The ITO, Ward-2(2)(5)., Ahmedabad V. Shri Sureshkumar Suvalal Jaiswal, Ahmedabad

ITA 2649/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4717 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 43CA; 143(3); 50C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO .2649 / AHD / 2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014 - 2015 I.T .O , WARD - 2 (2)(5) AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI SURESHKUMAR SUVALAL JAISWAL , 1 ST FLOOR , C.U. SHAH BLDG., ASHRAM RAOD, AHMEDABAD - 380014. PAN: AANHS8774G (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) REVENUE BY : MS SONIA KUMAR , SR. D.R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN , A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 06 /201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 / 08 /201 9 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10 , AHMEDABAD [ LD. CIT (A) IN SHORT] , DATED 0 1 / 09 / 2017 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 22 / 03 /201 6 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2014 - 15 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DELETING THE ADDITION U/S.50C OF THE IT ACT MADE BY THE AO. IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 2 2. THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT THE INSERTION OF PROVISIO TO SECTION 50C WAS RETROSPECTIVELY EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.2003 AND NOT FROM 1.4.2017 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2016. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT DIRECTING THE AO T O TAKE THE JANTRI VALUE (I.E CIRCLE RATE) AS ON THE DATE OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT I.E ON 24.5.2007 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN U/S.50C OF THE IT ACT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. THE INTERCONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR RS. 2,88,89,907/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALE VALUE AND SDV OF TH E PROPERTY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF AND DECLARED ITS INCOME OF RS. 10,46,120/ - FROM FINANCE & INTEREST INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD A LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 109/3, MEASURING 1994.50 SQUARE METERS VIDE REGISTRATION N O. 983 DATED 21 - 02 - 2013 AT RS. 1,07,33,500/ - ONLY. 3 .1 HOWEVER AS PER INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS. 3,96,21,600/ - . ACCORDINGLY THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, PROPOSING THE MARKET VALU E I.E. STAMP DUTY VALUE AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND. 3 .2 THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL OF THE AO SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1) HE ACQUIRED THE LAND AT SANAND UNDER A PUBLIC AUCTION FROM THE RECOVERY BRANCH OF THE DENA BANK FOR RS. 63,00,000/ - ON 06 - 02 - 2007. HOWEVER THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 04 - 03 - 2008. THE TOTAL IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 3 COST OF LAND TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE IS AMOUNTING TO RS. 73,02,407/ - ONLY . ON SUCH LAND THERE WAS AN ENCUMBRANCE OF RS. 2.23 CRORES PLACED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPAR TMENT AND A LIEN OF M/S SHRINATH ENTERPRISES. 2) SUBSEQUENTLY, HE AGREED TO SALE SUCH PROPERTY TO SMT. MUNIRA IMTIAZ, A CONTRACTOR AT RS. 1,07,32,500/ - ONLY AS PER THE NOTARIZED BANKAT DATED 24 - 05 - 2007. ACCORDINGLY, SMT. MUNIRA IMTIAZ MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 50,00,000/ - BY CHEQUE NO. 165601 AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SALE DEED OF THE LAND. 3) ONE OF THE CLAUSE OF THE BANAKAT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL ARRANGE THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE T ITLE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BANAKAT HOLDER. 4) IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXECUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE BANAKHAT HOLDER. 5) THE ENCUMBRANCE OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND LIEN OF THE M/S SHRINATH ENTERPRISES WERE SE TTLED ON 29 - 03 - 2012 IN FAVOR OF ASSESSEE. 6) THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN NAME OF ULTASPAN PRECAST PVT.LTD. ON 21 - 02 - 2013 ON BEHALF OF THE BANAKAT HOLDER. 7) DETAIL OF BALANCE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM SMT MUNIRA IMTIAZ DATE CHEQUE NO AMOUNT 08 - 05 - 2009 669710 45,00,000/ - IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 4 03 - 11 - 2012 845183 12,32,500/ - 8) ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION BESIDES THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE BANAKAT. FURTHER THE AGREED CONSIDERATION IN THE BANAKAT WAS NOT LESS THAN JANATRI VALUE PR EVAILING AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 9) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE IS RELEVANT AND NOT THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED IN THE GIVEN FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS BECAUSE THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT. VS. SHIMBHU MEHRA AND OTHERS ITA NO 373,365,376,377,AND 442 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 12 - 10 - 2015 3 .3 HOWEVER THE AO REJE CTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 1) BANK PROVIDED THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04 - 03 - 2008 AND ON THAT DATE THERE WA S ENCUMBRANCE OF RS. 2.23 CRORE S OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE ADDITIONAL CO ST OF THE LAND BESIDES THE A CTUAL COST OF THE LAND OF RS. 63,00,000/ - . THUS I T IS VERY CLEAR THAT SALE PRICE MUST BE MORE THAN 2.96 CRORES. 2) BANAKAT (AGREEMENT TO SALE) IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER OF ANY RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SURAJ LAMP AND PVT LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA REPORTED IN 340 ITR 1 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO APPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE SDV AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND. ACCORDINGLY THE AO WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2,88,89,097/ - ( RS. 3,96,21,600 .00 IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 5 1,07,33,500/ - ) BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE SA LE DEED AND STAMP DUTY VALUE AS ON THE DA TE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1) AS PER NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO 2 BY THE FINANCE ACT 2016 TO SECTION 50C IF THE FULL OR PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED THE ROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL AT TIME OF AGREEMENT TO SALE THEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT MAY BE ADOPTED. 2) THE ASSESSEE FULFILL ED ALL THE CONDITION OF THE PROVISO INSERTED IN SECTION 50C BY F INANCE ACT, 2016. 3) THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROVISO IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF AHMEDABAD ITAT IN CASE OF DHARMASHBHAI SONANI VS. ACIT, ITA NO 1237/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2008 - 09. 5 . THE LD.CIT (A) AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT AHMEDABAD, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 1) THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT S LIEN OF RS. 2.23 CRORES ON SUCH LAND DOESN T MEAN THAT THE VALUE OF LAND IS MORE THAN THE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY . THIS REASON IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 2) THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE AO ARE NOT AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BEFORE THE IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 6 AMENDMENT U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, AFTER THE AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SANJIV LAL REPORTED IN 365 ITR 389 HELD THAT AGREEMENT TO SALE IS ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENTS. 3) ITAT AHMEDABAD DECIDED THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 50C BY FINANCE ACT 2016, W.E F. 01 - 0402017 IS BENEFICIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE THE SAME IS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2003. 4) THE ASSESSEE RE CEIVED PAYMENT BY BANKING CHANNEL AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. 6 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BOTH THE PARTIES BEING THE LEARNED DR AND THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A T THE OUTSET , WE NOTE THAT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCHES IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ITO VERSUS SHRI KANUBHAI NATHABAHI PATEL IN ITA NO. 527/AHD/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 18 TH JULY 2018 B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOLD TWO PROPERTIES BOTH WERE REGISTERED ON 21.06.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,57,312/ - AND RS.5,42,688/ - . SINCE THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT, A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN I N REPLY WHEREOF, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FULL CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.20,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE BY HIM ON 29.11.2010, POSSESSION WAS ALSO HANDED OVER ON 26.11.2010 AND THEREFORE TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED U/S.2(47) OF THE ACT ON NOVEWMBER - 2010, EXCEPT REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. ACCORDING IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 7 TO THE ASSESSEE , THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.50C AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SALE TRANSACTION AS THE DATE ON WHICH SALE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO. THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AO CONSIDERED THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED I.E. 21.06.2011 AND NOT THE CIRCLE RATE PREVAILING ON THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29.11.2010 O N THE GROUND THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT TO TRANSFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AND THEREFORE, VALUATI ON OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT DATE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND NOT THE VALUATION PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. HE THEN CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 84,41,755/ - BEING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 6.1. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE MATTER CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING NEW/PROVISO INSERTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WITH EFFECT FRO M 01.04.2017: 'PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL - ASSETS ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER.' THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ALSO READ AS UNDER: - 'UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 50C IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSETS BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION COMMITTEE (EASWAR COMMITTEE) HAS IN ITS FIRST REPORT, POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF WHERE THE SELLER HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT T O SELL THE PROPERTY MUCH BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS FIXED IN SUCH AGREEMENT, WHEREAS SIMILAR PROVISION EXISTS IN SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT I.E.WHEN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SOLD AS A STOCK IN TR ADE.' THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.50C MADE BY THE LD. TRIBUNAL IN THE JUDGMENT OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. DCIT WHERE THE PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS CURATIVE IN NATURE IN ORDER TO AVOID GENUINE HAR DSHIPS OF THE TAXPAYERS AND FOLLOWED THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE PROVISION FROM THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF SEC.50C I.E. 01.04.2003 INSTEAD OF INSERTION OF PROVISION FROM 01.04.2017. ON THIS PREMISE, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY IS REQUIRED TO BE CALCULATED ON THE IT A NO .2649/AHD/2017 A.Y .2014 - 15 8 RATE PREVAILING IN NOVEMBER - 2010 SINCE THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF CHEQUE PAYMENT IN NOV - 2010. 6.2. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CO - ORDINA TE BENCH IN THAT MATTER IS AS FOLLOWS: THE PROVISO TO S. 50C INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2016 W.E.F. 01.04.2017 TO PROVIDE THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SHOULD BE ADOPTED INSTEAD OF THE VALUATI ON ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED IS CURATIVE AND INTENDED TO REMOVE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE AND AN APPARENT INCONGRUITY. IT SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2003, I.E. THE DATE EFFECTIVE FROM WHICH S.50C WAS INTRODUCED. 6.3. IT APPEARS THAT F OLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PER VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY PREVA ILING IN NOVEMBER 2010 WHEN THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUES. THE CAPITAL GAINS WERE DIRECTED TO BE CALCULATED BY THE AO ON SUCH VALUATION AS ON NOVEMBER 2010 OR TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED /RECEIVABLE BY TH E ASSESSEE , WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. 6.4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE MATTER, THE PROVISION OF LAW AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD. TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 7 .1 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07 / 08 / 201 9 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER - SD - ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) AHMEDABAD; DATED 07 / 08 / 201 9 MANISH