The ITO, Ward-2(1), Surat V. Shri Alauddin S.Khan, Surat

ITA 3123/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 312320514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. , ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 I.T.O., WARD-2(1), SURAT V/S . SHREE ALAUDDIN S. KHAN A/15, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, ROAD NO.1, UDHANA, SURAT PAN NO. ABOPK8316N (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) #$ % & / BY APPELLANT SHRI O. P. BATHEJA, SR. D.R. '(#$ % & /BY RESPONDENT SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. )* % /DATE OF HEARING 30.10.2013 +,- % /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.01.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF REVENUE WHICH HA S EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, SURAT, DATED 31.08.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.10,47,500/- IN RESPECT OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECI ATION CLAIMED ON SWARAJ MAZDA VAN AND HEAVY VEHICLES. ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 2 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO OF RS.60,000/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOU NT OF FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR TEMPO VAN RENT. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,9 7,833/- (RS.399377 + RS.98506) MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES NOTICED IN GROSS RECEI PTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES AND THAT CREDITED TO P&L ACCOUNT. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.10,47,500/- IN RESPECT OF HIGHER RAT E OF DEPRECIATION. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SWARAJ MAZDA VAN/HEAVY VEHICLES @ 40% TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS AND 20% ON VEHICLES LESS THAN 180 DAYS. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD. A.O. ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 15% AND EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT RS.11,46,872/- WAS ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE AP PEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS . I AGREE WITH THE AR THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO THAT THE VEHICLES WER E NOT HIRED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. IT WAS NOT DISPUTE D BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LOADING, UN LOADING AND TRANSPORTATION OF HEAVY GOODS. IF THAT WAS SO, IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH AGAIN WAS NOT DISPUTED , WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINES S WHICH INCLUDED ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 3 TRANSPORTATION. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED HIS INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY UNDER THE COMPOSITE HEAD OF 'MAJURI INCOME ', IT ALSO INCLUDED THE HIRING CHARGES OF THE VEHICLES UTILISED FOR TRANSPO RTATION OF THE LOADED GOODS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CASE SQUARELY FELL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT R.W. EXPLANATION (A) AN D FURTHER READ WITH THE DEPRECATION TABLE UNDER NEW APPENDIX-I. THE VEHICLE S OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE QUITE CLEARLY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. UN DER SUB-CLAUSE- (II) TO CLAUSE-(3) OF SUB-HEADING-III OF PART-A, DEPRECIATI ON ON MOTOR CAR USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING ON HIRE IS ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATI ON @ 30%. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 40% ON SWARAJ MAZDA /HEAVY VEHICLES, THE FORMER BEING A MOTOR BUS, WILL BE ALLOWED DEPRE CIATION @ 30%. HOWEVER, THE HEAVY VEHICLES, APART FROM THE MOTOR B USES AND MOTOR LORRIES, INCLUDING THE MOBILE HYDRAULIC CRANES, WIL L BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 40% UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (III).( THE AO THEREFORE WIL L HAVE TO CALL FOR FURTHER DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW DEPRECI ATION ACCORDINGLY. 6.1 IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR HIM TO A LLOW DEPRECATION ONLY @ 15% ON ALL SUCH VEHICLES USED FOR MORE THAN 180 D AYS DURING THE YEAR, AND @ 7.5% ON VEHICLES USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON BUSES AND L ORRIES/TRUCKS WHICH WERE USED IN EXCESS OF 180 DAYS AND @ 15% ON THOSE VEHICLES USED FOR LESS THAN 380 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE HEAVY VEHICLES AND THE MOBILE CRANES WHICH WERE USED IN EXCESS OF 180 DAYS WILL BE ALLOW ED DEPRECIATION @ 40% AND @ 20% IF USED FAR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. HE IS DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION ACCORDINGLY. 4. NOW, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELL ANT ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ALONG WI TH LOADING AND UNLOADING GOODS BY EMPLOYING LABOURERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHO WN THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD MAJURI INCOME WHICH COMPRISES CHARGES FO R LOADING AND UNLOADING AND ALSO FOR TRANSPORTATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPL OYED HEAVY VEHICLES AND ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 4 MOBILE CRANES FOR SUCH PURPOSES. THE LD. A.O. WAS TAKEN DIFFERENT VIEW ON DEPRECIATION ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FELL SQ UARELY UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (III) TO CLAUSE-(3) OF SUB-HEADING-III OF PART A OF THE DEPRECIATION TABLE UNDER THE NEW APPENDIX-1, WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM A.Y. 20 06-07 ONWARDS. THE LD. A.O. HAD ERRED IN BRINGING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM UND ER CLAUSE (II) WHICH ALLOWS DEPRECIATION @ 30% ON MOTOR BUSES, MOTOR LORRIES AN D MOTOR TAXIES. THEREFORE, IT WAS REQUESTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 40% ON IT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING AND TRANSPORTATION OF HEAVY G OODS. VEHICLES WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME FROM T HE VEHICLES UNDER THE HEAD MAJURI INCOME IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON LESSER RATE. AS PER CATEGORIZATION MADE IN DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE 1, SWARAJ MAJDA/HEAVY VEHICLES ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 30%. HOWEVER, THE HEAVY VEHICLES APART FROM THE MOTOR BUSES AND MOTOR LORRIES INCLUDING MO BILE HYDRAULIC CRANES WOULD BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 40% UNDER SUB-CLAUS E (III). THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHT DECIDED THE ISSUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT INTE RVENE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 6. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.60,000/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT.. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TEMPO RENT IN THE NAME OF SMT. ANWARI B EGUM AT RS.60,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT DEDUCTI ON OF TDS AS PER ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 5 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(2) OF THE IT ACT. AS TH E PAYMENT EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.50,000/-, THIS WAS ALSO CONTR AVENTION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. GAVE REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE ES REPLY, THE A.O. HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY COPY OF FORM NO.15I/15J AS PRESCRIBED IN THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT TR UCK IS OWNED BY HIS WIFE AND ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CONTRACT. APPELLANT HAD SUB CON TRACTED TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THEREFORE, HE DI SALLOWED RS.60,000/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A ) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ON ONE HAND AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE AR ON THE OTHER. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO APPL IED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE IN A VERY S UMMARY MANNER AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION IN THE ASST. ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A REPLY WHICH THE AO REJECTED AS BEIN G NOT TENABLE, WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY THE ASSESSEDS REPLY WAS NOT ACCEPTA BLE TO HIM AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SMT . BEGUM WAS A CONTRACTOR, WHETHER THERE EXISTED A RELATIONSHIP OF CONTRACTOR AND CONTRACTEE BETWEEN HER AND THE ASSESSED, AND WHETHE R HER TURNOVER WAS IN EXCESS OF RS.40LAKHS AS SPECIFIED IN SEC.44AB R. W. CLAUSE (K) TO SUB- SECTION(1) OF SEC.194C OF THE IT ACT. NO DISALLOWA NCE COULD BE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60,000/- WILL STAND DELETED. 8. NOW REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENT LY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 6 IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. A NWARI BEGUM FOR HIRING OF TEMPO. THE LIABILITY OF DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS TO BE DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (K) TO SUB-SECTION 1 OF THE 194C. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF RECEIPT BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BUT HE DID NOT GIVE SPECIFIC FINDING ON IT. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O., IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN EYES OF LAW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO SUB-CONTRACT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE A.O. HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING CO NTRACT. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.4,97,833/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES NOTICED IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MATCH TDS CLAIM WITH INCOME DISCLOSED IN TDS CERTIFICATE WITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. HA D GIVEN DETAILED FINDING ON PAGE NOS. 5 TO 11. HE ALSO GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECONCILED TDS CERTIFICATE WITH INCOME. THUS, LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION O RS.4,9 7,833/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 7 18. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE AIR OF VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH HE HAD OBTAINED. IN PARA-9, PAGES 5-6 HE HAS LISTED 45 SU CH PARTIES SHOWING THEIR NAMES, THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE MONTHS IN WHICH THEY WERE PAID. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE SUCH AMOUNTS WITH THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE AMOUNTS AS LISTED HAD BEEN DULY AC COUNTED FOR. HOWEVER, SOME COULD NOT BE RECONCILED SINCE TDS CERTIFICATES WERE EITHER NOT RECEIVED OR MISPLACED. SOME PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE A.Y. 2007 -08, SOME PAYMENTS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF, BUT THE TDS CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED IN THE NEXT YEAR, THE AO THEN LISTED OUT ALL SUCH PAYMENTS IN A DETAILED CHART ALONG WITH HIS FINDINGS/ANALYSIS ON PAGES 6-9 OF THE ASST. ORDER. AN EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS ENTRIES AND TH E FINDINGS OF THE AO SHOWS THAT IN MOST CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURN ISHED THE CORRESPONDING TDS CERTIFICATES. IN SOME CASES, PART OF THE PAYMENT LISTED BY THE AO HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE CURRENT YEAR, W HILE THE BALANCE WAS DISCLOSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ONLY IN RESPECT O F TWO ENTRIES, NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSED. 18.1 THE POINT TO NOTE IS THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOO DS, WHICH MEANS THAT HE WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH SEVERAL PARTIES, SOME OF W HOM HAVE BEEN LISTED OUT BY THE AO. THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE WAS THAT, HE COULD NOT FURNISH THE TDS CERTIFICATES AND RECONCILE THE CORRESPONDING PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY HIM AND DISCLOSED DURING THE YEAR. IT H AS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS BECAUSE EITHER THE CONCERNED PARTIES HAD N OT ISSUED THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATES OR THEY HAD BEEN MISPLACED. IF THAT BE SO, THEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PENALISED SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH ONE-TO- ONE CORRELATION BETWEEN EACH RECEIPT AND THE CORRES PONDING TDS CERTIFICATE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSE E HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE RECONCILIATION AS DESIRED BY THE AO, THE AO COULD HAVE MADE ENQUIRIES WITH AT LEAST SOME OF THE PARTI ES TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM AND THE TAX DE DUCTED AT SOURCE, TO ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 8 ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PAYMENTS HAD BE EN DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18.2 THE POINT REMAINS THAT SOME OF SUCH PAYMENT S MAY HAVE NOT PERTAINED TO THE YEAR IN QUESTION, BUT TO AN EARLIE R YEAR WHEN THE CORRESPONDING BILLS WOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED. THERE I S BOUND TO BE A DISCREPANCY AND MISMATCH BETWEEN BILLS ACCOUNTED O N ACCRUAL BASIS, WHERE AN ASSESSEE FOLLOWS THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, AND THE TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED FOR CREDIT OF PRE-PAID T AXES. THIS IS BECAUSE, PAYMENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS MADE IN THE SAME YEAR IN WH ICH THE BILLS ARE RAISED. GIVEN SUCH A SCENARIO, AN ASSESSEE CANNOT B E HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE SUCH RECONCILI ATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TDS RECEIVABLE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. THE FINDING O F THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE MAJURI INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,99,377 WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED OR BACKED-UP BY T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE TDS CERTIFICATES COULD NOT BE USED A GROUND TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN RECEIPTS. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS. 98,506. 18.3 GIVEN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT REALLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISAL LOWANCE. THE ADDITIONS OF THE SUMS OF RS.3,99,377 AND OF RS.98,506 WILL TH EREFORE, STAND DELETED. 11. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEH EMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND ARGUED THAT AS PER SECTION 19 8, ALL SUMS DEDUCTED UNDER CHAPTER XVII (COLLECTION AND RECOVERY) SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BE DEEMED TO B E INCOME RECEIVED. THEREFORE, ALL THE TDS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN RECEIPTS MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE IS PART OF THE INCOME. A.O. WAS RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITION IN CASE OF NON-RECONCILING THE TDS CERTIFICATE WIT H THE INCOME. AT THE ITA NO. 3123/AHD/2009, A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 9 OUTSET, LD. A.R. AGREED TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE A.O. AND HE WAS READY TO RECONCILE THE INCOME WITH TDS CERTIFICATE. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE RE QUIRES FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE T O THE A.O. TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE DEC ISION AS PER LAW ON THIS GROUND. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10.01.2014 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA . . . . % %% % '/ '/ '/ '/ 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. #$ / APPELLANT 2. '(#$ / RESPONDENT 3. 44 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5- / CIT (A) 5. /9: ') , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<= >? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ . , @/ 4B , '