The ITO, Ward-6(1), Surat V. Smt. Eala Sandeep Shah, Surat

ITA 431/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63153 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Charitable institution; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AH MEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT JM & SHRI ANIL CHATUR VEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO.431 /AHD/2010. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1). AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) VS. SMT. EALA SANDEEP SHAH, 6/2179, PIPLA SHERI, MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT. (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADOPS 4355D APPELLANT BY : MR.T.SHANKAR, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : MR. M.J. SHAH. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 2-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23-11-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT (A)- IV,SURAT DATED 10-11-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE AS UNDER: 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM PAR TNERSHIP FIRM, CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST INCOME. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-12-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,35,843/-. THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 2 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143 (3 ) VIDE ORDER DATED 12- 12-2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.3 2,20,780/- AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 10-11-2009 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AGAINST THE AFORESAID ACTION OF CIT (A), THE REVENU E IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDI TION U/S. 69B WHICH READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,24,938/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.69 B OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME,. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHAS ED A FLAT AT MUMBAI FOR RS.25 LACS. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MUMBAI, BASED ON THE JANTRI RATES VALUED THE FLAT AT RS.42,24,938/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF RS.30,400/-.THE ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE BY RS.17,24,938/- (RS.42,24,938 LESS RS.25,00,000) WAS NOT SHOWN IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE N OTICE TO ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTING TO RS .17,24,938/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF PROPERTY BY SUB-REGISTRAR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69B OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED THE FLAT FROM RATA NCHAND LALUBHAI ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 3 JOGANI CHARITABLE TRUST (A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST) . AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950, THE TRUST AFT ER TAKING THE PERMISSION FROM CHARITY COMMISSIONER INVITED PUBLIC TENDERS FO R SALE OF FLAT. IN RESPONSE TO THE TENDER THE ASSESSEE GAVE A PROPOSAL TO BUY THE FLAT FOR RS.23 LACS WHICH WAS FINALLY RAISED TO RS.25 LACS. ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CHARITY COMMISSIONER HAD APPROVED TH E RATE OF RS.25 LACS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT JANTRI RATES ARE STAN DARD RATES FOR A PARTICULAR AREA AND IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOU S OTHER FACTORS. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY SUB-REGISTRAR AND HAD NOT CONTESTED THE VALUATION AND FURTHER THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO PAID ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED TH E DIFFERENCE OF RS.17,24,938/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69B A ND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A SSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N. PATEL DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE PAID THE ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY WITHOUT ANY PROTEST MEANING T HEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE SUB -REGISTRAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT APPEALED BEFORE THE HIGHER AU THORITIES AGAINST THE VALUATION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE AS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT U/S. 69B. HE THUS URGED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE UPHELD. ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 4 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT PR OVISIONS OF SECTION50C ARE DEEMING PROVISIONS AND ARE APPLICABL E TO SELLER AND PROVIDES THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES IS TO BE DEEMED AS THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE SELLER. IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE BUYER OF A PROPERTY. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI VIRJIBHAI KUKADIA (ITA NO. 372/AHD/20 10) ORDER DATED 31-8- 2012. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND URGED THAT THE O RDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PURCHASED A FLAT FROM RATANCHAND LALUBHAI JOGANI CHARITABLE TRUST, A PUBL IC CHARITABLE TRUST IN MUMBAI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.25 LACS. PUR SUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 A ND AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER REQUIRED PROCEDURES, THE TRUST HAD I SSUED ADVERTISEMENT IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER INVITING PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF THE F LAT. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL TO BUY THE FLAT AT RS.23 LACS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AND OTHER FACTORS, CHARITY COMMISSIONER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE BID AND THEREUPON ASSESSEE AGREED TO PURCHASE THE FLAT FOR RS.25 LACS. THE PROPOSAL OF ASSESSEE FOR RS.25 LACS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRUST AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE FLAT FOR RS. 25 LACS. REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT TH E AFORESAID FACTS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY BASE D ON THE VALUATION MADE BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY S TAMP DUTY. ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 5 9. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI VIRJIBHAI KUKADIA ( SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C IS A DEEM ING PROVISION WHEREUNDER THE STAMP DUTY RATE IS TREATED AS FULL V ALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 48. IT I S APPLICABLE TO SELLER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASE OF PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 69B. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE JANTRY RATE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AUTHORITIES FOR L EVY OF STAMP DUTY. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT OVER AND A BOVE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE REAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED THE INVEST MENT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS A PURCHA SER AND NOT A SELLER OF FLAT AND THEREFORE DEEMING PROVISION OF SEC. 50C AR E NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE FIND NO REASO N TO INTERFERE TO THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND THUS UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. THE SECOND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO THE RESTRI CTING RENTAL INCOME AT RS.1,20,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,26,000/-. THE GROUND READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE RENT AL INCOME AT RS.1,20,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.12,60,000/- CALCULATED BY THE A.O. ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 6 12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O . OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED FOLLOWING PROPERTIES. (1) FLAT NO.10-A, SATNAM NAGAR, MUMBAI. (2) FLAT NO.16,SATNAM NAGAR, MUMBAI. (3) FLAT AT DEVCHHAYA CHS, TARDEO, MUMBAI. 13. ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED ANY RENTAL INCOME TO T AX. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FLATS AT SATNAM NAGAR ARE ON 2 ND FLOOR AND 3 RD FLOOR OF SAME BUILDING. FLAT ON 2 ND FLOOR IS A SMALL FLAT WITHOUT KITCHEN AND THEREFOR E BOTH THE FLATS ARE USED AS A SINGLE UNIT BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE SELF OCCUPIED. IN THE FLAT AT DEVCHHAYA CHS, ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 1/4 TH AND THE SAME WAS OCCUPIED BY HER SISTER IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE AGR EED FOR CONSIDERING THE NOTIONAL RENT AS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL R ATABLE CERTIFICATE. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FOR DETERMINING REASONABLE RENT, SEVERAL FACTORS HAVE T O BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HE ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE REASON ABLE RENT OF THE PROPERTIES AS UNDER AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED RS.12,60, 000/- AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SR.NO. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. ANNUAL LETTING VALUE. 1. FLAT NO.10-A,SATNAM NAGAR, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI RS.6,00,000/- (AS THE FLAT WAS ACQUIRED IN DECEMBER,2005 AND THE RENT HAS BEEN CALCULATED AT RS.2,00,000/- PER MONTH FOR THREE MONTHS). 2. FLAT SHARING FLAT NO.10-A, SATNAM NAGAR, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI. RS.12,00,000/- TOTAL. RS.18, 00,000/- ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 7 ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTIES. RS. 18,00,000/- LESS: DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE. DEDUCTION U/S.24 @ 30% RS. 5,40,000/- INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 12,60,000/- 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). BEFORE CIT (A) IT WAS INTERA LIA SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FLATS SITUATED AT 2 ND FLOOR OF SATNAM NAGAR DOES NOT HAVE KITCHEN AND CANNOT BE USED AS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDE NCE AND THEREFORE BOTH THE FLATS (SITUATED ON 2 ND AND 3 RD FLOOR OF THE BUILDING) ARE USED BY ASSESSEE AS A SINGLE FLAT AND ARE SELF OCCUPIED. SI NCE BOTH THE FLAT ARE SELF OCCUPIED, NO NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME WAS CONSIDERED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FLAT DEVCHHAYA WAS OCCUPIED BY ASSES SEES SISTER IN LAW AND NO RENT WAS RECEIVED BY HER. IT WAS THUS SUBMIT TED THAT NOTIONAL INCOME FROM FLAT AT DEVCHHAYA BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS O F MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. 15. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE, GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE VERY CAREFULLY AND APPRECIATED THE MERITS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AC TION HAS BEEN EXCESSIVE AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ONE FLAT IS VIRTUALLY SELF-OCCUPIED HAVING NO SEPARATE KITCHEN IN THE SAID PREMISES. WH ILE THE OTHER HAS BEEN LET OUT TO THE APPELLANTS SISTER-IN-LAW. STIL L IT WILL BE PROPER IF RENT IS ESTIMATED TO BE AT RS.10,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT. THEREFORE THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EST IMATE RS.1,20,000/- PER ANNUM [ I.E. RS.10,000 PER MONTH X 12 MONTHS = RS.1,20,000/-] FOR LET OUT FLAT. ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 8 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR DETE RMINING REASONABLE RENT SEVERAL FACTORS NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. HE SU BMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE PRIME LOCATION OF THE FLAT, (AT PEDDAR ROAD) AT MUMBAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE REASONABLE IN ESTIMATING THE FAIR RENT. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT (A). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAYVADAN KAPADIA VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 1580-1582, 1584- 1585/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 18-12-2009. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT (A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF 3 FLATS. OUT OF THE 3 FLATS, 2 FLATS ARE LOCATED IN A SAME BUILDING (SATNAM NAGAR) BUT ON DIFFERENT FLOORS AND IN THE 3 RD FLAT (DEVCHHAYA CHS) THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS 1/4 TH . THE FLAT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS 1/4 TH , IS OCCUPIED BY SISTER-IN-LAW OF ASSESSEE AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES NO RENT. THE 2 FLATS LOCATED IN SAME BUILDING ARE U SED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A SINGLE UNIT AS IN ONE OF THE FLAT THERE IS NO KITCH EN AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED INDEPENDENTLY. BOTH THE FLATS ARE SELF-OCCUPIE D BY THE ASSESSEE. REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO C ONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION, CIT (A) HAS HELD THE 2 ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 9 FLATS AT SATNAM NAGAR AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND HAS ESTIMATED FAIR RENT OF FLAT AT DEVCHHAYA CHS AT RS.10,000/- PER MONTH AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.1,20 ,000/-. 20. IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAYVADAN KAPDIA VS. DICT (S UPRA), THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIO N OF ITAT MUMBAI D BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARKAPER INDUSTRIES (P) LT D. VS. ITO (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT LET O UT. THEREFORE, IS PRESUMED THAT THESE ARE SELF-OCCUPIED AND THE DECIS ION OF THE ITAT MENTIONED ABOVE IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. THE ITAT MUMBAI D BENCH IN THE AFORESAID DE CISION AFTER EXAMINING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 22 & 23 OF THE I.T. ACT, ALL THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS AND CIRCULAR OF CBDT CIT ED SUPRA HELD THAT CHARGE UNDER SEC.22 IS NOT ON THE MARKET RENT; BUT IS ON THE ANNUAL VALUE AND IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT LET OUT, MUNICIPAL VALUE WOULD BE A PROPER YARDSTICK FOR DETERMINING THE ANN UAL VALUE. MUNICIPAL VALUATION SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF DETERMIN ING ANNUAL VALUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES IN ADOPTING ANNUAL VALUE ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRIES CONDUCTED RE GARDING MARKET RENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI D BENCH (SUPRA) DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION OF ALL THE PROPERTIES IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL . FOR THIS PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXAMINE THE SAME AND RECOMPUTED THE INCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTIES KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF ITAT MUM BAI D BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARKPAPER INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 21. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN TH E PRESENT CASE, NO ITA NO 431/ AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2006 -07 10 INTERFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS CALLED FOR. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD CIT (A)S ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 -11 - 2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-IV,SURAT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDAB AD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 19 - 11 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 19 /11 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..