Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2700/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8260 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARIN SHAH ARS MS VA; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NOS. ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2700/AHD/2016 2012-13 GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK NO.3,4 & 5 UDYOG BHAWAN SECTOR-11 GANDHINAGAR-382 001 PAN: AABCG 8033 D THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD (REVENUE) 2. 2738/AHD/2016 2012-13 THE ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD -ASSESSEE- 3. 427/AHD/2017 2013-14 -ASSESSEE- -REVENUE- 4. 544/AHD/2017 2013-14 -REVENUE- -ASSESSEE- ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH, ARS REVENUE BY : MS.VASHUNDARA UPMANYU,CIT-DR !'#$ / DATE OF HEARING 08/11/2017 %&'#$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/ 11 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 2 - INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 31/08/2016 & 28/12/2016 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER S.143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') DATED 25/03/2015 AND DATED 28/03/2016 RELEVANT TO ASSESS MENT YEARS (AYS) 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN BOTH THE CROSS-APPEALS, THE FACTS AND QUESTI ON FOR DETERMINATION ARE BROADLY SIMILAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-03 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD YEAR FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.2700/AHD/2016 AY 2012-13 ASSESSEES APPE AL 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL THAT, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT IS AN AGENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND, THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITU TION OF INDIA, IT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY OF TAX UNDER THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT FALL IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COM MERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBL E TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE , THE BENEFITS OF SECTIONS 11(1) AND 11(1 A) OR THE BENEFIT OF APPLICATION OR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S. 11(1) OR U/S.11(1)(D) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE AVAIL ABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 5.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PREMIUM RECEIVED ON LONG TERM LEASE OF LAND IS INCO ME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT SUCH PREMIUM IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT. 5.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE ADVANCE PREMIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR ON LONG TERM LEASE OF LAND IS APPELLANT'S INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5.3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT, EVEN IF SUCH ADVANCE PREMIUM IS ASSUMED TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME , THE SAME ARISES FROM LEASING OF LAND FOR A PERIOD OF 99 YEARS AND ACCORD INGLY SUCH PREMIUM RECEIPTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROPORTIONATELY SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 5.4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT, WHILE HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS A LAND DEALER/REAL ES TATE DEVELOPER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE WELL-SETTLED LAW THAT THE SALE OF LAND ONLY MATERIALIZES IN THE YEAR OF PASSING OF TITLE ON EXE CUTION OF VALID TRANSFER DEEDS. ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 4 - 5.5 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION FROM GROSS A DVANCE PREMIUM, IN RESPECT OF COST AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION T O SUCH ADVANCE PREMIUM RECEIPTS, AT A FIGURE OF RS. 819,49,88,617, BY A DOPTING AN ESTIMATED RATE OF 60% AGAINST THE LEASE PREMIUM RECEIVED OF RS. 13,65 ,83,14,362. 6.(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AT RS. 2,80,18,241 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AT RS.62,87,37,304. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOW ED ONLY ON ADDITIONS TO THE ASSETS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-1 2 AND FURTHER AFTER REDUCING THERE FROM THE PROPORTIONATE COST TO BE DE DUCTED FROM THE ADVANCE PREMIUM RECEIPTS, AS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A). 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING AS INFRUCTUOUS THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A): '12.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME THEN BROUGHT FORWARD DEFICIT OF EARLIER YEARS I.E. UPTO A.Y. 200 8-09 SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SUCH BUSINESS INCOME OF CURRE NT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 12.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE DEFICIT OF EARLIER YEARS I.E. EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE (INCLUDING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE) OVER INCOME, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE C ARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IF ANY, DETERMINED AT ANY STAGE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDI NGS, BY CONSIDERING IT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH SET OFF AND CARRY FOR WARD. ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - 12.3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AS PER RETURN OF INCOME SHO ULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF S UBSEQUENT YEARS, IF ANY DETERMINED AT ANY STAGE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS, BY CONSIDERING IT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11 (1 )(A) OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH SET OFF AND C ARRY FORWARD. 12.4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO SET OFF THE DE FICIT OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST INCOME OF CURRENT YEARS ONLY IN THE EVENT O F APPLICATION OF INCOME, BEFORE CONSIDERING SUCH BROUGHT FORWARD DEF ICIT, FALLING SHORT OF 85 % OF INCOME OF CURRENT YEAR.' 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER U/S.436 OF THE IT. ACT IN RESPECT OF UNPAID LEAVE ENCASHMENT O F RS.13,41,81,550. ITA NO.2738/AHD/2016 AY 2012-13 REVENUES APPEA L 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE IS THE LD.CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT AT RS.5,56,33,25,746/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.1 3,65,83,14,363/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM OF LAND AND SHADES. II. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE IS THE LD.CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO TAX TH E LEASE PREMIUM AT THE RATE OF 40%. 5. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.S.N.SOPARKAR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT PREDOMINANT GROUND WHICH REQUIRES AD JUDICATION AT THIS STAGE IS GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 6 - THAT THE AO HELD FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE EA RLIER YEAR THAT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ARE IN THE NATU RE OF ADVANCEMENT OF OTHER GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IN THE NATURE OF TRAD E/COMMERCE/BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE RECKONED AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEA NING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ACCORDING LY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.11 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL IN THIS CONTEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY IS CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ACT, I.E. GUJAR AT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1962. THE OBJECT OF GUJARAT INDUS TRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GIDC) IS TO ESTABLISH AND DEVELOP THE INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE GIDC IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO FULFIL L THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT. TH E GIDC IS ACQUIRING LAND ALL OVER GUJARAT TO DEVELOP INDUSTRI AL STATES. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN CONSTITUTED BY LAW FOR FACILITATING FOR ALL KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT FOR P UBLIC PURPOSES REQUIRE TO BE TREATED AS THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ENGAGED FOR CH ARITABLE PURPOSE AND THUS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.11 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL NEXT SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROS E IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011- 12 IN ITA NOS.278/AHD/2013 AND ORS. ORDER DATED 10/01/2017 WH ERE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY CANNOT ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 7 - SAID TO BE CONDUCTING ITS AFFAIRS SOLELY ON COMMERC IAL LINES WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN PROFIT AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT DOES NOT GET TRIGGERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS HELD TO BE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE LD. COUNSEL THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (2017) 80 TAXMAN N.COM 366 (GUJ.). THE LD.COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSE QUENTIAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE CARRIED OUT AFRESH AFTER DEEMING THE ACTIVIT IES OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE FAIRLY SET ASIDE IN THE LIG HT OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT AND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). ON THIS NOTE, THE LD.COUNSEL CONCLU DED HIS ARGUMENTS. 6. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RE LIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDI CE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DETERMINATI ON OF ASSESSED INCOME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS QUOTED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE C ORE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS CORRECTNESS OF APPLICABILITY OF PROV ISO TO S.2(1T) IN DUE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSU E AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 8 - CASE IN THE PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE F IND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DETERMINED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT APPLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT CONSEQUENTLY UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITY FOR CHARITABLE PU RPOSE. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BE NCH IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WITHOUT ANY S UCCESS. THE CATCH- NOTES OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- SECTION 2(15), READ WITH SECTION 11, OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CHARITABLE PURPOSE (OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY) - ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10 - WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION WAS CONSTITUTED UNDER GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1962, FOR PURPOSE OF SE CURING AND ASSISTING RAPID AND ORDERLY ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND INDUSTRIAL ESTATES IN STATE OF GUJARAT, AND FOR PUR POSE OF ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL CENTERS IN CONNECTION WITH ESTABLISHMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF SUCH INDUSTRIES IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ACTIVITIE S CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE WERE EITHER IN NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINES S, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION SO AS TO ATTRACT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SAME COULD BE SAID TO BE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND, CON SEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 - HELD, YES [PARAS 15 AND 17] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]. 8. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ESSENCE UPHELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE SPIRIT OF COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATION AND THEREFORE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.2(15) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 9 - THE FOREGOING, WE FIND THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD BE RECOGNIZED TO BE OF CHARITABLE NATURE REQUIRES TO BE ENDORSED. HOWEVE R, ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE WOULD REQUIRE RE-EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF CONCLUSION DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE TOWARDS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT A S NOTED ABOVE. THUS, ALL OTHER ISSUES ARE KEPT OPEN FOR RE-EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. 9. IN THE RESULT, CROSS-APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IN ITA NO.2738/AHD/2016 & 2700/AHD/2016 RELEVANT TO A Y 2012-13 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF DIRECT IONS NOTED HEREINABOVE. ITA NO.427/AHD/2017 AY 2013-14 - ASSESSEES APPE AL AND ITA NO.544/AHD/2017 AY 2013-14 - REVENUES APPEA L 10. THE DIRECTIONS AND FINDINGS IN ITA NOS.2700/AHD /2016 AND ITA NO.2738/AHD/2016 FOR AY 2012-13 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO BOTH THE CROSS-APPEALS IN ITA NOS.427/AHD/2017 & 54 4/AHD/2017 RELEVANT TO AY 2013-14. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED BY THE AO FOR AY 2013-14 IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BA CK TO HIS FILE FOR RE- EXAMINATION AND FOR DE NOVO FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CONSONANCE WITH DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN AY 2012-13(SUP RA). ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 10 - 11. IN THE RESULT, CROSS-APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE IN ITA NOS.427/AHD/2017 AND 544/AHD/2017 RELEVANT TO AY 20 13-14 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, CAPTIONED APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/ 11 /2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 11 /2017 -..!,.!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234$ 5$ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5$ ( . ) / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR 5. 67$!34 , ..34' , .2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 16$$ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NOS.2700/AH D/16 & 427/AHD/17 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NOS.2738/AHD/16 & 544/AHD/17 (BY REVENUE) GIDC VS. DCIT/ACIT ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 11 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..9.11.17 (DICTATION-PAD 11-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.11.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.10.11.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 10.11.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER