ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s.Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3461/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3164 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Royalty expenses
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 3461/AHD/2015 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 06/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD., ARVIND MILLS PREMISES, NARODA ROAD, AHMEDABAD - 380025 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH7252A ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR ) REVENUE BY : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BIREN SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/07/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/08/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 22.09.2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S . 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; (THE ACT) CONCERNING ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS U NDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,59,71,927/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR UNASCERTAINED ROYALTY LIABILITY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,24,692/- MADE BY THE AO IN RES PECT OF INTEREST PAID TO A NBFC WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISO INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2012 IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR AY 2011-12 BUT FOR NEXT ASSESSME NT YEAR ONWARDS ONLY. 3. GROUND NO.1 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION M ADE TOWARDS ROYALTY LIABILITY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTER ALIA CLAIMED EXPENSES TOWARDS ROYALTY EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,59,71,927/- . IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO DEBITED A RE IN THE NATURE OF PROVISIONAL LIABILITY FOR WHICH NEITHER BILLS HAVE PRODUCED NOR COMPLIANCE OF WITHHOLDING TAX PROVISIONS UNDER S.19 5 OF THE ACT WAS MADE. THE AO THUS OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID CLAI M IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE EXPE NDITURE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO REJECTED THE AFORESAID CLAIM O F EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY. 5. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HOWEVER FOUND SO ME MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE ROYALTY EXPENSES AT T HE TIME OF PAYMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE RELEVANT OP ERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: 2.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS IN RESPECT OF PROVISION MADE FOR ROYALTY OF RS. 4,59,71,927/- HEN CE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT OF RS. 4, 59,71,927/-. THE AO HAS CONTENDED THAT PROVISION OF ROYALTY IS NOTHING BUT AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 3 - PRODUCED ANY BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID EXPENDITU RE WHICH ALSO PROVES THAT THE PROVISION OF EXPENDITURE IS LIABILITY. THE APPELLANT HAS REVERSED ITS PROVISION IN SUCCEEDING YEAR WHICH ALSO PROVES THAT THE PROVISION CREATED IS IN RESPECT OF UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY, W HICH IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT PAYMENT OF RS 3,77,74,260/- WAS PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A )(I) CANNOT BE MADE ON THE GROUND THAT PROVISION OF ROYALTY IS MADE FOR PA YMENT TO NON-RESIDENT PERSONS AND THE SAME IS NOT CREDITED TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 200(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HA ND, APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT PROVISION OF ROYALTY FOR RS.4,59,71,927 /- IS PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF THE RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE NON-RESIDENT PARTIES IN QUESTION. IT WAS ALSO ARGUE D THAT ROYALTY HAD YET NOT BECOME PAYABLE TO THEM HENCE THE PROVISION WAS MADE DEBITING IT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ROYALTY IN QUESTION BECAME DUE FOR PAYMENT TO THE RESPECTIV E NON-RESIDENT PARTIES IN AS PER AGREEMENTS ENTERED WITH THEM, THE APPELLA NT HAD DEDUCTED THE APPLICABLE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND D ULY PAID IT TO THE CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MADE PAYMENT OF THE BA LANCE AMOUNT TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. IN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION, THE AP PELLANT FURTHER ARGUED THAT IF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS U PHELD IN CURRENT YEAR, SAME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YE AR AS TDS PERTAINING TO SUCH ROYALTY HAS BEEN PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF CHALLAN OF PAYMENT OF TDS IN THE PAPER BOOK TO PROVE ITS CONTENTION THAT TDS HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED ON SUCH PAYMENT'. 2.5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS D ISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE PROVISION FO R ROYALTY PAYABLE TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS PER AGREEMENTS EXECUTED WITH THE M. THE PAYMENT WAS NOT DUE AS PER AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH SUCH PARTIES HENCE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY APPELLANT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER DEDUCTIN G TDS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FOLLOWED MATCHING COST PRINCIPLES AND M ADE PROVISIONS FOR EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO INCOME BOOKED IN CURRENT YEAR. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY MAK ES LUMP SUM PROVISION OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR OWN ESTIMATE IN FINANCIAL YEAR AND SUCH PROVISION IS IMMEDIATELY REVERSED ON FIRST DAY OF SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID IS BOOKED AS EXPENDITURE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH MEANS THAT ONLY EXCESS/SHORT EXPENDITURE IS BOOKED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPENDI TURE PROVIDED IN YEAR IS CONTINGENT OR UNASCERTAINED AS SAME IS BASED UPO N AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH VARIOUS PARTIES AND ARE AGAINST INCOME BOOKED IN CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, ARGUMENT OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT EXPENDITURE IS UNASCERTAINED OR CONTINGENT CANNOT B E ACCEPTED. SO FAR AS OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT PROVISION F OR EXPENDITURE IS FOR IDENTIFIED PARTIES, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 ARE A PPLICABLE AND APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS EVEN IF LIABILITY IS NOT CR EDITED TO ANY PARTY ACCOUNT. THE HON'BLE BANG/ORE IT AT IN THE CASE OF IBM INDIA (P) LIMITED VS ITO 154 ITD 497 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 190, READ WITH SECTIONS 4, 40(A)(I), 40(A) (IA) AND 201, OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE - GENERAL (SUSPENSE ACCOUNT) - ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 20 09-10 - WHETHER IT IS CLEAR FROM STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF TD S THAT LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE EXISTS WHEN AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS CREDITED TO A ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 4 - 'SUSPENSE ACCOUNT' OR ANY OTHER ACCOUNT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, WHICH WILL ALSO INCLUDE A 'PROVISION' CREATED IN BO OKS OF ACCOUNT - HELD, YES - WHETHER ASSESSEE HAVING ADMITTED ITS DE FAULT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) AND SECTION 40(A)(IA) COULD NOT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) ARGUE NO DEFAULT UNDER CH APTER XVII-B - HELD, YES - WHETHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF WITHHOL DING TAX CLEARLY ENVISAGE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DE HORS CHARGE UNDER SECTION 4(1), HENCE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON PR OVISION FOR EXPENSES CREATED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT - HELD, YES [P ARAS 27, 30 & 32] [PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] THUS, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GRO UND OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS IS UPHELD . HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS DULY DEDUCTED TDS ON ROYALTY PAYMENT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO NON- RESIDENT HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VER IFY THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT AND ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF SAME IS NOT CLAIMED BY APPELLANT AS DEDUCTION OR NOT ALREADY ALLOWED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS IN SUBSEQUENT AS SESSMENT YEARS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS ON THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY TOWARDS CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF ROYA LTY EXPENSES. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PROVIDES AN APPA RENT JUSTIFICATION FOR ALLOWABILITY OF ROYALTY EXPENSES IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS AND WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE. THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS MANIFESTLY IN TUNE WITH THE LAW AND THUS, THE REVEN UE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AGGRIEVED ON THIS SCORE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT SEEK TO REITERATE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHILE ENDORSING THE SAME . WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 8. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,24,692 /- IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID TO NBFC WITHOUT DEDUCTION TO TAX. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS .4,24,692/- ON ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 5 - VEHICLE LOANS TO KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. (A NBFC AND SUBSIDIARY OF KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.). IT WAS OBSERVED BY T HE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A ON SUCH INTEREST EXPENSES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND DISA LLOWED THE EXPENSES. 11. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LANKM ARK TOWNSHIP (P.) LTD. VS. CIT 279 CTR 384 (DELHI) WHICH HOLD TH AT 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NA TURE AND APPLICABLE TO THE AY 2011-12 IN QUESTION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AF ORESAID DECISION, THE CIT(A) HELD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE AFORESAID EXPENSE, IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE RECIPIEN TS HAVE OFFERED THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME IN THEIR TA X RETURN. 12. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DIPAK R. GONDALIYA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.3313/AHD/2015 & ANOTHER ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 C ITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE RELE VANT PARA DEALING WITH THE ISSUE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH READS AS UN DER: 3. THE COMMON GRIEVANCE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS RELA TES TO THE HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINA NCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.04.2013 IS PROSPECTIVE AND BY HOLDING SO THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITU RE. 4. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FR OM RELIANCE CAPITAL AND HAS ALSO TAKEN CAR LOAN FROM KOTAK MAHI NDRA LTD. THE A.O FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INTE REST PAYMENT TO THESE PARTIES WITHOUT MAKING ANY DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN ON THE DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT. 5. ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY CLAIMING THAT IF THE PAYEES HAVE OFFERED THE INCOME FOR TAX AND HAS PAID TAXES THERE ON PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 6 - BROUGHT IN THE EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O, WHO WAS OF THE FIRM B ELIEF THAT THE AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2013-14 ONWARDS A ND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA AS THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT OF DELHI HAS HELD THAT APPLICABILITY OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VIEW OF CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 10/ DV/2013 DATED 16.12.2013. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THA T IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID CIRCULAR, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE HAVE TO SAY THA T THE RELIANCE ON THE CIRCULAR BY THE D.R. IS MISPLACED AS THAT CIRCU LAR REFERS TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH, VISHAKHAPAT NAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT. THE CIRCULAR ALSO REFERS TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH ALL RELATES TO THE ISSUE R ELATING TO 'PAID OR PAYABLE' WHEREAS THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) WHICH HAS BE EN HELD TO HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. 279 CTR 3 84. 8. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLA Y, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE PAYEE HAS FILE D RETURNS AND OFFERED THE SUM RECEIVED TO TAX. THE A.O IS DIRECTE D TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA). 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSE E ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT ITS ACTION IS SQUARELY IN TANDEM WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE RATIO LA ID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS, THERE IS NO WARRANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ITA NO. 3461/AHD/15 WITH CO NO. 6/AHD/2016 ITO VS. M/S. ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.] A.Y. 201 1-12 - 7 - 16. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI BIREN SHAH SEEK S PERMISSION VIDE HIS ORAL REPRESENTATION AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO WITHDRAW THE CAPTIONED CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL(SUPRA) ON THE GROUND THAT REVENUES APPEAL S TANDS DISMISSED. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE DOES NOT RAISE ANY OBJEC TION. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRAYER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ACCEPTED. THUS, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN . SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADI P KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 27/08/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- '. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE $. %&' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. (- / CIT (A) +. ,-. /00&'1 &'1 23% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 4. .56 7 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 1 /2 &'1 23% THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/08/2 018