The ACIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Meghachem Industries, Ahmedabad

ITA 3143/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5512 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 11A; 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BBENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 & C.O. 02/AHD/2018 (IN ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015) / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD. VS. M/S. MEGHACHEM INDUSTRIES, 18/1, PHASE-I, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD-382445. (PAN:AAIFM1621R) ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) / CROSS OBJECTOR REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, S R. D.R ASSESSEE BY : MS URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 26/09/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/11/2018 *+/ O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 AHMEDABAD, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A) -3/CIR.3(2)/721/14-15 DATED 07/09/2015, PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-2010. ASSESSE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL BEARI NG NO.3143/AHD/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEALS. 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,44,028/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASE CREDIT. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.93,44,028/- BETWEEN THE CREDIT OF RS.39,32,97,541/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND AS PER T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK IS RS.40,26,41,569/- THOUGH THE SAME ASKED FOR. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT APPR ECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT COMPLETE PAPER BOOK AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.93,44,028/- 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CRO SS OBJECTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 1. THE RESPONDENT HAS IN DEPTH EXPLAINED EACH AND EVER Y CREDIT ENTRY AND SUBMITTED COGNET EVIDENCE. 2. HENCE, THE VERY PREMISE ON WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEE N CURABLE TO THE GROUND AS THE RESPONDENT HAS VALIDITY EXPLAINED EVE RYTHING. THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF CIT(A) IS ALSO ENCLOSED. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AHD IN CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOM E TAX(298 ITR(A.T) 403 (I.T.A.T (AHD) WHICH THE LD. APPELLANT HAS NOWH ERE DISTINGUISHED. 4. THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS THAT HE MAY BE PERMITTED TO ADD/ALTER/RAISE/WITHDRAW ANY MORE GROUNDS/OBJECTION S AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE R ESPONDENT SHALL EVER PRAY. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS.93, 44,028/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 3 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS OF CHEMICALS. THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE CRED IT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,26,41,569/ - ONLY. THE LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CREDIT HAS BEE N SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ONLY FOR RS.39,32,97,541/-. T HUS, THE LD. AO NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.93,44,028/- BETWEEN THE AMOUNT CRE DITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS VIS--VIS AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. AO CAN BE SUMMA RIZED AS UNDER: TOTAL CREDITS IN THE BANK A/C. LESS (40,26,41,569/-) I SALES INCLUDING COLLECTIONS/REALIZATION FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS AS PER THE ASSESSEE LETTER 36,38,56,930/- II. NEW LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT, DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 1,73,75,000/- AS LOAN/DEPOSIT AS LOAN/ DEPOSIT TAKEN 1,73,75,000/- III.REGARDING SECURED LOANS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CLOSING BALANCE OF 2,24,76,533/- AND THE SAME WAS REDUCED TO 2,11,65,289/-. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO INCREASE TO THE SECURED LOANS FROM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 1,20,00,743/- AS HDFC-FCNRB (W.C.D. LOAN). THE SAME MAY BE THE PART OF BANK ACCOUNT CREDIT. 1,20,00,743/- IV ANOTHER ITEM THAT MAY BE PART OF CREDIT OF BANK ACCOUNT IS SALE OF FIXED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING 15,240/ SALE OF FIXED ASSETS IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE 15,240/- V. THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS CAPITAL AS PER THE DETAILS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NIL VI IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMER AT SCHEDULE 10 49,628/- VII REGARDING LOANS AND ADVANCE THE BALANCE APPEARING ARE MOSTLY FROM ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 4 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS & THERE IS NO REALIZATION POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO EXCISE DUTY, TDS, PLA, DEPB A/C ETC. NIL VII. EVEN THROUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GAIN ON SALE OF DEPB 4,42,991/- IN THE OTHER INCOME IN THE P 7 L A/C. IT IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PURCHASES. THIS IT HAD NOT IMPACT ON THE BANK A/C. NIL TOTAL OF CREDITS 39,32,97,541/- 5.1 ON CONFRONTATION BY THE LD. AO ABOUT THE MISMAT CH IN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD. AO. HOWEVER , THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUN T OF RS. 93,44,028/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 O F THE ACT, AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. CI T(A), THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEM ENT WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER. THE CORRECT FIGURES OF AMOUNT REPRESENTING CREDITS IN HDFC BANK A/C NO.184 ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1. MONEY RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS 28,31,28,494/- 2. CHEQUE ISSUED TO CREDITOR FOR EXPENSES BUT RETUR NED UNCLEARED 2,11,204 3. MONEY RECEIVED BY WAY OF UNSECURED LOANS (SEE NO TE 1) 1,73,00,000/- 4. ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS 62,12,000 5. DEBTOR CHEQUE RETURN 29,45,616 6. PAYMENT CHEQUE RETURN (CHEQUE ISSUED TO SUPPLIER BUT RETURN UN-CLEARED 1,46,31,988 7. CONTRA BANK ENTRY FROM HDFC FCRNB A/C. AND HDFC BILL DISCOUNTING ACCOUNT. 6,88,25,068/- 8. OTHER (SUCH AS INTEREST INCOME, RECEIPT OF MONEY ON MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT ETC) 93,87,199 ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 5 TOTAL CREDITS IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 184 40,2 6,41,569 6.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE CRE DIT ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,88,25,068 IN HDFC-FCNRB ACCOUNT AS WELL AS HD FC BILL DISCOUNTING ACCOUNT BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6.2 THERE WERE CERTAIN CHEQUES WHICH WERE ISSUED TO THE SUPPLIERS/CREDITORS FOR THE EXPENSES BUT GOT BOUNCED AND ACCORDINGLY CR EDIT ENTRIES WERE REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6.3 SIMILARLY, THERE WERE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM THE DEBTORS WHICH WERE NOT CLEARED AND THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AC CORDINGLY CREDITED AND DEBITED BUT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. 6.4 SIMILARLY, THERE WERE CERTAIN CREDIT ENTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF THE ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS, INTEREST INCOME AND MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO BY OBSERVIN G AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED AND SO, A HYP OTHETICAL ADDITION CANT BE RESTORED TO. HENCE, THE ADDITION WORTH RS. 93,44,028/- MADE BE DELETED IN TOTO. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED NOR ANY DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY AO. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS ON EXP LAINING THE GENUINENESS ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES, THE ADDITION MADE DESERVES TO BE DE LETED. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF RS.93,44,028/- I S UNTENABLE AND SAME IS DELETED. ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 6 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. DR, BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LD. AO. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGE 1 TO 142 AND DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE RECONCILIATION STATEM ENT WHICH WAS PLACED ON PAGES 7 TO 11A OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR, FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES AS SHOWN IN THE HDFC BANK FCNRB ACCO UNT AND HDFC BILL DISCOUNTING ACCOUNT WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. 8. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED AND NO DEFECT WHATSOEVER WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS CRE DITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT VIS--VIS AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. AO NOTED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.93,44,028/- WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 9.1 ON THE BASIS OF PRECEDING DISCUSSION WE NOTE TH AT THE LD. AO, REJECTED THE RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ADEQUATE EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVIDENCES WHICH HE WAS LOOKING ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 7 FOR, THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND. 9.2 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT HAS SHOWN DEBTORS CHEQUES RETURN, PAYMENT CHEQUE RETURN AND C ONTRA ENTRIES WHICH IN OUR VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN RECONCILED FROM THE BANK STATE MENT AVAILABLE WITH HIM. REGARDING THE VERIFICATION OF THESE ENTRIES THERE W AS NO NEED TO MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS CLAIMED BY THE LD. AO IN HIS ORDER. 9.3 SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS G IVEN A DETAILED RECONCILIATION WHICH IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND NECESS ARY DETAILS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO MENTIONED THEREIN. IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT A BOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTRIES SHOWN IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, THE LD. AO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AS SHOWN I N THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. HOWEVER WE NOTE THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT EXERCISED HIS POWER GIVEN UNDER THE STATUE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE R ECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9.4 WE ALSO NOTE THE LD. AO IN HIS RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 1,20,00,743/- WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE CLOSING BALANCE OF HDFC BANK FCNRB ACCOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW THE LD. AO WAS SUPPOSED TO REFER THE CREDIT ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RATHER TAKING THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED AND TH E LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED ANY DEFECT IN THE SAME. MOREOVER, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. AO HAS WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT CREDITED N THE BANK A CCOUNT VIS--VIS BOOKS OF ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 8 ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME S ET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE NOT REJECTED. IN CASE HE DOES NOT PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS THEN HE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, BUT THE LD. AO FAILED TO DO SO. 9.5 IN THIS REGARD WE PLACE OUR RELIANCE ON THE ORD ER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED V/S ACIT, R EPORTED IN 298 ITR 403 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IN OUR VIEW, HAVING NOT DISPUTED THE FACTS THAT TH ESE PERSONS WERE EX- EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DRAWING SALARIES IT H AS TO BE IMPLIED THAT DEPOSITORS POSSESSED CREDIT-WORTHINESS TO MAKE THES E DEPOSITS. IT SHALL BE PERTINENT HERE TO MENTION THAT DEGREE OF PROOF CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE CREDIT-WORTHINESS IS NOT OF INFALLIBLE NATURE, WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRIMA-FACIE SHOW THAT DE POSITORS HAD REASONABLE CAPACITY. ANSWER TO THIS MOOT QUESTION LIES IN THE ADMITTED FACT THAT DEPOSITORS WERE EX-EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE SOME OF WHOM HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATIONS AND IN ADDITION WERE RECEIVING SALARIES. IN THE PEC ULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GIVEN CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO HAS R IGIDLY STUCK TO THE ISSUE OF CONFIRMATIONS TO OVER-SHADOW ALL OTHER MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL. ASSESSEE FURNISHED BEFO RE AO WHATEVER EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH IT, WHICH IN OUR OPINION WAS SUFFICI ENT TO REASONABLY DISCHARGE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 68. IT WAS FOR THE AO TO REBUT THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE RECORD, IN STEAD AO MERELY PICKED UP NON-FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS AS A TOOL TO DISCARD OT HER MATERIAL AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO T BASED ON OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS BUT BY WAY OF SUMMARY REJECTION. IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE HAVING GIVEN REASONABLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE WRONG OR UNSATISFACTORY ON ANY OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION, W E HOLD THAT CASH CREDIT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 9.6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE ARE PRIMA FACIE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD. AO WAS BASED ON HIS GUESS WORK, SURMISES & CONJECTURES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY SPECIFIC ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 9 ENTRIES/DOCUMENTS REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT POINTING OUT BY THE LD. AO, WE DO NOT WANT TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED ON THE GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE, THE GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECT ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMI SSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02/11/2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MS MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/11/2018 MANISH ITA NO.3143/AHD/2015 CO NO.02/AHD/2008 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 10 *+ , -./0 1*0. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : *+ 2 3 / BY ORDER, 4/3 56 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! () / THE CIT(A) 5. $%& '' , / DR, ITAT, 6. &)* + / GUARD FILE.