Liberty Pesticides & Fert.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 337/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2043 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation
• Section: 154; 15

Judgement Text

FIT FOR PUBLICATION SD/- SD/- (AM) ( (JM) , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.337/AHD/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ) LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERTILIZER LTD. 74/75 GIDC NANDESARI DIST. BARODA 391 340 / VS. ASST.CIT CIRCLE-1(2) BARODA ' ./#$ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACL 8461 F ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL H.TALATI &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : T.SHANKAR, SR.D.R. * ) / DATE OF HEARING : 15/03/2013 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/5/13 / / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING F ROM THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEALS)-I, BARODA DATED 08/12/2009 PASSED FOR A.Y.1998-99 . THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I) ERRED FOR ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF NOT ALLOWING TDS CERTIFICATE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERING ACT OF RECTIF ICATION APPLICATION NOT MADE WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 2 - THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACT (FA CTUAL POSITION) OF THE MATTER THAT BOTH THE COPIES OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) IS FOUND TO BE IN THE CASE RECORDS. THERE WAS A DEMAND OF BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1986 TO 18.12.1996. SO ASSESSEE COULD NOT REFERRED FOR THE REFUND OF VARIOUS A.Y. BUT ASSESSEE REFERRED VIDE LETTER L PFL/IT- SETL/2004-05 DTD 12.08.04 ON ACCOUNT OF DEMAND FROM I T DEPARTMENT FOR SUCH PERIOD 01.04.1986 TO 18.12.19 96 ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TO A DJUST ALL REFUND OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH ARE ALS O SLIGHTLY DELAY OF ABOUT 3 MONTHS AND 12 DAYS THAN E XPIRED ON 31.03.04 BUT FACTUAL POSITION THAT BOTH THE COPI ES OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) IS FOUND TO BE IN THE CASE RECORDS. SAID TDS CERTIFICATE IS A KIND OF PAYMENT TO GOVT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION/DISALLOWAN CE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS REMAND REPORT AND OUR REQUEST ITSE LF CONFIRMING THAT INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) IS NOT SER VED TILL DATE. SO YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAME BE DEL ETED. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT AN ORDER U/S.154 OF THE IT ACT WAS PASSED BY THE AO DATED 20/06/2006 FOR AY 1998- 99 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- SUB: RECTIFICATION U/S.154 FOR AY 1998-99 REF : YOUR RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF DATED 20.0 3.2006 PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. 2. AS PER SECTION 154(7) NO AMENDMENT SHALL BE MAD E AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FY IN WHIC H THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED. ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 3 - 3. YOU HAVE FILED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION ON 20.03.2006 FOR THE AY 1998-99. YOUR IT RETURN FOR THE AY 1998 -99 WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 30.06.1999. THEREFORE THE TIME LIMIT U/S.154(7) OF FOUR YEARS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2004. HENCE YOUR APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION IS FILED. 2.1. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN BOTH THE COPIES OF THE IMPUGNED IN TIMATION WAS FOUND WITH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENTS RECORD, THEN TH E ASSESSEES PETITION OF RECTIFICATION MUST NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION. LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED AND DECIDE D THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.A. R. AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN THAT FROM THE REPORT OF THE AO THAT INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) HAD NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS PER SUB-SECTION (7) OF SEC. 154, THE RE CTIFICATION CAN BE MADE ONLY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FR OM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED. IN THIS CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS P ASSED ON 30.6.1999. HENCE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION EXPIRED ON 31.3.2004. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON 20.3.2 006. THIS IS CLEARLY OUT OF TIME. THE SECTION DOES NOT SPEAK OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER BUT FOUR YEAR S FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ORDER WAS P ASSED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DEC LINED TO RECTIFY THE ORDER. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL THUS FAILS. 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LD.AR MR.SUNIL H .TALATI HAS INTIMATED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 143(1)(A) AN ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 4 - INTIMATION HAS TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SECOND COPY WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THERE WAS N O SERVICE OF THE SAME. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS IS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE INTIMATION. FOR TH IS LEGAL PROPOSITION, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON M.L.JOHN & ORS VS. ITO & ORS. 139 ITR 972 (ALL.) AND SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES VS. ITO 3 SOT 2 50(ALL.). 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.SR.DR MR.T.SHAN KAR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY PLACING RELIANCE O N THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154(7) OF IT ACT, REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW :- SECTION 154 (7) SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 155 OR S UB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 186 NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHAL L BE MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS (FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PA SSED). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. RE CORDS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED A R ECTIFICATION APPLICATION ON 20/03/2006 FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154(7), AS REPRODUCED SUPRA, PRESCRIBES THAT AN AMENDMENT U/S. 154 IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED. T HEREFORE, THE REVENUES STAND WAS THAT THE IT RETURN FOR A.Y. 199 8-99 WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 30/06/1999. THE FINANCIAL YEAR WAS 1999- 2000 OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED FOR WHICH TH E FOUR YEARS ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 5 - FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HAD EXPIRED IN 2 004. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTEDLY MOVED THE RECTIFICATION APP LICATION IN THE YEAR 2006, THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE DEPAR TMENT THAT APPLICATION ITSELF WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION, MOREOV ER THE AO IS ALSO NOT EMPOWERED TO PASS AN ORDER U/S.154 AFTER THE EX PIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED. 5.1. ONE OF THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN A REMAND REPORT DATED 10/09/2007, SUB MITTED TO LD.CIT(A), HAS ADMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF CAS E RECORD FOR AY 1998-99, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF IT ACT ON 30/06/1999, HOWEVER BOTH THE COPIES OF THE I NTIMATION WAS FOUND TO BE PLACED IN THE CASE RECORDS. IT WAS ALS O ADMITTED THAT THE SAID INTIMATION U/S.143(1) REMAINED TO BE SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE. IF THAT WAS THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE INTIMATION WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS UNJUSTIFIABLE. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143 (1)(A) AS STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME FOR AY 1998-99, PLACED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139/142 (1), (I) IF ANY TAX OR INTEREST IS FOUND DUE ON THE BASIS O F SUCH RETURN, AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF ANY TAX DEDUCTED AT SOU RCE, ANY ADVANCE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, ANY ADVANCE TAX PAID AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 6 - INTEREST, THEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (2), AN INTIMATION SHALL BE SENT TO THE ASS ESSEE SPECIFYING THE SUM SO PAYABLE, AND SUCH INTIMATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 AND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHAL L APPLY ACCORDINGLY; AND (II) IF ANY REFUND IS DUE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN, I T SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE; 5.2. SINCE THE LAW PRESCRIBES THAT AN INTIMATION HA S TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE SPECIFYING THE SUM SO PAYABLE AND THAT INT IMATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S.156 OF IT ACT, THEREFORE THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH AN INTIMATION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESS ARY. THE UNDISPUTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE IMPUGNED IN TIMATION REMAINED WITH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENTS RECORD. NATURALLY, T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENTS AND THE FATE OF ITS RETURN; STATED TO BE FILED IN THE DUE COURSE. WHEN IT WAS CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDIT OF THE TDS WAS NOT PROPERL Y GIVEN, THEN THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE AO. FURTH ER, FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED, AS INTIMATED TO US THROUGH WRIT TEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT WAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A .Y. 1998- 99 ON 30/11/1998. THE LD.A.O. ISSUED AN INTIMATION U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT DATED 30/6/1999 TO THE APPELL ANT, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE CREDIT OF TDS PAID FOR RS.144856/- ONLY OUT OF TOTAL TDS CLAIMED OF RS.192 791/-. SUCH INTIMATION WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TI LL THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY, 2006. IN MARCH, 2006, WHEN THE A.O. CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF OUT STANDING DEMAND OF RS.47935/- FOR THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAM E TO KNOW ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 7 - FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE DEMAND WAS OUTSTANDING. ON INQUIRY FROM THE LD.A.O., YOUR APPELLANT CAME TO KNOW THAT THE DEMAND WAS RAISED ONLY DUE TO THE TDS CREDIT OF RS. 47935/- WAS NOT BEING GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS A LSO CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS NOTHING BU T THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.3. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED AN APPLICAT ION ON 20 TH OF MARCH-2006 U/S.154 OF IT ACT. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 4(7) A RECTIFICATION CAN BE MADE ONLY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FR OM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMEN DED WAS PASSED. EVEN THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE SAME VIEW, ALTHOUGH H E HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BOTH THE COPIES OF THE INTIMATION WAS FOUND AVAILABLE IN THE CASE RECORDS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. HE WAS ALSO AWARE THAT THE SAID INTIMATION U/S.143(1) REMAINED TO BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT ISSUED BY THE AO . SO, THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US IS THAT AN AUTHORITY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN DEFAULT OR FAILURE. NATURALLY , IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, AN AUTHORITY HAS TO ACT IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. SINCE THE LAW IS THAT AN INTIMATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO ISSUE THE SAME. SINCE THE AO HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS STATUTORY DUTY, THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THIS ISSUE AND THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO HIM WAS TO MOVE A PETITI ON U/S.154 OF IT ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 8 - ACT. THE LAW IS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT IF THERE IS A BREACH OF A STATUTORY OBLIGATION, THEN A PERSON COMMITTED SUCH BREACH CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH SITUATION, SO A S TO PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE EFFECTED PERSON. OTHERWISE THE LAT IN MAXIM IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE, QUOTE COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA NEMO HABERE DEBET UNQUOTE. 5.4. WE HAVE ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT A PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH-2006. IMMEDIATELY, THEREAFTER AN APPLICA TION U/S.154 WAS MOVED ON 20 TH MARCH-2006. RATHER, IN THE MONTH OF MARCH-2006, THE AO HAD CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE ASKING THE PAYM ENT OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON A CBDT CIRCULAR NO.73 DATED 7 TH JANUARY-1972 WHICH STATES AS UNDER:- CIRCULAR NO.73, DATED JANUARY 7, 1972 SUBJECT : SECTION 154(2)(B) APPLICATIONS FOR RE CTIFICATION OF MISTAKES STATUTORY TIME-LIMIT WAIVER OF. IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (A) O F SUB0-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HEREBY ORDERS THAT IN ALL THE CASES WHERE A VALID APPLICATION UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 154 HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIM E-LIMIT BUT WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED WITHIN T HE TIME SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 154, IT MAY BE DISPOSED OF BY THAT AUTHORITY EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE S TATUTORY TIME-LIMIT, ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 9 - 5.5. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS CIRCULAR A RE CTIFICATION APPLICATION CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY THE AO EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN ON AN ANOTHER CIRCULAR NO.4 OF 2012 DATED 20/06/2012, WHEREIN THE CBDT BEING CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U/S.154(7) HAS AUTHORIZED THAT IN THE CA SES OF GENUINE HARDSHIP THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE APPROPRIATE COR RECTIONS IN THE FIGURES OF DISPUTED ARREAR DEMANDS, NATURALLY AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND RECONCILIATION AS ALSO AFTER EXAMINING THE MERI TS OF THE CASE, BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FOUR YEARS AS PROVIDED U/S.154(7) OF THE IT ACT HAS ELAPSED. THIS CIRCULAR HAS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT A PART FROM THE RECTIFICATION BY CPC, IN OTHER CASES, WHERE THE ASS ESSEE DISPUTES OR REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF FIGURES OF ARREAR, THEN ALSO A SUITABLE CORRECTION CAN BE MADE. RELEVANT DIRECTION VIDE PA RA-3(B) IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- CIRCULAR NO.4 OF 2012, DT. 20 TH JUNE, 2012 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN DEC IDED:- (B) IN OTHER CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES AN D REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF THE FIGURES OF ARREAR DEMAND, WHETHER UPLOADED ON CPC OR NOT UPLOADED AND STILL LYING IN THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND AFTER DUE VERIFICATIO N OF SUCH CLAIM, WILL MAKE SUITABLE CORRECTION IN THE FIGURE OF ARRE AR DEMAND IN HIS RECORDS AND UPLOAD THE CORRECT FIGURE OF ARREAR DEM AND ON CPC PORTAL. ITA NO.337/AHD/ 2010 LIBERTY PESTICIDES & FERT.LTD. VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 10 - 5.6. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW INVOLVED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WELL-FOUNDED. WE THEREFORE DIR ECT THE AO TO ENTERTAIN THE SAID RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 20/03/2006 AND DISPOSE IT OFF AS PER LAW AFTER VERIFICATION OF RECORD AS ALSO THE EL IGIBILITY OF THE CLAIM. RESULTANTLY, GROUND RAISED IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED WITH THE DIRECTIONS PROTANTO. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10 / 5 /2013 0.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 () / THE CIT(A)-I, BARODA 5. 789 &23, 23., :1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;< =* / GUARD FILE. & ' / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// (/& )* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD