Shri Dharmendra Laljibhai Patel, Nadiad V. The ITO, Ward-3, Nadiad

ITA 2529/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80502 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: B T THAKKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFO RE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) I. T. A. NO S . 2529 & 2530 / AHD/ 20 1 1 (A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09) DHARMENDRA LALJIBHAI PATEL VITHALPURA, LAT AT. BIDAJ, TALUKA MAHEMDABA D PAN NO. AYLPP3017H V/S ITO, WARD 3, NADIAD (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CHANDRAKANT LALJIBHAI PATEL VITHALPURA, LAT AT. BIDAJ, TALUKA MAHEMDABA D PAN NO. ATQPP9650C V/S ITO, WARD 3, NADIAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. T. THAKKAR, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YAD AV, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 14 - 10 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 11 - 2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - IV, BARODA DATED 25.07.2011 FOR A.Y. 20 08 - 09. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS RE LATE TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT BOTH THE ASSESSEE S ARE BROTHERS AND THE FACTS AND ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 2 CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH THE CASES ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMM ON FOR BOTH THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE THUS PROCEED BY REFERRING TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 2529/AHD/2011 IN THE CASE OF DHARME NDRA LALJIBHAI PATEL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. . 3. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE AGRICULTURIST AND DERIVING AGRI CULTURAL INCOME . ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 08 - 09 ON 13. 10.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.04.2010 AND TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 12,89,230/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2011 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS FILED THE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A ) ERR E D IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,13,957/ - IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FROM ONGC AWARDED BY COURT FOR ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) E RRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADD ITION MADE BY THE A.O AMOUNTING T O RS. 1,75,369/ - BEING INTEREST AWARDED ON THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BY THE COURT FOR THE PERIOD 22 MONTHS IN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE B OTH THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERCONNECTED THEREFORE THEY ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 12,11,638/ - AS COMPENSA TION FROM ONGC TOWARDS THE LAND OF ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 3 WHICH RS. 10,13,957/ - WAS RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION O N ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND W AS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,75,369/ - WAS SHOWN AS INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AMOU NT OF COMPENSATION AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IT WAS REQU IRED TO BE TAXED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSES. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED RS. 10,13,957/ - AS THE INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSES FURTHER, T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,75,369/ - WHICH WAS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AS INTEREST INCOME WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT DURING UN DER CONSIDERATION, HE HAD RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION O F RS. 12, 11,638/ - THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 22,312/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COURT EXPENSES. ALSO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,13,957/ - WAS OFFERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND RS. 1,75,369/ - WAS OFFERED AS INTEREST INCOME BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS INCOME TAX RET URN. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.1,75,369/ - RECEIVED BY HIM IS PERTAINING TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS I. E. 1997 - 98,1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000. AS PER APPELLANT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1998 - 99 IS RS.94,652/ - AND FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000 IS RS. 71,746/ - AND FOR 16 - 02 - 1998 TO 31 - 03 - 1998 ONE MONTH INTEREST IS RS.7971/ - (I. E. FOR 1997 - 98). THUS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THAT TOTA L INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - IS PERTAINING TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS AND CONSIDERING THESE FACTS THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - IS PERTAINING TO 3 FINANCIAL AND THEREFORE INTEREST OF 12 MONTHS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HIS CURRENT YEAR INCOME. THE APPE LLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT EVEN IF IT TAKES 22 MONTHS' TOTAL INTEREST AT RS 1,75,369/ - THEN ALSO PER MONTH INTEREST COMES TO RS.7,971/ - AND 12 MONTHS' INTEREST COMES TO RS.96,655/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - REVEALS THAT THE SUCH INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED PERTAINS TO F.YRS. 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99, 1999 - 2000. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: ' RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDG MENT OF RAMA BAI VS CIT (AP) [1990] 181 ITR 400 AND THE JUDG MENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THIS REGARD WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR LAND AWARDED BY THE COURT CANNOT BE ASSESSED TO INCO ME TAX IN ONLY LUMPSUM IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER IS MADE AND IT HAS TO BE TAKEN TO HAVE ACCRUED NOT ON THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE COURT GRANTING SUCH COMPENSATION. RELIA NCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDG MENT IN THE CASE OF K.S. KRISHNA RAO VS CIT [1990] 18 1 ITR 408 (SC)WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE INTEREST HAS TO BE SPREAD OVER ON AN ANNUAL BASIS RIGHT FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION TILL THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE COURT ON A TIME BASIS. ' 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O A ND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND TO BE TENABLE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS OFFERED FOR TAX. THE A.O. HAS ACCORDING LY AND CORRECTLY TAXED THIS INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - ON RECEIPT BASIS. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O., IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED HIS OBJECTION ANYWHERE WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN MY OPINION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT AS SUCH INCOME HAS SUO MOTO BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME HAS CORRECTLY BEEN TAXED BY THE A 0. 6.1 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - PERTAINS TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 1997 - 98 ,1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST RECEIVED FOR F. Y. 1998 - 99 I S ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 4 RS.94,652/ - AND FOR F.Y 1999 - 2000 IS RS. 71,746/ - AND FOR 16/02/98 TO 31/03/98 (I.E. FOR ONE MONTH OF F. Y.1997 - 98) INTEREST IS RS. 7,971. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCES AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM THAT ABOVE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - IS PERTAINING TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS. ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS THAT HE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ONLY AND ANY INCOME IS TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS ONLY ON RECEIPT BASIS. THE APPELLANT IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND TH IS IS NOT THE CASE THAT HIS ACCOUNTS ARE BEING MAINTAINED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THEREFORE HIS LOGIC THAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 94,652/ - PERTAINING TO F.Y. 1998 - 99 AND AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 71,746/ - PERTAINING TO F.Y. 1999 - 2000 ARE NOT TAXABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT CORRECT. IF SOMEONE GOES BY THE LOGIC OF THE APPELLANT, THEN INTEREST INCOME WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCRUED TO HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THE ENTIRE INTEREST AMOUNT OF R.S 1,75,359/ - WOULD BE PERTAINING TO MUCH EARLIER YEARS(I. E. F.YRS 1997 - 98,1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000)WHICH ARE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT OF 6 YEARS. IN VIEW OF LOGIC OF APPELLANT EVEN SUCH INTERE ST INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT BY REOPENING OF HIS CASE U/S 147 BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000 TO WHICH THE INTEREST INCOME AS PER APPELLANT'S CLAIM ARE PERTAINING ARE FALLING BEYOND 6 YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS CLAIM OF APPELLANT THE INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - OR ANY PART OF SUCH INTEREST OF RS. 1,75,369/ - CAN NOT BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH INTEREST AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM AS PER DECISION OF THE COURT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IN MY OPINION THE DECISIONS OF ABOVE HON'BLE COURTS AS CITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS FAVOUR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE. I THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE A.O. HAS CORRECTL Y TAXED THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,75,369/ - WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF AS INCOME FOR TAXATION IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM ON AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPENSATION DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS AN AG RICULTURIST AND THEREFORE THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37) OF THE ACT. WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TOTAL INTEREST PERTAINS TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS ONLY THE INTEREST OF 12 MONTHS WHICH PERTAINS TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MISTAKENLY OFFERED THE ENTIR E SUM AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIRCULAR OF 1955 OF CBDT STATES THAT OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNOR ANCE OF AN ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHTS. IT IS ONE OF THE DUTIES TO ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 5 ASSIST A TAX PAYER IN EVERY REASONABLE WAY PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMING AND SECURING RELIEFS. THE LD. A.R. ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMABAI VS. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 WHEREIN THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR LAND AWARDED BY THE COURT CANNOT BE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN ONLY LUMP SUM IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER IS MADE. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF K.S. KRISHNARAO VS. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 408 (SC). THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS AN AGRICULTURIST WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY A.O. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE LAND OF ASSESSEE THAT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY ONGC IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND ON A CQUISITION OF THE LAND ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION . AT THIS MOMENT IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO SECTION 10(37) WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 37. IN THE CASE OF AS ASSESSEE, BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER TH E HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHERE - (I) SUCH LAND IS SITUATE IN ANY AREA REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) OR ITEM (B) OF SUB - CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE (14) OF SECTION 2; (II) SUCH LAND, DURING THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER, WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY SUCH HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR INDIVIDUAL OR A PARENT OF HIS; (III) SUCH TRANSFER IS BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW, OR A TRANSFER THE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IS DETERMINED OR APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA; (IV) SUCH INCOME HAS ARISEN FROM THE COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER RECEIVED BY SUCH ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004. EXPLANATION - FOR THE PUR POSES OF THIS CLAUSE, THE EXPRESSION COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION INCLUDES THE COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION ENHANCED OR FURTHER ENHANCED BY ANY COURT, TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITY. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, THE AGRICULTURAL L AND IS IN VILLAGE WASNAMARAGIYA, DIST. KHEDA AND IS USED BY ASSESSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE LAND HAS BEEN COMPULSORY ACQUIRED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 6 COMPENSATION ON THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH LAND IS THEREFORE EXEMPT U/S 10(37) AND IS THEREFORE N OT LIABLE FOR TAX. BEFORE US REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,13, 917/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I S EXEMPT U/S 10(37). 10. WITH RESPECT T O THE INTEREST AMOUNT IT IS ASSESSEE S SUBMISSI ON THAT IT PERTAINS TO 3 FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 97 - 98, 98 - 99 & 99 - 2000 . IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION. AS SESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, TH E COPY OF THE SCHEDULE WHICH SHOWS THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COURT, SOLATIUM AND THE INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MA MAI YA (2014) 367 ITR 498 ( SC) HAS TAKEN CERTAIN VIEW ON THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEARING ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO A.O WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. S INCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE REFRAINING OURSELVES ON COMMENTING ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. 11. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 253 0/AHD/2011 (FOR CHANDRAKANT LALJIBHAI PATEL) 12. BEFORE US, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF DHARMENDRA ITA NO S. 2529 & 2530/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008 - 09 7 LALJIBHAI PATEL IN ITA NO 2529/AHD/2011, WE THEREFORE FOR THE SIMILAR REA SONS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA LALJIBHAI PATEL AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE ALSO PARTLY ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S . 13. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 - 1 1 - 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - (SHAILENDRA K UMAR YADAV ) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY 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/A SSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD