M/s. Shell International B.V., Haryana V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2117/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80257 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT GANDHI SRI NIMESH YADAV
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN, 30, DEN HAGUE THE NETHERLAND PAN: AAHCS 9360 D (APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4) AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI ANKIT GANDHI REVENUE BY: SRI NIMESH YADAV, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-08-20 14 / ORDER PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A). GANDHINAGAR DATED 31-03-2010 FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A FOREIGN COMPANY REGISTERED IN NETHERL AND AND IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PERFORMING ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR ITA NO. 2117/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 2 CARRYING ONE OR MORE BRANCHES OF PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, COAL AND CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON 17- 03-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 21,91,978/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAM ED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29-12-2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DET ERMINED AT RS. 4,16,56,756/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATE D 31-03-2010 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE A FORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RA ISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD [HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W IN HOLDING THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR RENDERING BUS INESS SUPPORT SERVICES UNDER THE SUPPORT SERVICE AGREEMENT (SSA ) QUALIFY AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF T HE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN AND NET HERLANDS (INDIA-NETHERLANDS TAX TREATY). 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES NOT COVERED BY THE C RITERION OF REIMBURSEMENT AS SPECIFIED BY THE CIT(A) WOULD BE T AXED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE INDIA-NE THERLANDS TAX TREATY. GROUND NO. 1 IS WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS SUPPORT SE RVICES. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED VARIOUS AMOUNTS AS LISTED ON PAGE NO. 37 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS. AO N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/PROOF RE GARDING WHAT TYPE OF SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED AND HAD ONLY MADE COST ALLOCATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF THE TYP E OF SERVICES RENDERED, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BUSINESS SUP PORT SERVICES OF RS. I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 3 3,11,84,488/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TA XED AT 10% AS PER DTAA AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME. AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN EARLI ER YEARS WHEREIN HIS PREDECESSOR HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SER VICES PROVIDED WERE IN THE NATURE OF CONSULTANCY AND WERE TECHNICAL IN NAT URE. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE IN THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL WERE SIMILAR TO EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THE Y FALL WITHIN THE ARTICLE 12 OF INDIA-NETHERLAND DTAA. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT O N IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 115 0/AHD/2007, THE ISSUE WAS BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 0 7/08/2013. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS AT PAGE 24-25 OF T HE ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE Y EAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, THE ADDITION MA DE BY AO BE DELETED. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION MADE BY AO HAS HELD THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE IN THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO S. 1150/AHD/2007, 3950/AHD/2008 & 52/AHD/2009 FOR 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AT PAGE 24-25 I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 4 AND AFTER MODIFYING THE ORDER VIDE MA NO. 176/AHD/2 013 ORDER DATED 09/05/2014 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS ASPECT SERIOUSLY IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT IS FOR PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IN THIS LONG PERIOD THAT KNOWLEDGE SHALL BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM AND THE P ERSONS USING THE KNOWLEDGE MAY THEMSELVES BECOME EXPERT. SO THE TECHNICAL PERSONS USING THAT KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO BE INT ERROGATED WHETHER 10 YEARS PERIOD IS NOT A SUFFICIENT PERIOD TO EQUIP ONESELF WITH THE KNOWLEDGE TAUGHT OR IMPARTED OR COMMUNICAT ED CERTAIN EXAMPLES OF PROFESSIONS ARE GIVEN IN SOME OF THE J UDGMENTS. WE ARE AWARE OF THOSE FINDINGS, BUT THOSE RESOLVE AROU ND THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES. HOWEVER IF WE APPLY THAT LOGIC THEN A PERSON WITH THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE CAN BECOME EXPERT IN A LONG TIME OF 10 YEARS. EVEN IN MEDICAL FIELD IN 10 YEARS PERIOD A STUDENT BECOME SUPER SPECIALIST. SO THE EXACT NATURE OF THE KNOWLEDGE CA N ONLY BE ASCERTAINED BY EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS OR DESIGNS O R THE INFORMATION HANDED OVER BY THE APPELLANT (SIBV) TO THOSE HAZIRA ENTITIES. WHAT WERE THE CONTENTS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ; ACCORDING TO US. YET TO BE EXAMINED. THE TERMS SUCH AS 'COMMERCI AL SUPPORT, LOGISTIC, PUBLIC-AFFAIRS HUMAN RESOURCES ETC, A S LISTED BY THE APPELLANT ARE VERY GENERAL IN NATURE. BY THE NOMEN CLATURE OF THE SERVICES, AS LISTED ABOVE, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHA T TECHNICALITY WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING THAT KNOWLEDGE? FURTHER, WHY A PERSON CAN NOT LEARN THOSE TECHNICAL ASPECTS IN A 10 YEARS TIM E? WHETHER THAT TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IS SO INTRICATE THAT EVEN IN SU CH LONG PERIOD IT COULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE RECIPIENT. ALL THES E QUESTIONS CAN ONLY BE ANSWERED BY A THROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE AO SHALL THEREFORE EXAMINE THE BIL LS AND VOUCHERS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED AND THEN FIND OUT THAT WHETHER COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE BUSI NESS PURPOSE OF THOSE PARTIES? 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE RE ASONS ASSIGNED HEREINABOVE, WE HEREBY RESTORE GROUND NO. 1 BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO. THIS GROUND IS HEREBY ALLOWED ONLY FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSE. SINCE THE FACT OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SIMILAR THAT OF EARLIER YEARS WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CITED HEREINABOVE AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS AND WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 5 RESTORE THE GROUND TO THE FILE OF AO. IN THE RESUL T, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EX PENSES . 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,04,72,268/- AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS. 21,91,978/- HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX AS PER DTAA. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DISBURSEMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTOR WERE IN CONNECTION TO THE SERVICES RENDERED AND THEY ASSUME THE SAME CHARACTE R AS THE MAIN CONSIDERATION AND ARE THEREFORE TAXABLE IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS PER APPLICABLE RATES. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE REV ENUE EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO BE RS. 82,8 0,290/- AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) D ECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.4 THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. WHETHER IN CO NTEXT OF DOMESTIC TAXATION LAWS OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS, REIMB URSEMENT OF AN EXPENSE ON ACTUAL BASIS, UNDER A CONTRACT, DOES NOT HAVE A PROFIT ELEMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY IS NOT TAXABLE, IS REASONA BLY WELL ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARE RIGHT WHEN IT IS STAT ED THAT THE NOMENCLATURE TO AN EXPENSE OR A CLAIM IS NOT MATERI AL. WHILE ONE SIDE SAYS THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE PART OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF REMUNERATION AS PER THE AGREE MENT BUT ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE NATURE OF REIMB URSEMENT BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ONE HAS TO TRAVEL BEYOND IT. FROM THE SAMPLE PAPER FILED BEFORE ME, IT IS SEEN THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE OUT OF INDIA. WHEREAS IN SOME OF THE INVOICES, THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES PERTAINED LO TRAVELING ETC COMES OUT CLEAR LY, IN CERTAIN OTHER SAMPLES, THE NATURE OF EXPENSES IS ALSO NOT C LEAR. APPELLANT ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE OFFERED PURELY ON AD-HOC BASIS T HE SUM OF RS 21,01,978/- FOR TAXATION PURPOSE (ALTHOUGH THE FIGU RES TALLIES WITH THE REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNTS ATT RIBUTED TO M/S I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 6 SHELL HAZIRA GAS. PVT LTD). NEITHER BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ANY BASIS FOR THIS SEGREGATI ON, HAS BEEN PUT FORTH. 3.5. AS STATED EARLIER, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, IF IT IS SO, WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE TAX NET, BUT THE FACT O F RECEIPT BEING A REIMBURSEMENT, WILL HAVE TO BE PROVED AND THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SAME IS ON THE APPELLANT. IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT T O PROVIDE THE COMPLETE DETAIL OF SUCH RECEIPTS TO THE SATISFACTIO N OF THE TAXATION AUTHORITIES AND SUCH CLAIMS CANNOT BE GENERALIZED B Y REFERENCE LO SAMPLE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ALSO NOT COMPLETE. 3.6. IN MY VIEW, TO CLAIM THE RECEIPTS AS REIMBURSE MENT, THE APPELLANT HAD TO PROVE THAT 1) THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN INITIALLY INCU RRED BY THE APPELLANT. 2) THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSIGNMENT UNDERTAKEN AS PER TH E CONTRACT AND THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE HAD THE NEXUS W ITH THE SERVICES BEING RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO THEIR P ARTY. 3) THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE OF THE TYPES WHICH ARE COVERED BY THE EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSE TALKING OF TH E DIRECT PAYMENTS ON ACTUAL BASIS, E.G. ARTICLE 2.6. ETC. 3.7 UNLESS THE APPELLANT LEADS THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THROUGH THESE MOTIONS FOR EACH AND EVERY RECEIPTS CLAIMED, THE EXCLUSION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LOGIC OF REIMBURSEMENT WOULD NOT HOLD SWAY. 3.8 THEREFORE, WHILE THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APP EAL IS ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM ON THE ABOVE REFERRED LINES AND G RANT RELIEF TO THOSE ITEMS OF EXPENSES WHICH MEET THE ABOVE REFERRED CRI TERION OF REIMBURSEMENT. THE APPELLANT IS EXPECTED TO COOPERA TE IN FURNISHING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION ON THE ABOVE LINES TO COME TO A PROPER QUANTIFICATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME. 3.9. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT AFTER THE COMPLE TION OF THE ABOVE VERIFICATION, IF ANY EXPENSE IS NOT COVERED BY THE CRITERION OF REIMBURSEMENT, IT WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS PART O F THE FTS ONLY. THIS IS SO BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE EARLIER GROUND, THE AGREEMENT HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE AND THE PAYMENT S IN QUESTION I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 7 HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED WHIC H HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN FOR TAXATION AS FTS, WOULD PARTAKE T HE CHARACTER OF SAME NATURE, I.E. FTS AND SHALL BE TAXED ACCORDINGL Y. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 1150/AHD/2007 THE ISSUE WAS BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 07/08/2013. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL AND POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS AT PARA 6 ON PAGE 26 OF THE ORDER . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BE D ELETED. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD. CIT(A) . 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING TH E ORDER OF AO HAS HELD THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS. WE FURTHER FIND CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 1150/AHD/2007 FOR 2003-04 AT P AGE 26 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND THAT QUESTION OF CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE WAS NOT MADE BEFORE TH E AO. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE LEARNED A.R. MR. DHINAL SHA H HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED RS. 95,10,671/- AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE FROM SHGPL IN THE COURSE OF RENDERING S ERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THOSE EXPENDITURES WERE FIRST INCURRED OUT OF POCKET EXPE NSES THEN ONLY THE QUESTION OF REIMBURSEMENT CAN BE DECIDED. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE BI LLS THROUGH WHICH THE I.T.A NO. 2127/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V. CAREL VAN BYLANDTLAAN 8 REIMBURSEMENT WAS CLAIMED SINCE ALL THOSE FACTS WER E NOT EARLIER EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF THE REV ENUE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SINCE THE FACT OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDE R OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CITED HEREINABOVE FOR SIMILAR REASONS AND WIT H SIMILAR DIRECTIONS RESTORE THE GROUND TO THE FILE OF AO. IN THE RESUL T, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 08/08/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,