The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2715/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4666 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 56(2); 113; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 27 15 /A h d /2 01 7 Wit h C . O. N o. 2 8/ A h d/ 2 0 1 9 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 13- 1 4 ) I nc o me Ta x O f f ic er , War d - 3 ( 1 ) (4 ) , A h me da ba d V s .M / s. P l as te n e P o l yf il ms Pv t. L td ., 1 3, H .B . J i ra w al a H o u s e, O pp . P a nc h s h e e l B u s St o p, U s m a n p u r a , A h m e da b ad -3 80 0 1 3 [ P A N N o. A A FC P2 9 56 A ] (Appellant/Respondent) .. (Respondent/Cross Objector) Appellant by : Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 06.12.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 15.12.2023 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Department and Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 18.09.2017 passed for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,841/- i.e. disallowance of expenditure on account of Research & Development; though the statutory auditor has clearly classified the impugned expenses incurred to derive benefit of enduring nature and therefore the same is treated as capital expenditure. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of above issues. ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 2 - 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in its Cross Objections:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in misinterpretating the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) r.w.r. 11UA of the Act and not appreciating the legislative intent behind insertion of clause (viib) to section 56(2) of the Act. 2. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not following the directions of the Hon’ble CIT(A) and determined the fair market value of the new shares issued by the company same as what was derived during the assessment proceedings. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal.” 4. The assessee has also raised the additional ground of appeal in Cross Objection:- “Additional Ground No. 2 The Ld. CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in rejecting the request of the company to treat the CA certificate under rule 11UA(2)(b) as additional evidence and adjudicate the same. Ground No.3 The assessee craves leaves to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal.” We shall first take up the Department’s appeal Ground No.1:- CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,64,64,841/- being disallowance of expenditure on account of research and development. 5. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that during the course of assessment the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed Research and Development expenditure of Rs. 2,22,57,087/- as revenue expenditure and deducted the same from it’s business income. The ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 3 - Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee on as to why the aforesaid R & D Expenditure incurred on product development should not be treated as capital expenditure as the benefit of such expenditure was for the purpose of deriving enduring advantage and not restricted to the year under consideration. In response, the assessee submitted that the assessee company along with day to day commercial production also concurrently runs Research and Development activity for the development of new products. Till such time some break through is achieved in the nature of the production of new commercially viable product, such expenses are an idle extra cost to the company. However, the statutory auditors have recognized the Research and Development expenditure by adopting standard text book formula of yield and wastage. Accordingly, out of total cost relating to raw material consumption labour cost and power and fuel, the cost relating to Research and Development activities calculated by the auditors amounting to Rs. 2,22,57,087/- was capitalized and shown as deferred revenue expenditure and charged to Profit & Loss Account in 3 to 10 years on the basis of actual production to planned production volume over such period and the balance is described as “Product Development Expenses” and shown under the head “other current assets” at Schedule 3.11 of the Balance Sheet. However, for the purpose of taxation matters, though the statutory auditors have capitalized the above amount in the audited accounts, all revenue cost including the cost relating to Research & Development are admissible deduction during the year of incurring of such expenditure since no new product has come into existence. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that in the statement of income it has claimed the above amount as revenue expenditure by deducting the same from the net profit as per ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 4 - audited Profit & Loss Account. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,64,64,841/- and added the same to the income of the assessee with the following observations:- “4.6 Since, the assessee has not specifically given the details of the product being developed and auditor has categorically mentioned in his audit report that the expenditure is deferred revenue expenditure, the said research & development expenditure of Rs.2,22,57,087/- claimed by the assessee in return of income filed during the year under assessment is hereby disallowed and 1/10 th of such expenditure as well as of last year which comes to cumulatively Rs.57,92,246/- and which has also been certified by the statutory auditor is hereby allowed and excess expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,64,64,841/- [Rs.2,22,57,087/- (-) Rs.57,92,246/-] is hereby disallowed and added to the income.” 6. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition primarily on the ground that there is no doubt that the aforesaid expenditure is revenue in nature and further no new product has come into existence during the impugned year under consideration so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee has got any enduring benefit. Also, the Assessing officer while making the above disallowance has gone strictly by the note of the statutory auditor. Further, the Assessing Officer has also not doubted the genuineness of expenditure and from facts it is observed that the expenditure incurred under product development expenses are purely revenue in nature and no new product has come into existence. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- “5.2 I have carefully considered the rival contention as well as the observation of the A.O. Similar issue was dealt for one of the group concerns viz. Oswal Extrusion Ltd. For A.Y. 2013-14. It was held vide appeal order No.CIT(A)-9/465/2015-16 dated 13/01/2017 as under:- "9.4 I have carefully considered the rival contention as well as the observation of the A.O. It is observed that the A.O has made an addition of Rs. 5,31,82,295/- on account of disallowance of product development ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 5 - expenditure being treated as capital expenditure. According to A.O the appellant had shown in its balance sheet under the head Long Term loans and advances, product development expenses of Rs. 1,77,27,431/- and also under the head other current assets, product development expenses of Rs.3,18,79,772/-. Further according to A.O the appellant has also claimed amortization on product development expenses worth Rs. 5,31,82,295/- in its computation of income. The appellant tried to explain to the A.O that Rs.5,31,82,295/- is capitalized and Rs. 6,31,80,619/- was deb/ted back to P & L A/c. Accordingly, the net amount remaining in the balance sheet under the head other current assets and long term loans and advances was Rs. 3,18,79,772/- and Rs. 1,77,27431/- respectively. However, the A.O has not agreed with the contention of the appellant. On failure of the appellant to produce any documentary details and evidences regarding these expenses as well as by relying on the note of the statutory auditor of the appellant that the expenses of Rs. 5,31,82,295/- being related to R & D activities, the A.O has proceeded to disallow the said amount. 9.5 During the appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of HOPE bags. It admitted that apart from the regular commercial product/on it was also involved in the R & D activities. The statutory auditors have determined the expenses towards development of new products by adopting the formula of yield and wastage. Accordingly, the auditors have hypothetically calculated the quantum of Rs.5,31,82,295/- out of the total cost incurred relating to raw material consumption, labour cost and power and fuel in respect of R & D activities. It is further submitted that in the statement of income it has claimed the said amount as revenue expenditure by deducting the same from the net profit as per audited P & L A/c. and at the same time adding back the 20% of such expenses return back aggregating Rs. 6,31,80,619/-. Thus, according to appellant by treating the capitalized R & D expenses as revenue expenses and at the same time adding back the amortized amount debited to P & L A/c. it has stated its income at Rs. 99,98,324/- (6,31,80,619 - 5,31,82,295). According to appellant it has regularly followed the said practice and has not gone by the advice of the statutory auditor in deciding the correct nature of expenditure. It has further submitted that during the preceding A.Y i.e. A.Y.2012-13 the said issue was considered by the then A.O and after examining the legal position the A.O had allowed the R & D expenses as revenue expenditure. It further submitted that the A.O for A.Y.2013-14 has also allowed the product development expenses as revenue expenditure in the case of its associate concern namely M/s. Plastene India Lid. During the appellate proceedings the appellant submitted the additional evidences under rule 46A with regard to the expenses that were incurred in respect of product development expenditure which were not examined by the A.O during the assessment proceedings. After considering the facts that the A.O has not examined these expenses during the assessment proceedings the said additional evidences were admitted and the A.O submitted its remand report on 7th October, 2016. It is observed from the remand report of the ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 6 - A.O that neither during the assessment proceedings nor during the remand proceedings the A.O has ever raised the doubt about the genuineness of expenditure incurred for the product development. The only issue that remains on hand is whether the expenditure incurred is of capital in nature or revenue in nature. The appellant further submitted that it has not claimed in double deduction in respect of the said expenses. According to appellant although the amount amortized in the books is different from the amount claimed as deduction, it has neither written off the product development expenses in A.Y.2016-17 nor claimed the same as deduction in furnishing the return of income for A.Y.2016-17. Considering all these facts I disagree with the A.O for the reason that although the appellant has treated the capitalized R & D expenses as revenue expenditure, but at the same time it has added back the amortized amount debited to P & L A/c. This has resulted into the income of Rs. 99,98,324/-. Further neither during the remand proceedings or the assessment proceedings the A.O has ever questioned the genuineness of the expenses. In earlier assessment years as well the appellant has been allowed to claim the product development expenses as revenue expenses. Therefore, I hereby delete the addition of Rs. 5,31,82,295/- being disallowed on account of capital expenditure. Thus, the ground of appeal is allowed." It can be seen from the above referred findings in the case of Oswal Extrusion Ltd. for A.Y.2013-14 that it was held by me that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on product development would be allowable as revenue expenditure, it is seen from the records that the A.O itself has considered the product development expenditure as revenue expenditure in the case of Oswal Extrusion Ltd. For A.Y.2012-13. Similarly in another group concern namely M/s. Plastene India Ltd., the A.O for A.Y. 2013-14 has allowed the product development expenses as revenue expenditure. It is observed that during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2013-14 in the case of appellant the A.O has disallowed Rs. 1,64,64,841/- (Rs. 2,22,57,087 - 57,92,246) on account of not being revenue expenditure and has gone strictly by the note of statutory auditor. The appellant has relied on various judgments such as the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Harig Crank Shafts Ltd. 325 ITR 304, DCIT vs Max india Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002, DCIT vs Rediff .com India Ltd, 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), Gujarat Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. 142 ITR 35 (Guj), CIT vs Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. 196 Taxman 94 (Del) etc. I agree with the contention of the appellant as well as the reliance placed on these judgments. It is seen that as per the advice of the statutory auditor the appellant has capitalized Rs.2,22,57,087/- on account of product development expenses in the audited accounts. Further, it is also seen that all the expenses that have been capitalized under product development expenses are admissible as revenue expenditure. Nowhere in the order of assessment the A.O has raised the question of genuineness of these expenses. The appellant has claimed the above amount as revenue expenditure in its computation of income. As the expenditure incurred under the product development expenses are purely revenue in nature and the new product has also not come into existence, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant would be eligible to claim the said expenses as revenue expenses and not capital ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 7 - expenditure. Accordingly, the A.O is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,841/-. The grounds of appeal is allowed.” 7. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. Before us, the Ld. D.R. primarily relied upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The Ld. D.R. argued that in view of the specific observations made by the auditors, aforesaid expenditure ought to have been capitalized and accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in allowing the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 9. In response, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments made before Ld. CIT(A), which are to the effect that firstly, the genuineness of the aforesaid expenses have not been questioned by the Assessing Officer, the expenses as observed by Ld. CIT(A) are clearly revenue in nature, no new product has come into existence which would give rise to any enduring benefit to the assessee and finally it is not the case of the Department that assessee has incurred any capital expenditure, but as per Auditors, the revenue expenditure needs to be “deferred” over a period of 3 to 10 years on the basis of actual production to planned production volume over such period. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, the aforesaid expenditure has been rightly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) as revenue expenditure since the same has been incurred during the year under consideration. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the case of Parabolic Drugs Ltd, the ITAT held that where ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 8 - assessee-company was engaged in business of manufacture of drugs and chemicals, salary and wages paid to manpower deployed for carrying out research and development (R & D); materials consumed in process of R & D; and expenditure incurred on registration of products in other countries, could not be described as expenditure in nature of capital. In the case of Modi Olivetti Ltd. 38 taxmann.com 113 (Allahabad), the assessee was engaged in business of manufacture and sale of computers. During the year, it incurred certain expenditure towards research and development. In books of account, assessee treated one-third of expenditure as relating to assessment year 1992-93 and remaining two-third was written off in succeeding two financial years. In assessment year 1992-93, assessee claimed entire expenditure as deductible on plea that it was of revenue in nature and incurred during previous year. The Assessing Officer held that expenditure was deductible only under section 35D and accordingly disallowed claim of deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that expenditure was revenue in nature and directed Assessing Officer to allow deduction to extent of one-third of expenditure in assessment year in question. The High Court held that the provisions of section 35D had no application to instant case and further since expenditure incurred by assessee was of revenue nature and had been spent wholly and exclusively for purposes of business, assessee was entitled to claim entire expenditure as deduction in assessment year in question and it had to be allowed. In the case of Kopran Ltd. 14 taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai), during relevant assessment year assessee incurred expenses on promotion of new products and brands which had been treated as deferred revenue expenditure in books of account and amortized for a period of six years. However, while ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 9 - computing taxable income, entire expenses were claimed as deduction being revenue in nature. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure claimed by assessee. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee's claim. In appeal, ITAT held that accounting treatment given by assessee was not relevant for purpose of determining whether or not expenditure was to be allowed as deduction. Even otherwise, expenditure of revenue nature was allowable in full in computation of profits in year in which liability had crystallized. In the case of Serum Institute of India Ltd. 72 taxmann.com 361 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that Accounting entries in books of account would not be determining factor for deciding nature of expenditure; therefore, where assessee incurred expenditure on account of product development by way of new drugs or vaccines which included expenses towards payment of salaries, testing charges, R&D expenses, repairs and maintenance, consumption of raw material, etc. which were revenue in nature, said expenditure could not be disallowed on ground that assessee in its books of account had shown such expenditure as capital in nature. In the case of Perfect Engineering Products Ltd. 36 taxmann.com 502 (Mumbai - Trib.), the Mumbai ITAT held that where expenditure in question are relatable to business of assessee then simply for reasons that these have given some enduring benefit to assessee, same cannot be regarded as capital expenditure. In the case of Vijayeshwari Textiles Ltd. 121 taxmann.com 29 (Madras), the Madras High Court held that Product development expenses are deductible even though said expenditure was to be amortized over a period of 3 years as per accounting practice adopted by assessee. ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 10 - 11. Accordingly, it is a well settled principle that irrespective of the accounting treatment, there is no concept of deferment of revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act. If looking into the nature of expenses, the same are revenue in nature, then the same are allowable during the year in which the expenses have been incurred. In the instant facts, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that genuineness of the expenses are not under doubt. Further, it is also not in dispute that looking into the nature of expenses, the same are revenue in nature. The only reason why the Assessing Officer sought to defer the claim of expenditure by the assessee was on the basis of remarks given by the auditors in the tax audit report. It is also not the case that according to the Department that the expenses are capital in nature. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts we are of the considered view that the aforesaid expenditure are allowable during the impugned year under consideration itself as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. 12. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Now we shall discuss the assessee’s Cross Objection 13. The brief facts in relation to assessee’s Cross Objections are that the assessee company had allotted 6,30,000/- shares to Shri Prakash Parekh and Shri Pritesh Parekh, Director of the assessee company. These shares were allotted at a premium of Rs. 90/- and having face value of Rs. 10/-, thereby aggregating to Rs. 100/- per share. The assessee had furnished valuation of its share as per the provisions of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 11 - According, to the assessee the valuation per share came to Rs. 96 inclusive of face value of the share. However, as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee had received excess amount of Rs. 20.26 per share on the allotment of 63,000 shares. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,27,63,800/- under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, the assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has submitted valuation under Rule 11UA which shows the value of shares Rs. 96/- per share and that the shares have been issued by the assessee @ Rs. 100 per share. According to the assessee, the difference in terms of percentage comes to less than 5% only and the same has to be considered within the commercial permissible range. It was further submitted that the shares were allotted to the Directors of the company and therefore, there is no question of generation or circulation of unaccounted money. The assessee has also requested for admission of additional evidence but, the same was however, denied by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not identified the precise additional evidence that was not presented before the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate FMV of unquoted shares as per the Rule 11UA(b) of the Income Tax Rules. In the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer again arrived at the same working and accordingly confirmed the same addition in the hands of the assessee. 14. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by stating that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 11UA(2)(b) in support of the valuation done by the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per Rule ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 12 - 11UA as it stood at the relevant time, submission of C.A. Certificate was admissible as proof of valuation of share allotment in terms of Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules. Further, it was pointed out that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain errors in the valuation and the assessee had furnished correct working before Ld. CIT(A), had the same has been reproduced at Page 3 of the Paper Book furnished before us. Further, the assessee also submitted that copy of C.A. Certificate was also sought to be furnished before the Ld. CIT(A), which was omitted to be considered. As per the said C.A. Certificate, valuation of the shares was Rs. 100.46 per shares. Copy of C.A. Certificate has been produced before us at Pages 62 to 65 of the Paper Book. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in so far as it has failed to take into consideration the correct computation for valuation of shares furnished to him during the course of appellate proceedings and also did not allow the assessee to file C.A. Certificate issued in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, in support of valuation done by the assessee. 15. In response, Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders on this issue. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) clearly erred in facts and law in ignoring the C.A. Certificate which as per Rule 11UA, a it stood at the relevant time was an admissible proof of valuation of share allotment. Further, the Counsel for the assessee ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 13 - submitted that his C.A. Certificate had also been produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but the same had been ignored by the Assessing Officer by while carrying out the valuation of shares. In our considered view, looking into the instant facts, in our view the Ld. CIT(A) should have given due consideration and weightage to the C.A. Certificate furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings as proof of valuation in terms of Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules. However, Ld. CIT(A) omitted to consider the same while passing the appellate order. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to take into consideration the C.A. Certificate issued by the assessee as evidence in support of valuation of shares in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules and the calculation submitted by assessee as per alternate method and thereafter pass order in accordance with law, after seeking remand report from the Ld. AO, if deemed necessary. Accordingly, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the above direction. 17. In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 18. In the combined result the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/12/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 15/12/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA No. 2715/Ahd/2017 with C.O. No. 28/A/2019 ITO vs. M/s. Plastene Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year –2013-14 - 14 - आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 11.12.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 12.12.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 12.12.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .12.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 15.12.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 15.12.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................