The ITO, Ward-2(3), Baroda V. M/s. Shiv Corporation, Baroda

ITA 2947/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89474 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO.2947/AHD/2011 (ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BARODA V/S M/S. SHIV CORPORATION B/S. NANDISHWAR PLOT, NR. BRIGHT SCHOOL, VASNA BHAALI, BARODA-15 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABAFS9291G APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 18-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -05-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-II, BARODA DATED 29.09.2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SERVED TO ASSESSEE ON 20.0 3.2015 INFORMING ABOUT THE FIXING OF HEARING ON 18.05.2015. WE FIND THAT T HE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED UNDELIVERED WITH THE REMARK OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES NOT KNOWN. THE CHANGED POSTAL ADDRESS, IF ANY, IS ALSO NOT ON RECORD. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NO R ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON ITS BEHALF. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE PROCEED TO ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 2 DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 23.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 17,54,590/- U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE A CT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAM ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WA S DETERMINED AT RS. 17,54,590/- WHEREBY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80I B WAS DENIED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS;- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW T HE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) R.W.S.80IB(L) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION IN ITA NO.L503/AHD/2008 DATED 07.11.2008, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS WELL AS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSES SEE BUT TO THE LANDOWNER AND THE RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SAID APPROVAL WERE NOT TRANSFERABLE, AND THAT TRANSFER OF DWELLING UNITS IN FAVOUR OF THE END-USE RS WAS MADE BY THE LANDOWNER AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW T HE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) R.W.S.80IB(L) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO THE ON PROFI T DERIVED FROM SALE OF UNUTILIZED FSI IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S.RADHE DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.2482/AHD/2006 DATED 29.06.2007, WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THAT THIS PROFIT NOT AN ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 3 ELEMENT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVI TY OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT RELATING TO THE SALE OF TENE MENTS. 4. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED U/S. 80IB OF RS. 17,54,590/-. A.O ON TH E BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AS IT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WAS CARRIED OUT, ASSESSEE H AD NOT TAKEN THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN BY OT HER PERSON, THE LAND OWNERS HAD SOLD THE PIECES OF LAND TO THE UNIT HOLD ERS DIRECTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR AS IT HAD ENTERED INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIT HOLDERS, THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT SOLD THE HOUSE TO THE UNIT HOLDERS. APART FROM THE AFORESAID, A.O ALSO NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TOTAL PLOT AREA OF 6183 SQ. MTS. FOR DEVELOPMENT (A FTER REDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMON PLOT ROAD ETC) AND ON THE BASIS OF 1.6 FS I, IT WAS ELIGIBLE TO CONSTRUCT 7206.20 SQ. MTS. BUT HAD UTILIZED ONLY 41 97.95 SQ. MTS. OF FSI. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROFIT ALSO INCL UDES PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO SALE OF UNUTILIZED FSI ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10). HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF UNUTILIZED FSI AS WORKED OUT BY HIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,32,459/- WA S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE ENTIRE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 4 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION AND OTHERS AND THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND NOT BEING A MANDATORY CO NDITION HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADHE BUILDERS AN D OTHERS (SUPRA). IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THAT THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND, THE RISK AND COSTS OF THE PROJECT ARE THAT OF THE APPELLANT, HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) BY THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA, AS PER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKTI CORPORATION AND OTHERS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FOLLOWING THE AB OVE MENTIONED JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE AHMEDABAD ITAT, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS ALLOWED, SUBJECT TO THE OFFICER FINDING THAT THE SI TUATION HAS NOT CHANGED AND THE ASSESSEE PASSES THE TEST LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAKT I CORPORATION AND OTHERS, THIS YEAR TOO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL LOOK INTO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LANDOWNER(S) AND DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT PURCHASED THE LAND FOR A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LANDOWNER(S) AND HAS DEVELOP ED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISKS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT PRACTICALLY THE LAND HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEVEL OPER HAS ALL DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND HAS DEVELOPED THE LAND AT HIS OWN C OST AND RISKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB (10). IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE LANDO WNER AND HAS GOT A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LANDOWNER FOR THE DEVELOPMEN T OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(1 0). IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ON PAGE 41 PARA 29 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT DEDUCTION OF 80IB(10) IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLE TED WITHIN THE DUE DATE. ON PAGE 7 PARA 6.8, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUOTED ASSESSEE'S LE TTER DATED 23.12.2009 STATING THAT 'THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED ON 08.02.2005 AND THE COMPLETI ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN OBTAINED ON 29.04.2009, AS SUCH THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE IN TIME.' NO OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS POINT IS FOUND IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION. MATT ER WAS THEREFORE REFERRED TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BARODA, WHO SUBMITTE D LETTER DATED 29.09.2001 TO CLARIFY THAT 'ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORD, IN PARA 6 .1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON DATED 29.04.2009 WHICH IS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER INSTEAD OF 12.02.2008 AS PER THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE VUDA LETTER DATED 28.0 2,2008, COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.12.2009 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFE RENCE'. SINCE THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE BEFORE 31.03.2008, THAT IS NO DELAY AND TH E DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) CANNOT BE DENIED ON THIS COUNT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 5 7. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE A.O. APART FROM DENYING THE DEDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF LAND HAD ALSO DENIED THE DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE AS THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT FULLY UTILIZED THE FSI. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN A R ECENT DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOON DEVEL OPERS REPORTED IN (2014) 367 ITR 621 (GUJ), HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THA T WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS THE PROFIT OF AN UNDERTAKING DERIVED FROM DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT. MER E SALE OF OPEN LAND OR UNUSED FSI AS PART OF HOUSING PROJECT WHERE UTILIZA TION OF THE FSI IS WAY SHORT OF PERMISSIBLE LIMITS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM HOUSING PROJECT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A), WHILE D ECIDING THE ISSUE HAS GIVEN NO FINDING WITH RESPECT TO SALE OF FSI. HE TH EREFORE SUBMITTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MOON STAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), THE ISSUE NEEDS TO RE-EXAMINED AT THE END OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE A.O WHILE DENYING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) HAD APART FROM THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF LAN D BUT HAD ACTED AS A CONTRACTOR HAD ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FUL LY UTILIZED THE FSI AVAILABLE TO IT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT AND HAD UTILIZED ONLY 4197.95 SQ. MT. OUT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF 7206.20 SQ. MT. OF LAND. WE FURTHER FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE HAS NOT DEALT W ITH THE ASPECT OF FSI. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MOON STAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS NOTED AS UNDER:- 31. IT IS TRUE THAT SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DOE S NOT PROVIDE THAT FOR DEDUCTION, THE UNDERTAKING M UST UTILIZE 100% OF THE FSI AVAILABLE. THE QUESTION HOW EVER IS, CAN AN UNDERTAKING UTILIZE ONLY A SMALL ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 6 PORTION OF THE AVAILABLE AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION, SEL L THE PROPERTY LEAVING AMPLE SCOPE FOR THE PURCHASE R TO CARRY ON FURTHER CONSTRUCTION ON HIS OWN AND CLA IM FULL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY? IF TH IS CONCEPT IS ACCEPTED, IN A GIVEN CASE, AN ASSESSE E MAY PUT UP CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY 100 SQ. FT. ON THE ENTIRE AREA OF ONE ACRE OF PLOT AND SELL THE SAME T O A SINGLE PURCHASER AND CLAIM FULL DEDUCTION ON THE PR OFIT ARISING OUT OF SUCH SALE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10 ) OF THE ACT. SURELY, THIS CANNOT BE STATED TO BE DEV ELOPMENT OF A HOUSING PROJECT QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT TO S UGGEST THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT, INVARIABLY IN ALL CASES, THE ASSES SEE MUST UTILIZE THE FULL FSI AND ANY SHORTAGE IN S UCH UTILIZATION WOULD INVITE WRATH OF THE CLAIM UNDER S ECTION 80IB(10), BEING REJECTED. THE QUESTION IS WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE. IN OUR OPINION, THE I SSUE HAS TO BE SEEN FROM CASE TO CASE BASIS. MARGINAL UNDER-UTILIZATION OF FSI CERTAINLY CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDE RABLE UNDER-UTILIZATION, IF THE ASSESSEE CAN POINT OUT ANY SPECIAL GROUNDS WHY THE FSI COULD NOT BE FULLY UTILIZED, SUCH AS, HEIGHT RESTRICTION BECAUSE OF SPECIAL ZONE, PASSING OF HIGH TENSION ELECTRIC WIRE S OVERHEAD, OR ANY SUCH SIMILAR GROUNDS TO JUSTIFY UNDER UTILIZATION, THE CASE MAY STAND ON A DIFFEREN T FOOTING. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE UTILIZATION OF FSI IS WAY SHORT OF THE PERMISSIBLE AREA OF CONSTRU CTION, LOOKING TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION ON TH E INCOME FROM DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECTS ENVISAGED THEREUNDER, BIFURCATION OF SUCH PROFITS A RISING OUT OF SUCH ACTIVITY AND THAT ARISING OUT OF THE NET SELL OF FSI MUST BE RESORTED TO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NONE OF THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE ANY SPECIAL GROUND FOR NON-UTILIZATION OF THE FSI. 32. THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AS LONG AS THERE HAS BEEN 100% UTILIZATION OF THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE AREA ON THE GROUND FLOOR, DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DECLINED, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. AS NOTED EARLIER, IN CASE OF M/S. MOON STAR DEVELOPERS AND MANY OTHER ASSESSES, SUCH FULL UTILIZATION OF THE GROUND FLOOR AREA AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION RESULTED INTO BARE LY 20% TO 25% OF THE FSI BEING USED, REMAINING MORE TH AN 75% BEING LEFT UNUSED. 33. WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IB(10) OF THE ACT IS THE PROFIT OF AN UNDERTAKING DERIVED FROM DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJ ECT. MERE SALE OF OPEN LAND OR UNUSED FSI AS PART OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WHERE UTILIZATION OF THE FSI IS WAY SHORT OF PERMISSIBLE LIMITS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THERE IS NO FACTUAL FINDING BY CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSEES EL IGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WITH RESPECT TO UTILIZATION OF FSI. WE FUR THER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB, BY APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISION OF SHAKTI CORPORATION AND ORS. (SUPRA), HAS DIRECTED T HE A.O TO LOOK INTO THE ITA NO 2947/ AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007-0 8 7 AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LAND OWN ER, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALL DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND HAS DEVELOPED THE LAND , THEN TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION. LD. CIT(A) THUS WITHOUT GIVING ANY CLEAR FINDING HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE TO A.O. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE FACTUAL ISSUE NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION IN THE LI GHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOON STAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION AND RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE REMIT THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF T HE AFORESAID DECISIONS AND AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT CIT(A) SHALL GR ANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASS ESSEE TO FURNISH PROMPTLY ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER 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,AH MEDABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 - 05 - 2015.