Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT., CPC TDS, Gaziabad

ITA 2372/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8219 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, SMC/D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC/D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 AARYAVART INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FF, 174, PARISEEMA COMPLEX, CG ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN : AADCA 4844 Q VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD [ / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26/10/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/11/2017 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -8, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.07.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 . SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS BELONG TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND COMMON ISSUE WAS RA ISED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS; THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE ITA NO. 2372/AHD/2016 FOR AY 2014-15 AS THE LE AD CASE. 2. IN ITA NO.2372/AHD/2016, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR ALLEGED LATE FILING OF APPEAL ONLY O N THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND NOT ACCEPTING THE REASONS ASSIGNED HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALI ZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S.200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 2 COMM. REF. NO.TDS/1314/26Q/D/100009859352 IN RESPEC L OF FORM NO.26Q, FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR QUARTER - 1 OF F.YR.2013 -14 WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALI ZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. IN PASSING AN INTIMATION ORDER U/S. 200A OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT GIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE ORDER SO PASSED WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALI ZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD, U.P. IN CHARGING INTEREST OF RS.34,570/- ON ALLEGED LATE PAYMENT OF TDS. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALI ZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD. U.P. IN CHARGING RS.65,400/- FOR THE ALL EGED LATE FILING FEES U/S.234E OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) WERE SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY HIM WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM AS THE COMMUNICATION, I.E. INTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE ACT, WAS SENT THROUGH ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE ORDER ONLY ON 28.09.2015 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME DATE HAS BEEN S HOWN BY HIM AS DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER. 4. HAVING PERUSED THE REASONING PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROHIBITED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPE AL WITHIN THE ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3 STIPULATED TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A ) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 5. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WONDER WAVES ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.2143 TO 2 146/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2014-15, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH RENDERED IN ITA NO.90/ASR/2015 IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LTD VS. DCIT, HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW AND FACTS MADE BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR WHILE DELETING THE CHARGING OF LATE FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT. THE FINDINGS READS AS UNDER:- '4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS , LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C ) 31498/2013(J)], HON'BLE KARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHY A BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), HON 'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 O F 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US . HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HON'BLE COU RTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF TH E ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THIS APPEAL RE QUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS O F MATERIAL FACTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 234 E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THEFINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 4 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PER SON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIM E PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SU BSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILU RE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STAT EMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVIS O TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 201 0. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIM E, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, OR A CORREC TION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUCH S TATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY:-- (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY:-- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMP UTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 20 0AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 5 PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIA L YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMEN T' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT- (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PR OCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUS LY DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUBSECTION. 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT INSECTION 200A AND THIS AMENDMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITU TED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY:-- '(C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID U NDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT P AID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COURS E OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPEC T OF THE 'FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E'. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STO OD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 6 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR R AISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE E XAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, W E HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECTION 200A, WHICH, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM, O R PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF 'ARITHME TICAL ERRORS' AND 'INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' - SECTION 200A(1)(A) . (B) AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR 'INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEME NT'. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE TO , OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMP LATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED LEGALI TY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCOP E OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE SO. HE HAS JUSTIFIED TH E LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THAT IS NO T THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED IN T HE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATI VE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM T HE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILE D, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUST AINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY.' ITA NOS. 2372 TO 2374/AHD/2016 AARYAVRAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 7 7. THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT, AMRITSAR. WE ALLOW THESE ALL APPEALS AND DELETE THE LATE FEE CHARGED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT. 6. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF WONDER WAVES ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD & SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LI MITED (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APP EALS AND DELETE THE LATE FEE CHARGED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT. 7. REGARDING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND; HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD NOVEMBER 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 03/11/2017 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD