Dhanlaxmi Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, CPC-TDS, Gaziabad

ITA 2888/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9943 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S V AGRAWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERS, 8, NAND KUTIR, B/H. DOCTOR HOUSE, NR. PARIMAL GARDEN, ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT PAN : AAGFD 9348 G VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.V. AGRAWAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH JHA , SR - DR / DATE OF HEARING 29/12/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/01/2016 / O R D E R THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD DATED 14.08.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS BELONG TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND ALMOST IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS; THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, I TAKE THE LEAD CASE AS ITA NO. 2888/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2014-15. ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS:- THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF FEES U /S 234E IS BAD IN LAW ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THERE IS NO INHERENT POWER WITH AO (DCIT-CPC CE LL- TDS) U/S 200A OF THE ACT TO LEVY AND CHARGE FEES U/ S 234E ON THEIR OWN IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC POWER CONFERRED ON THEM. SUCH POWER IS ABSENT IN SAID SECTION. NO ONE CAN ASSUME SUCH PER SUO MOTTO. 2. THERE IS NO PROVISION U/S 234E THAT AFTER FILING TDS RETURN, LATE FILING FEE CAN BE DEMANDED. 3. THERE IS NO PROVISION U/S 204 R.W.S. 234E FOR MA KING PERSON/OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF LATE FILI NG FEES OF LATE TDS RETURN. THERE IS NO PROVISION U/S 204 FOR PAYING TDS FROM SALARY AND NOT LATE RETURN FEES. 4. LATE FEES DEMAND CANNOT BE RAISED BY PROCESSING TDS RETURN BECAUSE SECTION 200A DO NOT PROVIDE DEFAULT FOR PAYMENT OF LATE FEES U/S 234E. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES FOR LIBERTY TO AMEND, MO DIFY AND ADD ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SI MILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TANISH IND USTRIES PVT LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.2296/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2014-15 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPEC TIVE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE L ATE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234-E CAN BE LEVIED PRIOR TO 01/06/2015. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMI NED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIDDHI VINAY AK DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT(SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT, AMRISTAR BEN CH HAS MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE. THE FINDI NG HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. D CIT, GHAZIABAD RENDERED IN ITA NO.3271/AHD/2014. IT READ S AS UNDER: 5. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT - ITA NO.90/ASR/2015, VIDE ORDER DA TED 9TH JUNE, 2015, WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], HONBLE KARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHYA BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HONBLE COURTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 4 THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2010. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT TH E RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 5 (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, OR A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTI ON AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BAS IS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE T O, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUN T PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 6 (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS O F THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY, O R THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUBSECTION. 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMENDMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTION ( 1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL B E SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY: (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE T O, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAIN ST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COURSE O F PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE FEE, I F ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 234E. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 7 IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STOOD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISIO N THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FE ES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECTION 200A, WHICH, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHMETICA L ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT - SECTION 200A(1)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE TO, OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBL E IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSI BLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 246A( A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED LEGAL ITY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS N OT DONE SO. HE HAS JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BAS IS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY COULD BE EFFE CTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENA BLING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT T O US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A, NO SUC H LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 2 00A, RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 8 END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILED, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS AL SO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEV Y OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE , THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND D ELETE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. WHEN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT TO PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FAIRLY DID NOT DIS PUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS ACCEPTING LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E HAVE INDEED BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2015 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MUCH BEFORE THAT DATE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I HEREBY DELETE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY WAY OF IMPUGNED INTIMATION ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE REL IEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. 6. WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISPARITY ON THE FACTS, THEREFOR E, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 2 34E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5.1. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF COORDINATE BENC H, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE LATE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ((SMC) ITA NOS. 2888 TO 2891/AHD/2015 DHANLAXMI DEVELOPERSVS. DCIT AY 2014-15 9 4. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING T HE SAME REASONING I AM NOT INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A); THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF TANISH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD (SUPRA), I ALLOW ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND DELETE THE LATE FEE CHARGED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1ST JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/01/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD