M/s. Navpadh Associates, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 2680/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73013 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2679 & 2680 /AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2006-07 & 07-08) M/S NAVPADH ASSOCIATES AHMEDABAD V/S THE DCIT CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAFFN 2055F APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -02-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.07.2010 FOR A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE A PPEALS ARE OF TWO DIFFERENT YEARS BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THEM IN CASE OF ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER YEAR ALSO. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. WE ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 2 THEREFORE PROCEED TO HEAR BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE THUS PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 2679/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 06-07. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE PROFESSION OF DEV ELOPERS AND BUILDERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 ON 18 .12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 19,71,040/-. THE CASE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VID E ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS 1,37,41,950/- AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2009 DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE CONCISE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ S AS UNDER:- 1 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OMITTING TO CONSIDER AND ADJUDICATE UPON G ROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL VIDE WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE HER EVEN AS SHE HAD STATED AT PARA 4 ON PAGE 2 OF THE IMPUGN ED APPELLATE ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT GROUND NO. 1 WAS GENERAL AND WILL BE COVERED IN SUBSEQUENT GROUNDS. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDU CTION OF RS. 1,29,95,230 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 80-16(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1. SHE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HER TO GO BY THE VERSION OF THE LEARNED DVO (TO WHOM SHE HAD MADE REFERENCE FOR FINDING OUT MEASUREMENTS OF THE PLOT AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE APPELL ANT'S PROJECT WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDIT IONS OF SECTION 80-IB(10)(B) & (C) CONCERNING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF LAND OF THE PROJECT UNDER D EVELOPMENT AND CONCERNING THE BUILT-UP AREA OF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE PROJECT WERE CO MPLIED WITH) AFTER ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CO-OPERATED WITH HIM, WITHOUT CONSIDERING A ND/OR DEALING WITH ALL THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HER (BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, XEROX COPIES OF THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 3 DATED 21.4.2010 AND 3.5.2010 BEFORE HER ARE ATTACHE D AT ANNEXURES 'A' & 'RESPECTIVELY) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED DVO. SHE OUGHT ALSO TO HAVE APPR ECIATED, INTERALIA,: (A) THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 80-16(10) BEIN G THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE ON A PLOT OF LAND WITH A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE (WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SIZE OF THE PLOT IN QUESTION BEING 4,050 SQ. TINTS.), HER ACCEPTING THE LEARNED DVO'S VERSION THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FULFILL THAT CONDITION, AND THAT TOO, ON THE BASIS OF IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING FSI (FLOOR SPACE INDEX), WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS; (B) THAT ONLY A BARE READING OF THE LEARNED DVO' S COMMUNICATIONS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURES TO THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER SHOWED TH AT THE LEARNED DVO HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY SUGGESTING AS UNDER VIDE HIS COMMUNICATIONS DATE D 2-7-2010 AND 22/26-7-2010 (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY APP ELLANT): 5. LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) OF THE ACT. . 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. NO TICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION WORK OF A HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS 'KALASAGAR APARTMENTS' A T AHMEDABAD. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT FROM THE AFORESAID PROJECT ASSESS EE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS 1,17,70,912/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE A CT. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED, HE HAD NOT OBTAINED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND AS WELL AS THE HOUSI NG PROJECT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION WAS O BTAINED BY THE LAND OWNERS IN THEIR NAME AND IT WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT AT ALL A DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT BUT WAS MERELY A CONTRACTO R WHO HAD ENTERED ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 4 INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS . HE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULFILLED THE CONDI TION LAID DOWN FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) U PHELD THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DISAL LOWED THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF LAND AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEVE LOPER OF LAND BUT HAD ACTED AS A CONTRACTOR. CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND , THOUGH DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) BUT FOR THE REASON THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN CLAUSE (B) AND (C) OF S. 801B(10) NAMELY THE PROJECT SHOULD BE ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIM UM BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE P ROJECT COMMENCED ON 1.4.2004, THE SIZE OF THE PLOT WAS MORE THAN 1 ACRE , APPROVAL FOR HOUSING PROJECT WAS GRANTED ON 17.1.2005 (COPY PLACED AT PA GE 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK), BU PERMISSION WAS RECEIVED ON 24 TH MAY 2006 WHICH WAS WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT. WITH RESPECT TO SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVA L WAS GRANTED FOR THE SIZE OF FLAT OF BEING LESS THAN 1500 SQ FT. WITH RE SPECT TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE DVO IN HIS REPORT THAT THAT THE SIZE OF THE FLAT WAS IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ FT, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHILE TAKING THE MEASUREMENT OF AREA OF THE FLAT, DVO HAD INCREASED THE INNER MEASUREMEN T OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT TWICE BY THE THICKNESS OF THE WALLS. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 5 COMMON WALLS SHARED BY THE ROOMS OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WERE INCLUDED IN THE MEASUREMENT OF BOTH THE PARTS INSTEAD OF INC LUDING IT IN EITHER PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO INF LATED MEASUREMENT OF 1566.59 SQ FT AND 1571.544 SQ FT. IF THE MEASUREMEN TS WERE TAKEN BY ONLY INCLUDING THE MEASUREMENT OF COMMON WALLS CORRECTLY , THE AREA OF THE FLAT DID NOT EXCEED 1500 SQ FT. HE POINTED TO THE M EASUREMENT AND THE DRAWING OF THE FLATS WHICH WERE PLACED AT PAGE 469 TO PAGE 473 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE AREAS OF THE FLATS IS CALCULATED AND IS BELOW THE 1500 SQ FT. HE FURTHER POINTED THAT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE DVO AND ALSO B EFORE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAD TAKEN THE MEASUR EMENTS FROM TERRACE AND HAD FOUND IT TO BE LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT AND FO R WHICH HE POINTED TO THE COPY OF THE NOTINGS OF THE DVO WHICH WERE PLACE D AT PAGE 442 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFINITIO N OF 'BUILT UP AREA' WHICH WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE NO 2 OF 2004 WHICH CA ME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND HAD NO APPLI CATION TO THE HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE WAS APPROVED ON 17.1.2005 AND WAS THEREFORE PRIOR TO 1.4.2005 AND F OR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANRIYA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LT D REPORTED IN (2012) 209 TAXMAN 1 (KARN). HE ALSO PLACED ON RECOR D A COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE AREA OF SOME OF THE FLATS WAS IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ. FT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS WHICH WERE LESS THAN 1500 SQ FT. THE LD A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE YARDSTICK SET BY H'BLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SHAKTI DEVELOPERS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10), AND FOR THAT HE PLACED ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 6 ON RECORD A CHART LISTING OUT THE COMPLIANCE OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS STIPULATED THEREIN. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOUL D BE ALLOWED TO IT. 8. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED TO THE VARIOUS F INDINGS OF AO AND CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THEIR ORDERS. HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEVELOPER BUT A CONTRACTOR AND FOR WHICH HE S OUGHT SUPPORT FROM FORM 3CD, SIGNED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE FIRM AND PLA CED AT PAGE 485 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ALL TYPES OF CONSTRUCTIO N WORK. HE ALSO POINTED TO THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS OF THE BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE W AS ONLY OF RS 3251/- AND WITH THE TYPE OF ASSETS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND TO B E CALLED A DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT. HE FURTHER POINTED TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARRANGE FOR THE VERIFICATION B Y THE DVO OF THE MEASUREMENTS FROM INSIDE OF THE FLATS. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANR IYA PROJECT (SUPRA) RELIED BY THE A.R. IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS T HE SAME WAS IN RESPECT OF EXCLUSION OF BALCONY AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCLUSION OF WALLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF THE SIZE OF THE FLAT. THE LD.D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF TH E AREA OF A FLAT THE EXTERNAL WALL WILL FORM PART OF THE AREA OF THE FLA T. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB( 10) AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A). ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT THE A LLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). AO DENIED THE DEDUCTION FOR THE REASO N THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT BUT WAS A CONTRA CTOR. CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND DENIED THE DEDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL FLAT WAS IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ FT PRESCRI BED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PROJE CT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN AHMEDABAD AND THEREFORE AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF S. 80IB(10)(C), THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE AREA OF FLAT I S 1500 SQ. FT. BEFORE US, THE LD.A R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SIZE OF EACH OF THE FLAT CONSTRUCTED IS BELOW 1500 SQ FT BUT THE LD. D.R. HOWEVER SUBMIT TED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN FLATS WHICH WERE HAVING AREA OF MORE THAN 1 500 SQ FT AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARRANGE FOR THE VERIFICATION B Y THE DVO OF THE MEASUREMENTS FROM INSIDE OF THE FLATS. BEFORE US, I T HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DVO HAD TAKEN THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE TERRACE AND BASED ON THOSE MEASUREMENTS THE AREA WAS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 1500 SQ FT. THE EXACT NOTING OF THE DVO AS PLACED ON PAG E 442 OF THE PAPER BOOK READS AS QUOTE ' PROPERTY INSPECTED FROM TERRACE. THE FLATS FROM INSIDE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ME ASUREMENTS IN A DAY WHICH COULD NOT BE ARRANGED TODAY. TERRACE MEASURED . UNIT 142 = 1385 SQ. FT, UNIT 3 = 1365 SQ.FT' UNQUOTE. BEFORE US, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY LD. D.R. THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT ARRANGE FOR PHYSICAL VER IFICATION OF THE FLATS AND THEREFORE DVO COULD NOT PHYSICALLY VERIFY THE I NDIVIDUAL FLAT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, DVO HAS THE POWERS CONFE RRED U/S 131 OF THE ACT INTERALIA TO DISCOVER, INSPECT AND TO ENFORCE T HE ATTENDANCE OF ANY PERSON, EXAMINE HIM ON OATH, COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ISSUE COMMISSIONS. BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 8 BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRAT E THAT THE AFORESAID POWERS WERE EXERCISED BY THE DVO TO TAKE THE MEASUR EMENT OF THE FLATS WHEN THE SAME WAS DENIED BY ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE DVO HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE NOTING PROPERTY INSPECTED FROM TERRACE. THE FLATS FROM INSIDE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION OF MEASUREMENTS IN A DAY WHICH COULD NOT BE ARRANGED TODAY. TERRACE MEA SURED UNIT 142=1385 SQ. FT. UNIT 3=1365 SQ. FT. (COPY FILED AT PAGE 44 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE AFORESAID NOTING OF DVO THAT HE HAS INSPECTED T HE PROPERTY IN QUESTION PERSONALLY AND HAD MEASURED THE SAME FROM TERRACE AND THE AREA IS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. PER UNIT SHOWS THAT EVEN BY INCLUDING THE OUTER WALLS, WHILE MEASURING FROM TERRACE, THE AREA WAS L ESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. PER UNIT. BEFORE US, LD A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANRIYA P ROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.R.DEVELOPERS HAS HELD THAT THE DEF INITION OF 'BUILT UP AREA' INSERTED BY FINANCE NO 2 OF 2004 WHICH CAME I NTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND HAS NO APPLIC ATION TO THE HOUSING PROJECTS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THAT DATE. BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY DECISION TO THAT OF THE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED BY ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB(10) AND WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN THE RES ULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2680/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. ITA NOS. 2679 & 26 80/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 9 10. BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN A.Y. 07-08 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 06-07. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED N THE A.Y. 07-08 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A. Y. 06-07, WE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPE AL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 06-07 ALSO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 07-08. THUS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 - 02 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT 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/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD