Diamond Digital Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 408/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94667 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RK GUPTA; J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL H TALATI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Share purchase agreement; Additional depreciation; Proportionate interest; Assessment record
• Section: 32; 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND RAJPAL YADAV JM] ITA NO. 408 / AHD / 2 0 1 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 7 - 08 DIAMOND DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT 102, SUMEL - II, NR. G URU DWARA, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD [PAN AACCD 3327 Q ] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD . ITA NO. 693/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) ...... . .. . .....APPELLANT RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD. VS. DIAMOND DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT 102, SUMEL - II, NR. GURU DWARA, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD [PAN AACCD 3327 Q ] APPEARANCES BY: SUNIL H. TALATI FOR THE ASSESSE E J.P. JANGID & R.K. GUPTA FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 30 TH , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 30 TH , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 15 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION C ORRECTION OF ORDER DATED 5 TH JANUARY, 2011 FRAMED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. IN GROUND OF APPEAL 1 AND 1.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANC ES: 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK ON THE BASIS OF VALUE AS SUBMITTED TO BANK AND AS PER THE FINAL ACCOUNTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE SO WORKED OUT BEING NOTIONA L AND NOT CORRECT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 69C OR UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE AND SUSTAINED OF RS.3,83,734 / - BE DELETED. 1.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARN ED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN RAW - MATERIAL AS SUBMITTED TO BANK AND AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF RS.80,000/ - IS ON ACCOUNT OF SAMPLE STOCKS (FINISHED GOODS) SH OWN AS RAW - MATERIAL IN STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2,23,734/ - IN FINISHED GOODS IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES MADE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. THE CLOSING STOCK BEING FULLY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE BOOKS, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,83,734/ - BE D ELETED. 3. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLO W S. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DIGITAL PRINTING ON FLEX AND OTHER EXTRACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT FILED WITH THE BANKER. AS THE STATEMENT TO THE BANKER REFLECTED MORE STOCK THAN THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAME NOT BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING TAXABLE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES BUT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS FOLL OWS: THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND IT IS NOTICED THAT HE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF PROVES THAT ADJUSTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER END ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 3 OF 15 OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THA T BILLS HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF M/S. MOMS O UTDOOR MEDIA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AFTER COMPLETION OF MARCH AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE BILLS WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTY AFTER SUBMITTING STOCK STALLS AND BOOK DEBTS DETAILS TO THE BANK BETWEEN 7 TH A PRIL TO 10 TH APRIL, 2007. MEANS THAT THE STOCK STATEMENT AS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS FACTUALLY CORRECT AND WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AFTER ADJUSTMENTS WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AFTER END OF FINANCIAL YEAR. THE SECOND EXPLANATIO N REGARDING STOCK OF SAMPLE KITS IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE NEITHER RAW MATERIAL NOR THE FINISHED GOODS ARE MORE IN THE VALUE AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHEN COMPARED TO VALUE AS PER STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK. IT MEANS THIS VALUE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN ANY OF THE STOCK IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOR DIFFERENCE IN STOCK VALUE IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE FIGURES GIVEN TO BANKS WERE CORRECT FIGURES AND THESE HAVE BEEN CHANGED AFTER END OF YEAR WHICH IS NOT ACCEP TABLE AS PER ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. HENCE THE TOTAL DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF STOCK IS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: BOOK DEBTS AS STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK (1393949 + 1192998) 2586947 VALUE AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS (1313949+ 88 9264) 2203213 DIFFERENCE 383734 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND JUSTIFIED THE SAME AS FOLLOW S: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT S SUBMISSION. THIS GROUND HAS TWO ELEMENTS - ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN DEBTORS. AS REGARDS UNDISCLOSED STOCK BEING DIFF ERENCE OF STOCK GIVEN TO BANK AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS, APPELLANT TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT THAT RAW MATERIAL STOCK DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF SAMPLE KITS GIVEN AND FINISHED GOODS STOCK DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING OF CERTAIN SALE ON 31 ST MARCH MADE SUBSE QUENTLY. AS REGARDS SAMPLE KITS, I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SAMPLE KITS DISTRIBUTED FREE FOR RAW MATERIAL AND THEREFORE QTY DIFFERENCE TO THAT EXTENT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. AS REGARDS FINISHED GOODS, QUANTITY DETAILS WER E GIVEN TO THE BANK AFTER 31 ST MARCH AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADJUSTMENT FOR SALE EFFECTED ON 31 ST MARCH. APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT SALE WAS EFFECTED SUBSEQUENTLY BUT BILLS WERE ISSUED ON 31ST MARCH. WHEN SALES WERE NOT EFFECTED ON 31 ST MARCH, TH EN HOW APPELLANT COULD DISCLOSE THE SAME IN THIS FINANCIAL YEAR, IS NOT CLEAR. APPELLANT DISCLOSED LESS QUANTITY OF STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO SUCH SALE TOOK PLACE UPTO THE 31 ST MARCH. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLAN T ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY. THEREFORE LEGALLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY BETWEEN STOCK STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE BANK AND STOCK DISCLOSED IN BOOKS CAN BE ADDED. APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAI N THE DIFFERENCE OR EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 4 OF 15 IS OF ADJUSTMENT ONLY AND NOT OF ACTUAL SALE TILL 31 ST MARCH. CONSIDERING THIS THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK IS CORRECTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO THAT EXTENT ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS SAMPLE , VALUED AT RS.80,000/ - IN BANK STATEMENT, ARE CONCERNED, IT IS DIFFERENT TO UNDERSTAND RATIONALE OF THE OBSERVATION THAT AS REGARDS SAMPLE KITS, I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SAMPLE KITS DISTRIBUTED FREE FOR RAW MA TERIAL AND, THEREFORE, QUANTITY TO THAT EXTENT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED . THE DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL QUANTITIES OF SAMPLES IS A COMMERCIAL REALITY AND IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS IMPROBABLE. IT WAS OPEN TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SEEK FURTHER CLARIFI CATION ON THE SAME BUT IS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS OUTRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE. IN ANY CASE, JUST BECAUSE STOCK STATEMENT SHOWS THIS QUANTITY IT DOES NOT BECOME GOSPEL TRUTH. SO FAR AS SALE OF 37,953 FT. OF MATERIAL IS CONCERNED, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT SINCE SALE TOOK PLACE ON 31 ST MARCH BUT BEFORE TAKING FIGURES FOR STOCK STATEMENT, THIS VARIATION IN STOCK STATEMENT TO BANK AND STOCK FIGURES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS FULLY EXPLAINED. WE SEE MERITS IN THIS EXPLANATION. THERE IS NO CONTRADI CTION IN THIS APPROACH. IN ANY EVENT, AN ITEM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SALE AND YET IN CLOSING STOCK AS WELL. AS LONG AS FACT OF SALE BEING DATED 31 ST MARCH AND BEING ACCOUNTED FOR AS SUCH IS NOT IN DISPUTE, WHICH PRECISELY IS THE SITUATION HERE, THE ITEMS SOLD CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN STOCK AS WELL. IN ANY CASE, JUST BECAUSE A HIGHER STOCK VALUE IS SHOWN IN BANK STATEMENTS AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MUNISH KUMAR BANSAL VS. JCIT (65 SOT 186), THE DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUN D NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 9. IN GROUND NOS. 2, 2.1 AND 2.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: - ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 5 OF 15 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND M ACHINERY PURCHASED, TAKING A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MANUFACTURING ANY ARTICLES OR THINGS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PRINTING OF PAPER LABELS, CANVAS, CLOTH, WOOD, GLASS PVC SHEETS, ACRYLIC, ACP SHEETS ETC. AND ON COMPLETION OF THIS PROCESS OF PRINTING, THE END PRODUCT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT. 2.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.78,60,300/ - CLAIMED ON THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY INSTALLED AND COMMIS SIONED DURING THE YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.78,60,300/ - BE ALLOWED NOW. 2.2 FURTHER THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS MOST OF THE MACHINERIES PURCHASED ARE SECOND HAND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE MACHINERY ARE NEW MACHINERY EXCEPT ONE SECOND - HAND MACHINE OF RS.62,40,000/ - ON WHICH NO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND IT BE HELD SO. 10. SO FAR AS THESE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT WHILE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY NEW ARTICLE OF THING, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF MACHINES USED FOR PRINTING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY PRINTING ON AN EXISTING OBJECT, AND NO NEW PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP AND RELYING ON JU DICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. R. SHROFF CONSULTANTS [(1999) 238 ITR 1018 (BOM)] AND CIT VS. B N B ENTERPRISES [(2000) 242 ITR 439 (MAD)] THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THIS CLAIM AND, WHILE DOING SO, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 8.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ADDI TIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINES PURCHASED ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT IS NOT MANUFACTURING ARTICLES OR THINGS. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS AS PER WHICH PRINTING ACTIVITY ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS MANUFACTURING ARTICLES OR THINGS. CONSI DERING THESE DECISIONS I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR SINCE IT IS NOT MANUFACTURING ARTICLES OR THINGS. APPELLANT RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS IN WH ICH PRINTING WAS ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 6 OF 15 TREATED AS PRODUCTION HOWEVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THERE IS NO DECISION HOLDING THAT PRINTING ACTIVITY WHICH IS GENERALLY DONE AS JOB WORK WILL QUALIFY AS MANUFACTURING ARTICLES OR THINGS. IF AN ASSESSEE FULFILS ENTIRE ACTIVITY FROM SCRATCH AND SELL THE FINISHED PRODUCT IN THE MARKET, IN THAT SITUATION PRINTING MAY QUALIFY AS MANUFACTURING OF ARTICLE OR THING. OTHERWISE PRINTING ACTIVITY PER SE IS NOT MANUFACTURING SINCE NO NEW PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS APPEL LANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. APART FROM THE ABOVE, APPELLANT PURCHASED MOST OF THE MACHINES DURING THE YEAR WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY USED AND THEREFORE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR SECOND HAND MACHINES ARE ALSO NOT AVAILABLE AS PER SECTIO N. IN VIEW OF THIS ALSO, APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 11. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED OF THE STAND TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AS WELL, AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US . 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 13. AS TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHE T HER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TREA T ED AS MANUFACTURER OR NOT , WE FI ND THE ISSU E IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJ AY PRINTER S PVT. LTD., 58 ITR 811 WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA , OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - CONSIDERING THE CONSIST ENT VIEW THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS WHILE DEDUCING THE MEANING OF THE WORD MANUFACTURE OR MANUFACTURER AND THE OBJECT WITH WHICH EXPLANATION 2 HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 23A OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BUSINESS CARRI ED ON BY THE RESPONDENT - COMPANY OF PRINTING BALANCE - SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS, DIVIDEND WARRANTS, PAMPHLE T S, SHARE CERTIFICATE, ETC., REQUIRED BY THE TEXTILE MILLS REFERRED TO IN THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OTHER TEXTILE MI L LS WOULD BE A BUSINESS W HICH CONSISTS WHOLLY OF MANUFACTURE AND, THEREFORE, CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 23A WOULD APPLY IN THE PRE S ENT CA S E. THE ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 7 OF 15 CALCUTTA CASE IN SATI PR A SANNA V. MD. FA Z AL HAD A DIFFERENT PROBLEM AND CANNOT APPLY. IN OUR VIEW T HE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON CLAUSE(II) OF EXPLANATION 2 BY THE TRIBUNAL WA S COR R E CT . 14. WHEN T HIS WAS PUT TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE S TA ND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE S EE NO MERITS IN LD . CIT ( A ) S OBJECTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED DEPRECATION BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS MANUFACTURER AND ONLY JOB WORK IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE. 15. COMING TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETH ER THE ASSESSEE HAD USED SECOND - HAND MACHINERY , W E FIND THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD . C IT ( A ) ARE VAGUE INASMUCH AS HE STATED THAT MOST OF THE MACHINES ARE USED MACHINES . T HIS KIND OF SWEEPING GENERALISATION IS NOT SUPPORTED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY , THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY T HE MANUFACTURER WHICH INTER ALIA STAT E S AS FOLLOWS : - TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN THI S IS TO CERTIFY THAT FOLLOWING TWO MACHINES WHICH WE HAVE SOLD TO DIAMOND DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PVT. L TD. ARE COMPLETELY NEW & UNUSED MACHINES. SR.NO. MACHIANE NAME BILL NO. AMAOUNT DATE OF SALE 1. MACHINE VUTEK 3360 - FC (DIGITAL PRINTING SYSTEM) T/001 1,56,00,000/ - 29/04/2006 2. MACHINE VUTEK PRESS UV 320/400 (SR NO: 320035) 015 2,34,00,000/ - 19/05/2006 WHATEVER STA T ED ABOVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE A ND CO R RECT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 8 OF 15 16. