Shri Dwarkadas Punjabhai Patel(HUF), Baroda V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 2085/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 208520514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 153A; 234B; 132

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD . , ! ' ' ' ' # $%, ! BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.2085/AHD/2012 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.2086/AHD/2012 ( ' '(' ' '(' ' '(' ' '('/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) 1. DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF) ABHEE, 1 DAYALBAUG SOCIETY MANJALPUR NAKA,BARODA PAN: AACHP 3814 K 2. SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL,BARODA (ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE) PAN : ACQPP 7191 M / VS. 1. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA 2. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA ( )* / // / APPELLANTS ) .. ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P.JHANGID SR.DR #'- . %/ / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 04/10/2013 0( . %/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/10/2013 1 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20/07/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-2011. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOL VED, BOTH THESE APPEALS ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WA Y OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, I.E. IT A NO.2085/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ERRED IN OMITTING TO CONSIDER THE APPELLANTS GROUND BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ERRED IN NOT DIREC TING THE LD.A.O. TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY T HE APPELLANT TOWARDS RELEASE OF SEIZED VALUABLES AGGREGATING TO RS.20,55,000 AGAINST THE APPELLANTS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR T HE PRESENT A.Y. W.E.F. THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND CHARGE INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADJUSTMENT. 2.1. THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2085/AHD/2012 FOR AY 201 0-11 ARE TAKEN UP AS LEAD CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.4 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 4. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE AS UNDER: (I) A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANTS ON 10-09-2009. (II) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CASH JEWELLERY, BULLIO N, ETC. WERE SEIZED. THE SEIZED GOLD JEWELLERY/BULLION WER E RELEASED ON PAYMENT OF CORRESPONDING AMOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF THE APPELLANT CASH SEIZED (RS.) PAYMENT MADE BY WAY OF DDS/CHEQUE I OCT.2009 LETTER ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - DTD. 28-10-2009 FOR THE RELEASE OF SEIZED GOLD MATERIAL(RS.) 1 SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL 6,66,300/- 43,83,680/- 2 SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF) - 20,55,000/- 3 SHRI GEETABEN - 53,800/- (III) THE APPELLANTS VIDE LETTER DATED 28-10-2009 ADDRESS ED TO CIT-I, BARODA ON THE SUBJECT OF PAYMENT FOR THE RE LEASE OF SEIZED GOLD MATERIAL HAVE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE AGREE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE M ENTIONED P D ACCOUNT AND MAY BE USED FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST TA X LIABILITIES I ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B OF THE ACT. (IV) IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, T HE CREDIT OF CASH SEIZED / PAYMENTS MADE FOR RELEASE OF GOLD ORN AMENTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AS ON 10-09- 2009 ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. (V) THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SEIZED CASH / PAYMENT M ADE IN OCTOBER, 2009 FOR RELEASE OF JEWELLERY TOWARDS PAYM ENT OF ANY TAX LIABILITY AND ACCORDINGLY CHARGED INTEREST U/S.234B/234C OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETUR NS U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. (VI) THE APPELLANTS FILED APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE REGARDING ADJUSTMENT OF SE IZED CASH/ PAYMENT MADE FOR RELEASE OF JEWELLERY IN OCTOBER, 2 009 AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANTS. (VII) THE AO DIDNT AGREE TO THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT S AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPLICATIONS FILED U/S.154 OF THE ACT WITH ASSIGNING SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE SAME. 2.1. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE(S) ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE(S ) SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL AS THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT. 4. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD.CIT(A) I N NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE TOWARDS RELEASE OF SEIZED VALUABLES AGGREGATING TO RS.20,55 ,000/- AGAINST THE ASSESSEES ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISS UE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE COORDINATE BENC H (ITAT RAJKOT) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM S.SARDA VS. DY.CIT BEARING ITA NO.1172/RJT/2010 FOR AY 2008-09. THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH C) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) VS. MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES IN IT(SS)A NO.5 70/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06. FURTHER, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. REPORTED AT (1 989) 178 ITR 419 (P&H). 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR HAS RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RENDERED IN THE CASE O F RAMJILAL JAGANNATH VS. ASST.CIT REPORTED AT (2000) 241 ITR 7 58 (MP) :: (1999) 156 CTR 49(MP). ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO .1172/RJT/2010 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM S.SARDA VS. DY.CIT(SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS.13 & 14, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 13. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE WHETHER CASH SE IZED COULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE ADVANCE-TAX AND OTHER DEMANDS. TO EXAMI NE THIS ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO SECTION 132B PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITU TION WITH EFFECT FROM 01-06- 2002 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WHICH PROVIDES FOR AP PLICATION OF SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED ASSETS. AS PER SUB SECTION (1) TO THI S SECTION THE ASSETS RETAINED UNDER SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 132 COULD BE APPRO PRIATED AGAINST THE DISCHARGE OF EXISTING LIABILITY AS PER CLAUSE (III) OF THE SUB SECTION AS WELL AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY DETERMINED ON COMPL ETION OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEARS. CLAUSE (I) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF TH E NEWLY INSERTED SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO HARMONISE THE PROVISION CONTAINED I N SECTION 132B WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153A AND THE ASSESSME NT OF THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS INITIATED OR R EQUISITION IS MADE OR THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY DETERMINED ON COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER XIVB FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND TO INCLUDE THEREIN A PROVISION FOR RELEASE OF ASSETS SEIZED DURING SEARC H, IF THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS IS EXPLAINED TO THE SATISF ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER RECOVERY THEREFROM OF ANY EXISTING LIABILITY. SECTION 132B(1)(I) EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOVER THE PRESC RIBED LIABILITY OUT OF THE ASSETS SEIZED U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND EVEN THE LIABI LITY TO PAY ADVANCE-TAX AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THERE IS NO PLAUSI BLE REASON ASCRIBING A RESTRICTED MEANING TO THE EXPRESSION 'EXISTING LIAB ILITY' APPEARING IN SECTION 132B(1)(I) OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESSION EXISTING LIAB ILITY IN SECTION 132B(1)(I) CANNOT BE READ TO EXCLUDE A PARTICULAR TAX LIABILIT Y IF IT CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE EXISTED ON A PARTICULAR DATE. IF THE LIABILITY TO P AY THE ADVANCE-TAX HAD ARISEN IT WOULD CERTAINLY CONSTITUTE A PART OF EXISTING LI ABILITY AS PER SECTION 132B(1)(I). ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 132B , THE SEIZED ASSETS TO BE APPLIED TO THE DISCHARGE OF EXISTING LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT OR WAS DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AS WE LL AS THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR S RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEARS TO WHICH THE INCOME RELATED AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT OR WAS DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT. HOWEVER, DU RING THE SEARCH, MONEY HAD BEEN SEIZED AND RETAINED BY THE REVENUE, SUCH M ONEY CAN BE APPLIED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF BOTH THE LIABILITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF MONEY SEIZED WAS ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCHARGE OF THE LIABILITIES, THE ASSETS OTHER THAN MONEY WHICH HAD BEEN RETAINED WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE RESTRAINT AS IS SUCH RESTRAINT WAS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 226(5) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN COULD SELL ASSETS IF HE FIN DS IT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECOVERY OF THE AFORESAID LIABILITIES. IF ANY ASSETS OR PROCEEDS THEREOF REMAINED AFTER THE LIABILITIES HAD BEEN DIS CHARGED, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE FORTHWITH PAID OR MADE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOSE CUSTODY THEY HAD BEEN SEIZED. THERE IS A PROVISION IN SUB SECTIO N (4) OF SECTION 132B FOR INTEREST TO BE PAID BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS CO MPENSATION FOR THE RETENTION OF MONEY SEIZED AND PROCEEDS OF THE ASSET S SHOWN IN EXCESS OF THE TOTAL TAX LIABILITIES AGAINST WHICH THEY HAD NOT BE EN APPLIED. WHERE THE CHARACTER OF THE AMOUNT RETAINED U/S 132B AND THE P ROCEEDS, IF ANY, OF THE ASSETS SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERY OF EXISTING LIABILITY REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION EXISTED THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING LIABI LITY IN DEFAULT AND THE LIABILITY DETERMINED AT REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT WOULD BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESS. WHEN UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 132B THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I S UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST ON EXCESS AMOUNT, THE SAME SCHEME O F THE PROVISION IS APPLICABLE WHEN INTEREST IS TO BE RECOVERED FROM TH E ASSESSEE, MAY BE U/S 234A, 234B OR 234C. THUS, THE CASH SEIZED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST TAXES DUE INCLUDING ADVANCE-TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B A ND 234C. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SATPAL D AGARWAL, HUF VS ACIT 62 TTJ (MUM) 98; SATYAPRAKASH SHARMA VS ACI T 20 DTR (DEL TRIB) 561; SUDHAKAR M SHETTY VS ACIT 10 DTR (MUM TRIB) 17 3; NIKAMAL BABURAM VS ACIT 41 SOT 407 (CHD) AND THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASHOK KUMAR 334 ITR 355 (P&H). 14. THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR M SHETTY VS ACIT HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO ADJUST THE SEIZED AMOUNT TOWARDS THE ADVANCE-TAX FROM THE DATE WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND ACCORDINGLY DI RECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ADJ USTMENT OF SEIZED CASH IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO MADE THE REQUEST FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE ADVAN CE-TAX WITH EFFECT FROM 21- 02-2008 VIDE LETTER DATED 30-07-2009. TO MAINTAIN C ONSISTENCY WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT AND WE ISSUE SIMILAR DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHOULD ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH AGAINST ADVANCE-TAX L IABILITY FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE ITSELF. 5.1. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. THE SR.DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - CHANGE IN THE FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE COOR DINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM S.SARDA (SUPRA), AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA(SUPRA) AND O THER DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCHES HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIG H COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAMJILAL JAGANNATH VS. ASST.CIT REPORTED AT (2000) 241 ITR 758 (MP). THE SAID DECISION IS N OT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE SAID DECISION W AS RENDERED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN SECTION 132 OF THE IT ACT,1961. THERE FORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM S.SARDA VS. DY.CIT(SUPRA). HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT OF P AYMENT OF RS.20,55,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS RELEASE OF SEIZED VALUABLES AGAINST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2085/ AHD/2012 FOR AY 2010-11 IS ALLOWED. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE SECOND APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE, I.E. ITA NO.2086/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ERRED IN OMITTING TO CONSIDER THE APPELLANTS GROUND BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ERRED IN NOT DIREC TING THE ITA NOS.2085 & 2086/AHD/2012 DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL (HUF)& SHRI DWARKADAS PUNJABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - LD.A.O. TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SEIZED CASH AND F URTHER PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS RELEASE OF SE IZED VALUABLES AGGREGATING TO RS.50,49,980/- AGAINST THE APPELLANTS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PRESENT A.Y. W.E.F. T HE DATE OF SEIZURE OF CASH AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT RESPECTIVELY AND CH ARGE INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234C ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADJUSTMENT. 8. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR TO TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2085/ AHD/2012 FOR AY 2010- 11(SUPRA), FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE HEREBY ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE(S) ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- SD/- (. ) (# $%) ! ! ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25 / 10 /2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25/10/2013 SD/- SD/- A.M. J.M. (NSS) (KB) 4/.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 1 . +%5 6 1 . +%5 6 1 . +%5 6 1 . +%5 65(% 5(%5(% 5(%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % #7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. #7() / THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. 5'$8 +% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89' :- / GUARD FILE. 1# 1# 1# 1# / BY ORDER, ,5% +% //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / < < < < ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD