The Dy.DIT ( Intl. Taxn.) - I, Ahmedabad V. Smt. Bella Amin, Ahmedabad

ITA 2257/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5876 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGAR M PATEL
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain; Capital asset; Question of law; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO: 2257/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, AHMEDABAD V/S SMT. BELLA AMIN 36/A, SITA TOWER, NR. SHIVRANJANI CROSS ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AKYPA1386Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JIGAR M. PATEL, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 18 -05-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 -05-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 13. 05.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS. 50 LAKHS ON THE ERRONEOUS PRESUMPTION THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS PER YEAR IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN HE R RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 27.08.2012, THE ASSESSE E HAS DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,49,410/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION OF S ALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY IN AHMEDABAD FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,80,00,0 00/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL OF RS. 15.8 3 LAKHS AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 64.16 LAKHS AND AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS. 1,00 ,00,000/-. 5. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS. 1 CRORE IS IN VIOLATION OF T HE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION. THE A.O. WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR A DEDUCTION OF RS. 50 LAKHS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 50 LAKHS. ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY REFERRING TO THE CBDT CIRCUL AR AND THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHICH DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOU R WITH THE A.O. WHO ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 3 PROCEEDED BY RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO RS. 50 LAKHS ONLY AND TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS. 50 LAKHS IN CONTRAVENTIO N TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 7. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT , IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT EXEMPTION FOR INVESTMENT CANNOT EXCEED RS. 50 LAKHS IN A FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO INVEST RS. 50 LAKHS IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS EACH AND STILL, IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE WITHIN SI X MONTHS OF THE TRANSFER, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION . FOR THIS PROPOSITION, STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES AND HELD AS UND ER:- 6. L HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RATIO OF THE VARIOUS ITAT DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, INCLUDING T HE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TTAT IN THE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA (SUPRA). ON DUE CO NSIDERATION OF THE SAME, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPEL LANT, THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF HER CASE, THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTION AL HAT. AS CORRECTLY ARGUED BY THE AR FOR THE APPELLANT, THE RESPECTIVE ITATS HAVE LAID DOWN THE CLEAR CUT RATIO THAT, 'IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS PROVISO THAT WHERE ASSE SSEE TRANSFERS HIS CAPITAL ASSET AFTER 30TH SEPTEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS EACH IN TWO DIFFERENT FI NANCIAL YEARS AND IS ABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UPTO RS. 1 CRORE U/S 54EC OF THE AC T.' THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THE BASIC FACT ON RECORD THAT THE INVEST MENTS IN NHAI BONDS HAD BEEN DULY MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS NO DOUBT REL IED ON A DECISION OF THE ITAT ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 4 JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR JAIN HUF (SUP RA). HOWEVER, IN HER SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT PANAJI BENCH WHICH HAS DISTINGUISHED THE SAME AND A LSO HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH HAS BEEN R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWED BY BOTH THE ITAT BANGALORE AND CHENNAI BENCHES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RA TIO OF THE AFORESAID ITAT DECISIONS, MORE PARTICULARLY THE BINDING DECISION O F THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH, I HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .50,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE A.O. IS THEREFORE DIRECT ED TO FULLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SEC. 54EC FOR RS. 1,00,00,000/-. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FI NDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF C. JAICHANDER 370 ITR 579 AND COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES LTD. 370 ITR 586 IN SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE TRANSFER OF HOUSE PROPE RTY TOOK PLACE ON 11 TH FEBRUARY 2011, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION BOND OF NHAI ON 28.02.2011 FOR 50 LAKHS AND 50 LACS BONDS O N 30.04.2011. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN NHAI BONDS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRA NSFER WHICH IS THE UPPER LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT PROVIDED IN SECTION 54EC OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE INVESTMENT ON 28.02.2011 FELL INTO THE FINANCIAL YE AR 2010-11 AND INVESTMENT MADE ON 30 TH APRIL, 2011 FELL INTO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 5 THUS, THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN TWO FINANCIAL YEAR S WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. 11. ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRA S IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER (SUPRA) WAS, INTERALIA, SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.L CRORE UNDER SECTION 54EC, IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS MADE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS? 12. AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- (6) FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'SECTION 54EC. CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INV ESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS. (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET (THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANSFERRED BEING HEREAFTER I N THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME W ITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHA LL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY,- (A) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, TH E WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; (B) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS LES S THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTIO N AS THE COST OF ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 6 ACQUISITION OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45. PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES.' 7. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO C AP ON THE INVESTMENT TO BE MADE IN BONDS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVEST MENT SO MADE ON OR AFTER 1.4.2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASS ESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT I S SIX MONTHS AND THE BENEFIT THAT FLOWS FROM THE FIRST PROVISO IS THAT IF THE AS SESSEE MAKES THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEGISLATURE NOTICING THE AMBIGUITY IN THE AB OVE SAID PROVISION, BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015, INSERT ED AFTER THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, A SECON D PROVISO, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASS ESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TR ANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIG INAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DO ES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES.' 9. AT THIS JUNCTURE, FOR BETTER CLARITY, IT WOULD B E APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE NOTES ON CLAUSES - FINANCE BILL 2014 AND THE MEMORANDUM E XPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014, WHICH READ AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 7 'NOTES ON CLAUSES - FINANCE BILL 2014: CLAUSE 23 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 54EC O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT RELATING TO CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITA L ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS INVESTED THE WHOLE OR PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITA L GAINS SO INVESTED IN THE LONG- TERM SPECIFIED ASSET OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN SHAL L NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB-SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE I NVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG- TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR SHAL L NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO BELOW FIRST PROV ISO IN SAID SUB-SECTION (1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASS ET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FI FTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 5 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUE NT YEARS. MEMORANDUM: EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANC E (NO.2) BILL, 2014: CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION ON INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BONDS THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRA NSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PE RIOD OF SIX MONTHS, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG- TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB- SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LO NG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPE ES. HOWEVER, THE WORDINGS OF THE PROVISO HAVE CREATED A N AMBIGUITY. AS A RESULT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE MON TH OF SEPTEMBER WERE INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO SP LIT THE INVESTMENT IN TWO YEARS ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 8 I.E., ONE WITHIN THE YEAR AND SECOND IN THE NEXT YE AR BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS. THIS RESULTED IN THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF OF ON E CRORE RUPEES AS AGAINST THE INTENDED LIMIT FOR RELIEF OF FIFTY LAKHS RUPEES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG -TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSET, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSET S ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAK H RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 5 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUE NT ASSESSMENT YEARS.' 10. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT BY INSERTING A SECOND PROVISO WI TH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014 ALSO STATES THAT THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE FROM 1.4.20 15 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE INTENTIO N OF THE LEGISLATURE PROBABLY APPEARS TO BE THAT THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 TO AVOID UNWANTED LITIGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS . EVEN OTHERWISE, WE DO NOT WISH TO READ ANYTHING MORE INTO THE FIRST PROVISO T O SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEES. 11. IN ANY EVENT, FROM A READING OF SECTION 54EC(1) AND THE FIRST PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS FR OM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENT FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL Y EARS, THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIF FERENCE, IF THE RESTRICTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS TO RS.50,00,0007- IS INCORP ORATED IN SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY HAS BEEN REM OVED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITA NO. 2257 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2011-12 9 FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 13. AS THE ISSUE IS NOW WELL SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 14. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 - 05- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19 /05/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD