN TS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE, SINCE ANY SUCH INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BASED ON THE UNDISCLOSE D TRANSACTIONS IS COVERED AS PER THE DEFINITION OF 'UNDISCLOSED COME'. 6.3 SO FAR AS THE MANNER OF EARNING OF THE SAID UN DISCLOSED INCOME AND SUBSTANTIATING IS CONCERNED, I AGREE WITH THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT I N THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE MANNER OF EARNING SUC H INCOME AND HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME AS WELL. 6.4 HOWEVER, SO FAR AS SPECIFYING AND SUBSTANTIATIN G THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT ANY SUCH QUESTION WAS ASKED TO THE APPELLANT EITHER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RESPONDED TO ALL THE QUESTIONS ASKED U/S 132(4) OF THE IT ACT RELATING TO HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. UNLESS SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ASKED TO THE APPELLANT EITHER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I T MAY NOT BE PROPER TO ATTRIBUTE THE FAILURE, IF ANY, FOR NOT SPECIFYING AND SUBSTANTIAT ING THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS EARNED, TO THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF MAHENDRA C. SHAH [2008] 299 ITR 305 (GUJ) WHICH IS IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLA NATION 5 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '15. INSOFAR AS THE ALLEGED FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO SPECIFY IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE-ACT REGARDING THE MANNE R IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, SUFFICE IT TO STATE THAT WHEN THE STATEMEN T IS BEING RECORDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISIONS OF ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 6 EXPLANATION 5 IN ENTIRETY TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANNOT STOP SHORT AT A PARTICULAR STAGE SO AS TO PERMIT TH E REVENUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH A LAPSE IN THE STATEMENT. THE REASON IS NOT FAR TO SE EK. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE STATEMENT IS BEING RECORDED IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM AND THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR AN ASSESSEE TO STATE AND MAKE AVERMENTS IN THE EXACT F ORMAT STIPULATED BY THE PROVISIONS CONSIDERING THE SETTING IN WHICH SUCH STATEMENT IS BEING RECORDED, AS NOTED BY ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RADHA KISHAN GOEL (SUPRA) SEC ONDLY, CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPECT FROM AN AS SESSEE, WHETHER LITERATE OR ILLITERATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDITIO NS STIPULATED BY EXCEPTION NO.2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOM E IS DECLARED AND TAX THEREON PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTIN G ANY FURTHER DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT UNDER EXCEPTION NO.2 IN EXPLANATION 5 IS COMMENDABL E.' 6.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT SO FAR AS THE MANNER OF EARNING THE INCOME AND SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME IS C ONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS, IN MY VIEW, NOT SPECIFIED THE MANNER OF EARNING THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME AS WELL AS SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME SINCE NO QUESTION AS REGARDS SPECIFICATION OF MANNER OF EARNING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SUBSTANTIATION THEREOF WAS PUT FORTH IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE MANNER OF EAR NING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WELL AS SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPELLANT IS DEEMED TO HAVE FULFILLED THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING OF IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271AAA OF TH E ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE THIRD CONDITION AS THE APPELLANT HAS PAID TAX WITH INTEREST ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITION S REQUIRED FOR IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. 6.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT AND, TH EREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO OF RS.3,02,500/- IS HEREBY CANCELLED. ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 7 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PRAKASH STEELAGE LTD. ITA NO. 5221/MUM/2012 ORDER DATED 28.01.2015 A ND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. ON THE OTHE R HAND LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MUKE SH SHAH ITA NO. 1942/A/2012 ORDER DATED 05.04.2013 AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SULOCHANA DEVI AGARWAL ITA NO. 1052/A/2012 ORDER DA TED 20.07.2012. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT THE LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED FACT OF UNDISCLOSED ASSETS FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WELL AS EARNING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE IN THE SEIZED PAPER AND THE INCOME WAS WITH REFEREN CE TO THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WELL AS THE UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS FOUND AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN TS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFYING AND SU BSTANTIATING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED IS CONCERNED, WE F IND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ANY QUESTION WAS ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE STATEMENT R ECORDED U/S. 132(4) OR EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE TAX WITH IN TEREST ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR ITA NO 2066 & 2054/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 8 CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CO NTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD HAS IN THE DECISIONS CITED HEREINABOVE BY LD. A.R DELETED THE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECI SIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE NOW TAKE UP ITA NO. 2054/AHD/2013 8. BEFORE US, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED TH AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF IN ITA NO. 2066/AHD/2013 WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE WHI LE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR IN ITA NO. 2066/A/2013 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 - 08 - 20 15. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: -