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE FROM THE MANUFACTURER. AS A MATTER OF FACT , THIS STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THE EFFECT THAT MACHINE S ARE USED MACHINE S IS NOT SUPPORT ED BY ANY MATERIAL AND IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE DO NOT SEE ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERIT IN THE LD . CIT(A) S STAND OR TO DECLINE THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION I N QUESTION. WE , THEREFORE , DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. WE NOW COME TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. I N THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE LD . CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.49,622/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE. 20. SO FAR AS THIS DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS.10,29, 1 57/ - TO ITS D IRECTORS BUT HAS NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 24,27, 946 / - ON LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,00,02,988/ - . IN THIS BACKDROP , THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW PROPORTIONATE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE C OMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS. ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 9 OF 15 21. AGGRIEV ED BY THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.49 , 622 / - , T HE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A ) . THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE SHORT GROUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN TRANSACTIONS WITH THE DIRECTORS OF SIMILAR CASE WITH RESPECT TO AMOUN T RE CEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS AS WELL. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE IS A RECEIPT OF RS.95,00,000/ - FROM THE D IRECTORS ON 06.04.2006. AND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER RECEIPT OF RS. 30 ,00,000/ - ON 19.04.2006 BUT NO INTEREST WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS SO RECEIVED AN D USED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND OVER ALL FUND AVAILABLE WITH COMPANY , THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 22. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE DECLINE TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT (A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT INTEREST - BEARING FUNDS WERE USED IN GRANTING T HESE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO THE D IRECTORS. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FREE ADVANCE FROM THE D IRECTORS AS WELL. BEARING IN MIND THESE FACTS A S ALSO ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO.1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE LD. CIT(A) S DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,07,9 3 5/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN BOOK DEBT S . 24. SO FAR AS THIS DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE NOTE THAT ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF BOOK DEBTS AS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,83,734/ - BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANKER VIS - A - VIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE. IT ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 10 OF 15 WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE ARISES DUE TO SOME JOURNAL ENTRIES WHICH WERE MADE AFTER FIGURES WERE GIVEN TO THE BANK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION AND THE MATTER WAS THUS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED IN APPEAL. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVI NG PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION INASMUCH AS A DIFFERENCE SIMPLICITER BETWEEN THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE AUDITED BOOKS O F ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO MAKE AN ADDITION PARTICULARLY WHEN DIFFERENCE IS REASONABLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE ALSO DOES NOT CALL FOR OUR INTERFERENCE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 26. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF LD. CIT(A) S DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.81 , 96 , 572 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON UV MACHINE. 27. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS GROUND A RE THAT WHILE GOING THROUGH THE ACCOUNT S , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF UV MACHINE WAS SH OWN AS NOT AVAILABLE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THIS MACHINE WAS USED, SO THAT DEPRECATION CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS . H OWEVER , THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH R EGARD TO THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE BELIEVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN SALES OUT OF USE OF THIS MACHINE AND , THEREFORE , THIS MACHINE WAS NOT PUT TO USE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECATION . ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 11 OF 15 28. ON APPAL THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION. THE FINDING REPORTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) R E AD S AS UNDER : - 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON NEW UV MACHINE ON T HE GROUND T HAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT, NO PRODUCTION FROM THE SAID MACHINE WAS MENTIONED. I T IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT PURCHASED THE SAID MACHINE IN MAY 2006 AND THE SA ID MACHINE WAS ALSO INSTALLED. APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED SALE BILLS REL ATING TO THIS MACHINE. FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECATION , ONLY TWO CONDITIONS ARE TO BE FULFILLED THE ASSETS SHOULD BE OWN E D BY THE APPELLANT AND IT SHOULD BE USE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET BY THE APPELLANT. AS SESSING OFFICER ONLY DOUBTED THE USE OF MACHINE. SINCE THE MACHINE WAS PURCHASED WITHIN FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IT WAS INSTALLED WITHIN FIRST FOUR MONTHS ALSO, PRESUMING THAT MACHINE WAS NOT USED OR READY FOR USE OF BUSINESS PURPOSE IS N OT CORRECT. AFTER INSTALLATION, THE U V MACHINE WAS FULLY READY FOR USE AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION EVEN AT THAT STAGE. HOWEVER, APPELLANT SUBMITTED DETAILS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE MADE OUT OF THIS MACHINE. JU S T BY NOT MENTIO NING THE FIGURES OF PRODUCTION IN AUDIT REPORT, ONE CANNOT A SS UME THAT MACHINE WAS NOT USED. NO ONE WILL MAKE SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT IN UV MACHINE AND KEEP IT IDLE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT APPELLANT FULFILS BOTH TH E CONDITIONS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 32 OF IT ACT AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION FOR THIS YEAR. THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DELETED . 29. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD S CAREFULLY. SALE OF A PRODUCT CANNOT BE USED AS A PRE - CONDITION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MACHINE WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION . THE VERY APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VITIATED IN LAW, AND, IN ANY CASE. THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED FINDING OF FACT THAT MACHINE WAS PUT TO USE AND IT WAS READY TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THEREFORE , DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WELL REASONED ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE SAME. GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO THUS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 12 OF 15 30. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF LD. CIT(A) S DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 23,188/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS D EPRECATION CLAIM ED ON OLD MACHINE RY . 31. SO FAR AS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE NOTE THAT WHILE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ADJUSTED THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IN THE HAND S OF THE SISTER CONCERN AS THE VALUE ON WHICH DEPRECIATI ON IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) REVERSED THIS ACTION AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE PRICE AT WHICH IT WAS PURCHASED. HE DID IT FOR THE REASON THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF AN ASSET CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR . WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IN THE HANDS OF PREVIOUS OWNER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ONLY BE TAKEN WHEN THE PERMISSION OF JC I T IS OBTAINED . THIS COMPLIANCE WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE . Y ET , THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 32. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTE NTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS IN THIS GRIEVANCE . IT I S ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE PERMISSION OF THE JCIT WHICH IS SINE QUA NON WAS NOT OBTAINED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CA S E. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE LD . CIT(A) W A S LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE . WE UPHOLD HIS ACTION AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. GROUND NO.4 IS THUS DISMISSED . 33. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF LD. CIT(A) S DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,28,241/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF DEP RECIATION ON MACHINE S CLAIMED TO BE PUT TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPT EMBER, 2006. ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 13 OF 15 34. SO FAR AS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED , IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE ONLY A FEW MA TERIAL FACTS . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT MACHINE WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECATION WAS CLAIMED FOR THE FULL YEAR. THE A SSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS CLAIM ON THE SHORT GROUND THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT CHA NGE IN SALE, PURCHASE FIGURE DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2006 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS A DECLINE IN THE SALE FIGURE IN SEPT EMBER 2006 . IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT T HAT MACHINE WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 WAS INCORRECT. IT WAS NOT ED THAT ON PERUSAL OF MONTHLY SALE FIGURE AND DAILY SALE FIGURE ON SEPTEMBER 2006, NO BASIS WAS NOTICED WHY THE DATE OF 24 TH SEPT EMBER, 2006 HAS BEEN CHOSEN AS DATE OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION BUT THERE IS NO SALE OF PRODUCTION BY NEW MACHINERY IS SHOWN. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, M ACHINERY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2006, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. O N THIS BASI S , THE A SSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO DI SALLOW THE DEPRECIATI O N TO T HE EXTENT OF 50%. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP E AL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) . THE LD . CIT ( A ) DELETED TH IS PAR TI A L DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY INTER ALIA OBS E RVING AS FOLLOWS: - 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER RE S TRICTED THE APPELLANT S CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 50% ON THE GROUND THAT COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION ST ARTED ONLY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT WAS THE OWNER OF MACHINES WHICH WERE PURCHASED WELL WITHIN FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO COMMERCIAL USE OF THESE MACHINES. AP PELLANT DECLARED COMMERCIAL USE ON 24.09.2006. PRIOR TO THAT T RIAL PRODUCTION WAS MADE WHICH I S NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE , THE MACHINES WERE OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND WERE U S ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SINCE BOTH TH E CONDIT IONS ARE FULFILLED, APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION FOR THE FULL YEAR. THE DISPUTE REGARDING COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IS NOT RELEVANT AS FAR THE MACHINE S WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANT S BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY THE DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED AT TH E RATE OF 50% IS NOT CORRECT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DELETED. ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 14 OF 15 35. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 36. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND T HAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS INDEED IN ERROR IN PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT SALE OF PRODUCTION CAN BE TAKEN TO BE RE AS ONABLE BASIS FOR ASCERTAINING THE MACHINES BEING PUT TO USE . IT IS NOT ELEMENTARY THAT THE USE OF MACHINE I S LINKED TO THE PRODUCTION AND NOT ALES AND , THEREFORE , IRRE SPECTIVE WHETHER OR NOT PRODUCTION S OF A MACHINE ARE S AME AT A POINT OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION AS LONG A S MACHINERY HAS BEEN PUT TO USE. THERE IS NO COGENT MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MACHINERY WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 . AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE LD . CIT ( A ) THAT PRODUCTION HAD COMMENCED WITHIN THE PERIOD. ON THESE FACTS , THE IS ASSESSEE INDEED E LIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF WHOLE YEAR AND LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE APPROVE HIS ACTION ON THIS ACCOUNT. GROUND NO.5 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 37. IN GROUND NO.6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF LD. CIT(A) S DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,81,661 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EARNED ON PREOPERATIVE SALES. 38. AS EVIDENT FROM THE PLAIN PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE AND PRO DUCTION PRICE TREATING THE SAME A PROFIT OF THE PRE - OPERATIVE SALES. THIS CLEARLY DOES NOT TAKE CARE OF OTHER EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SHORT GROUND THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE FAR IN EXCESS OF THIS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.408 & 693 /AHD/ 2011 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 15 OF 15 39. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT OR EVEN SERIOUSLY DISPUTE THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT ( A ) TO THE EFFECT THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARNING THIS AMOUNT OF RUPEES HAVE BEEN IGNORED ALTOGETHER AND THAT IF SUCH EXPENSE S ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THEY WILL BE INDICATIVE FIGURE. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD . CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE APPROVE THE ACTION OF THE LD . CI T(A) . GROUND NO.6 IS A LSO DISMISSED. 40. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 41. TO SUM UP , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD