Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle - 4, Ahmedabad

ITA 3363/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5514 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 263; 63

Judgement Text

, CKH CKHCKH CKH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LK KK KOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3363/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD., 9 TH FLOOR, ABHIJIT. MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD 380 006. / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 2392 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 27/09/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/11/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 29.09.2015 ARISIN G IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 16.01.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 2. ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL A S UNDER: 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL CHALLENGING THE V ERY VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) READ WITH S ECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IMPUGNED BEFORE HIM. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION OF RS.40,08,000 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE APPELLANT'S BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION REPRESENTED A PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS AS ENVISAGED BY T HE RETROSPECTIVELY INSERTED CLAUSE (I) IN THE EXPLANAT ION BELOW SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115JB. EVEN THOUGH THE IMPUG NED AMOUNT DEBITED TO THE APPELLANT'S PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT REPRESENTED WRITE OFF OF IMPAIRMENT LOSS WHICH THE APPELLANT HA D ' DEBITED TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL CHALLENGING LEVY OF INTER EST U/S. 234B, 234C AND 234D. 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING IN ITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C), ON THE GROUND T HAT NO APPEAL LAY AGAINST INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/ S.271(1)(C). 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR ALTER THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT-A ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADDING A ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - SUM OF RS. 40,08,000 IN THE BOOK PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF HOME APPLIANCES UNDER THE BRAND NAME HITACHI. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS WRITTEN OFF VARIOUS PR OVISIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,01,94,000/- BY DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT. ONE OF THE PROVISION WAS OF RS. 40,08,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON ASSETS FOR DISPOSAL WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER NORMAL C OMPUTATION OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE ADDI TION TO THE BOOK PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PROVISIONS IN COMPUTING T HE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 4.1 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF FOR RS. 40,08,000/- IS NOT R EPRESENTING THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS. TH EREFORE, NOTHING CAN BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT AS SPECIFIED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO DISAGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40,08,000/- REPRESENTING THE PROVISIO N FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS AND ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE A MOUNT WRITTEN OFF FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ASSETS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ADJUSTED A GAINST THE RELEVANT ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - BLOCK OF ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREA TED AS PROVISION ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION, IT IS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO SALE OF ASSETS ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS THE FUT URE LOSSES ON VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT A ND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PROVISION IN THE DIMINUTION OF THE VALUE OF ASSETS DEBITED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. HOW THE PROVISION CAN BE MADE ON THE FUTURE LOSSES ON THE SALES WHICH IS NOT CERTAIN IN ABSENCE OF SUCH SALE OF ASSETS. WHEN THOSE ASSETS WILL BE SOLD AND WHAT WOU LD BE THEIR REALIZABLE VALUE AS PER THE PREVALENT MARKET, ARE T HE FACTORS WHICH WERE NOT KNOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE LOSSES COULD NOT BE ESTIMATED THEREUPON. FURTHER, IT COULD NOT B E PREDICTED; THAT THE SALE OF SAID ASSETS WOULD DEFINITELY BE TAKEN IN SU BSEQUENT YEARS, THAT TOO ON ANTICIPATED LOSSES AND NOT ON PROFITS. WHAT WAS THE HURRY TO MAKE THE PROVISION OF LOSSES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, WHEN THE SALE OF ASSETS IS EVEN NOT DECIDED? WHEN THE LOSSES HAVE NOT BEEN ACTUALLY REALISED AND SOME ESTIMATE OF LOSSES ON TH E FUTURE SOLE VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS OF WHICH NO BASIS HAS BEEN EXPLAIN ED, THEN THE PROVISION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ACCRUED LOSSES WHICH COULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE , THESE WERE THE ESTIMATED TOSSES FOR WHICH PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE AND DEBITED TO THE P & I ACCOUNT ARE NOT THE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, AN D THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE TO BE ADDED IN THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER THE CLAUSE [I] OF THE EXPLANATION- 1 TO 115JB(2) OF THE I. T. ACT. 3.6. THE APPELLANT'S RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IS MISPLACED AND THE SAME ARE DISCUSSED HEREUNDER. 3.6.1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD,, THE I SSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT BY PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 2 63 OF THE I. T. ACT AND THE COURT HAS DECIDED THE NON - MAINTAINABILITY OF 1HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE OF ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 IS NOT THE S UBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE THIS OFFICE AS ORDER PASSED U/S . 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT- II, AHMEDABAD WAS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER BEFO RE THIS OFFICE. THUS, NO DECISION UPON THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PA SSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. ACT COULD BE GIVEN AS THE SAME IS BEYOND THE J URISDICTION OF THIS OFFICE. THUS, RELIANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS MIS PLACED.' 3.6.1. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE J UDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKAGAWA LIMITE D BUT THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF CLAUSE - C TO EXPLANATION - 1 OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF 1HE I T. ACT AS THE PROVISIO N MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT WAS NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. IN FACT, THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT WAS PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE NEW CL AUSE - [I] TO EXPLANATION - I TO SECTION 115B(2) OF THE T. T. ACT THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS NEEDL ESS 1O MENTION THAT CLAUSE - C TO EXPLANATION 115JB(2) OF I.T. ACT DIFF ERENT THAN THE PROVISIONS UNDER CLAUSE - [1] TO EXPLANATION - I OF 115JB[2) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR APPLICABILITY OVER THE FACTS. 3.6.2. FURTHER, THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK IS ALSO ON DIFFERENT FACTS, AS COMPARED TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE. 3.6.3. LIKEWISE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AHME DABAD IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT IS ALSO ON DIFFERENT FACTS. THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED AND IN THE PRECEDING PARA IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED THAT FACTS OF YOKOGAWA ARE D IFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE DECISION BASED U PON THE YOKOGAWA CASE GIVEN IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 3.7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE ADJU STMENT BY WAY OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AC IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION IN THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE I. T. ACT IS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 6 - 6. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-61 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40,08,000/- WA S ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE PROVISIONS WRITTEN OFF IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE FIXED ASSETS AS SHO WN IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS. THESE DETAILS WERE PLACED ON PAGES 29 -35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE FIXED ASSETS SCHEDULE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON PAGE 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK WE NOT E THAT THE PROVISION FOR LOSS ON ASSETS HELD FOR DISPOSAL WAS ACTUALLY W RITTEN OFF IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AND ACCORDINGLY RESULTING REDUCTION IN THE A SSETS SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WAS NOT SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DIMINUTION IN THE VALU E OF ASSETS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GU IDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VI JAYA BANK VS. CIT REPORTED IN 323 ITR 166, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UND ER: 7. ONE POINT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. ACCORDING TO SHRI BISHWAJIT BHATTACHARYA, LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT, THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 7 - OF VITHALDAS H. DHANJIBHAI BARDANWALA (SUPRA) WAS P RIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION VIDEFINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 1- 4-1989, HENCE, THAT LAW IS NO MORE A GOOD LAW. ACCO RDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IN VIEW OF THE INSERTION OF THE SA ID EXPLANATION IN SECTION 36(1)(VII) WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, A MER E DEBIT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ACTUAL WRITE OFF. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE E XPLANATION MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DICHOTOMY BETWEEN ACTUAL WRITE OFF ON THE ONE HAND AND A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT ON T HE OTHER. HE SUBMITTED THAT A MERE DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD CONSTITUTE A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT, I T WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE ACTUAL WRITE OFF AND THAT WAS THE VERY REASON WHY T HE EXPLANATION STOOD INSERTED. ACCORDING TO HIM, PRIOR TO FINANCE ACT, 2 001, MANY ASSESSEES USED TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT BY MERELY DEBITING THE IMPUGNED BAD DEBT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE PARLIAMENT STEPPED IN B Y WAY OF EXPLANATION TO SAY THAT MERE REDUCTION OF PROFIT S BY DEBITING THE AMOUNT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PER SE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE ACTUAL WRITE OFF. TO THIS EXTENT, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTEN TIONS OF SHRI BHATTACHARYA. HOWEVER, AS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL, I N THE PRESENT CASE, BESIDES DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CR EATING A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT, THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAD CORRESPONDINGLY/SIMULTANEOUSLY OBLITERATED THE SAID PROVISION FROM ITS ACCOUNTS BY REDUCING THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES/DEBTORS ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE S HEET AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE FIGURE IN THE LOANS AND ADVANCES OR THE DEBTORS ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BA LANCE SHEET WAS SHOWN AS NET OF THE PROVISION 'FOR IMPUGNED BAD DEB T'. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VITHALDAS H. DHANJIBHAI BARDANWALA (SUPRA), A MERE DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE ACTUAL WRITE OFF WHEREAS, AFTER THE EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE(S) IS NOW REQUIRED NO T ONLY TO DEBIT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY ALSO RED UCE LOANS AND ADVANCES OR THE DEBTORS FROM THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE EXTENT OF THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT SO THAT, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES/DEBTORS IS SHOWN AS NE T OF PROVISIONS FOR IMPUGNED BAD DEBT. THIS ASPECT IS LOST SIGHT OF BY THE HIGH COURT IN ITS IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD, O N THE FIRST QUESTION, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BEN EFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 8 - SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF 1961 ACT AS THERE WAS AN ACTU AL WRITE OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS, AS INDICATED ABOVE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTH ING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATE EXCEPT TO REVERSE T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, AFTER HAVING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DIMIN UTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION UNDER CLAUSE-(I) TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS WARRANTED. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE SAME. HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02/11/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.3363/AHD/2015 HITECHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS IND PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T A.Y. 2007-08 - 9 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15/10/2018 (DICTATION PAGES 4 ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 01/10/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 02/10/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER