Zen Tobacco Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-8, Ahmedabad

ITA 2100/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9704 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 139(5); 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2100/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. 8 TH FLOOR THE CHAMBER OPP.NEW GURUDWAR S.G.HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD-380 054 / VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8 AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCT 9591 K ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN, AR &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROOP CHAND, SR.DR * ) / DATE OF HEARING 24/06/2015 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/07/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 24/06/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN FRAMING APPELLATE ORDER U/S.250 OF THE I.T.ACT FOR A.Y. 2007-2008 ON 24 TH JUNE, 2011. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT OF REJECTING R ECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE I.T.ACT. (3) YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D, OMIT ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINAL LY HEARD AND DECIDED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL RETURNED INCOME OF RS.71,91, 960/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON 01/09/2008. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT SEEKING FOR RECTI FICATION OF MISTAKE ALONG WITH THE REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME BY REVIS ING THE INCOME FROM RS.71,91,960/- TO RS.66,91,960/- AND CLAIMED A REFU ND OF RS.1,88,580/-. THE AO REJECTED THE APPLICATION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED A REVISED RETURN RATHER THAN TAKING RECOURSE TO SECTION 154, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE A SSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEA L BEFORE US. ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THAT OF REJECTING THE APPLICAT ION U/S.154 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY CARRYING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF TOBACCO. FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS.71,91,960/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSEES RECORD, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE PROVISION OF DEFERRED TAX ASSETS OF RS.2,50,000/- W HICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL INCOME WAS NOT DEDUCTED BU T ADDED BACK TO AMOUNT OF PROFIT. THUS, TAXABLE INCOME WAS OVERS TATED BY RS.5,00,000/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED A REVISED RETURN. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THAT MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. CIT IN ITA NO.199/2014 DATED 06/05/2014 AND THE DECISION OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT KOLKATA BENCH B) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DC IT VS. JUSTICE DILIP KUMAR SETH REPORTED AT (2006) 98 ITD 241 (KOL.) ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF KERALA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M.FAR HOTELS LTD. VS. CIT R EPORTED AT (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 103(KERALA). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ID.AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD ADDED THE PROVISION OF DEFERR ED TAX OF RS.2,50,000/- TO THE NET PROFIT IN DERIVING AT THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT AFTER TAX IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT I NSTEAD OF SUBTRACTING THE SAME FROM P & L ACCOUNT, IS FACTUAL LY CORRECT. THE APPELLANT IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS HIMSELF MADE THIS ERROR AND DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(5) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R EJECTED THE APPLICATION U/S. 154 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM RECORDS AND THE ONLY WAY TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE NOW WAS TO FILE A REVISED RETURN. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE I. T. ACT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS NO MISTAKE ON THE RECORD. THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS AD DED THE PROVISION FOR TAXATION AND TO CORRECT THAT MISTAKE, HE HAS TO FILE A REVISED RETURN ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MENTIONED CERTAIN JUDICIAL D ECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION S, BUT THE FACTS OF ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - THOSE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN ONE CASE (2 25 .ITR 348), THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS CLAIM OF INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE WH EREAS IN OTHER CASE, IT WAS REGARDING THE CLAIM OF 80IA AND 80HHD. THE OTHER DECISION MENTIONED BY HIM [280 ITR (AT) 248] IS ALS O NOT APPLICABLE AS THIS MISTAKE THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE APPELLA NT IS NOT IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME. IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY HIM I N THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AND APPROVED BY T HE DIRECTORS. HAD THE MISTAKE BEEN THERE IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, IT COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE HAD ALL TH E POWERS TO CORRECT THE SAME, BUT HE CANNOT GO BACK TO THE AUDITED ACCO UNTS AND CORRECT THE MISTAKE COMMITTED AT THAT LEVEL. THE APPEAL IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. 5.1. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS RAISED AT BAR BY THE RESPECTIVE REPRESE NTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THAT WHETHER THE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE AO IN THE RETURN SO FILED CAN BE RECTIFIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS RELATING TO FILING OF THE R ETURN AND PROCESS OF THE SAME. 5.2. AS PER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, RETURN IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY EVERY PERSON, (A) BEING A COMPANY (OR A FIRM) OR; ( B) BEING A PERSON OTHER THAN A COMPANY (OR A FIRM), IF HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE U NDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE D UE DATE, FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PE RSON DURING THE ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - PREVIOUS YEAR, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 5.3. AS PER SECTION 139(5) OF ACT, IF ANY PERSON, H AVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXP IRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPL ETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE RETURN SO FILED IS REQU IRED TO BE PROCESSED AS PER SECTION 143(1) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139, OR I N RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, SUCH R ETURN SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER M AKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS A PPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. 5.4. AS PER SECTION 143(1)(B), THE TAX AND INTERES T, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) AND THE INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (A) IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPU TED AFTER MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT, NAMELY:- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; OR (II)AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPAREN T FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - 5.5. FROM THE PROVISIONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO ACCEPT WHATEVER STATED IN THE RETURN AND COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME MECHANICALLY. AS PER PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, THE CONCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS TO EXAMINE WHETHER ANY CLAIM AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORREC T OR NOT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS INCLUDES UNDER STATEMENT AND OVERSTATEMENT OF THE INCOME. IF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY FAILED TO TAKE NO TE OF ANY INCORRECT CLAIM WITH REGARD TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH FAILURE WOULD NECESSARILY MEAN MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF KERALA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M.FAR HOTELS LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFOR E THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED I N THE CASE OF PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. CIT(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6 SECTION 154 TO THE EXTENT IT IS RELEVANT IS EXTRACTED BELOW: - 'RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE, 154. [(I) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM THE RECORD AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 116 MAY, - (A) AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THIS ACT; [(B) AMEND ANY INTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDE R SUBSECTION (I) OF SECTION 143.]] [(IA) WHERE ANY MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECI DED IN ANY PROCEEDING BY -WAY OF APPEAL OR REVISION RELATING T O AN ORDER REFERRED TO ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE AUTHORITY PASSING SUCH ORDE R MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, AMEND THE ORDER UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY MATTER OT HER THAN THE MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN SO CONSIDERED AND DECIDED.] (2) SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION , THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED (A) MAY MAKE AN AMENDMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F ITS OWN MOTION, AND (B) SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT FOR RECTIFYING ANY SU CH MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WHE RE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS THE [***] [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER ALSO. ' IT IS APPARENT FROM THE BARE READING OF THE ABOVE P ROVISION THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION EXTENDS TO AMENDMENT OF AN I NTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143. THIS POWER ENURES EVE N AFTER 'THE MATTER' HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN ANY PROCEEDING B Y WAY OF APPEAL OR REVISION. NECESSARILY, THIS POWER EXTENDS EVEN AT T HE STAGE OF THE APPEAL AND THE FURTHER APPEAL TO THE ITAT. EVEN AFTER SUCH DECISION, IT IS OPEN TO THE AO TO AMEND THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143 (1) IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT. WE ARE WHOLLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION IN SAM GLOBAL 'S MATTER (SUPRA) THAT THE T ECHNICALITIES IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OUGHT NOT TO OBSCUR E THE JUSTICE. THE JUSTICE DEMANDS, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT TO RELIEF. THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OVE RLOOKED IN ENTIRETY BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE CONTROLLING EXPRESSION IN SECTION 154 IS N OT 'AN ERROR' WHICH IS SOMEWHAT COLOURED BY THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY TH E AUTHORITIES. INSTEAD, THE CONTROLLING EXPRESSION IS 'ANY MISTAKE ' WHICH HAS WIDER CONNOTATION AND INCLUDES MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE PARTIES ALSO. 5.6. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT KOLKAT BENCH B) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. JUSTIC DILIP KUMAR SETH REPO RTED AT (2006) 98 ITD ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - 241 (KOL.), WHEREIN THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH FO LLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREMIER POLYMERS (P.) LTD. REPORTED AT (1992) 107 C TR 310 AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. D.P.SANDHU BROS., CHEMBUR (P.LTD. REPORTED AT (2005) 273 ITR 1 ::142 TAXMAN 713 (SC), HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CO NSIDERING THE DECISION BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IT IS APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO HIS ELEVATION COULD NOT BE TAXED AND, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE HAS RIGHTLY MOVED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 TO RECTIFY THE INTIMATIO N SENT BY ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL-COMPETENT TO REC TIFY SUCH INTIMATION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION AS LAID DOWN IN SECTIONS 143( 1)(II) AND 154(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE HON'BLE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BHASKAR MITTER (SUPRA) AND IN EASE OF PREMIER POLYM ERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ID. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE TWO IS SUES HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER WHICH DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 5.7. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMEN T OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S.154 OF THE ACT AND GRANT REFUND AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,580/-. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSE SSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.2100/AHD /2011 ZEN TOBACCO PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 10 - 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/ 07 /2015 2.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 7 8 &45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:; <* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 8.7.15 (DICTATION-PAD 15 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.7.15 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.17.7.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17.7.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER