Adani Green Technology Limited, Ahmedabad V. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 446/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Adani Green Technology Limited appealing against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-1, which was based on a revisional assessment under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The primary issue was whether the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, particularly concerning the non-disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. The tribunal examined the arguments and evidence presented, including relevant judicial precedents, and concluded that since no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year, the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D did not apply, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135827 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt Ltd, CIT vs. Chettinad Logistic Pvt. Ltd, Vedanta Ltd vs. CIT, Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. vs. CIT, M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, DCIT vs. M/s CLP India Pvt. Ltd, Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd vs. PCIT, CIT vs. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd, CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd, CIT vs. S.G. Pgnatale, CIT vs. Goslino Mario, CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd, M.M Aqua Technologies Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKAMLESHMAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIBIRENSHAH

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRIT.RSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.446/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2018-2019 AdaniGreenTechnologyLimited, 1,AdaniHouse, Nr.MithakhaliSixRoads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN:AAWCS9158G Vs. ThePrincipalCommissioner ofIncome-tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriBirenShah,AR Revenueby:ShriKamleshMakwana,Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:17/10/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:20/10/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedPrincipalCommissionerofIncomeTax,Ahmedabad-1, arisinginthematteroftheorderpassedunders.263oftheIncomeTaxAct, 1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear 2018-2019. ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 2 2.TheonlygrievanceraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.PCITu/s263of theActerredinholdingtheassessmentframedbytheAOu/s143(3)oftheAct. r.w.s.143(3A)and143(3B)oftheAct,aserroneousinsofarprejudicialtothe interestofrevenue. 3.TheLd.PCIT,onperusaloftheassessmentrecords,foundthatthe assesseehasmadehugeinvestmentinsharesandsecuritieswhichcangenerate exemptedincomeu/s10(34)oftheAct.Likewise,theLd.PCITalsofoundthatthe assesseehasclaimedtotalexpensesintheprofitandlossaccountsincluding financialcostamountingtoRs.20,36,767/-only.However,assesseehasnotmade anydisallowanceundertheprovisionofsection14Ar.w.Rule8DofIncome-tax RuleswhichwascompulsorytohavebeenmadeinpursuancetotheCBDT CircularNo.05/2014dated11/02/2014,eveninasituationwhentheassesseehas notearnedanyexemptedincome.Thus,theLd.PCITwasoftheviewthatthe assessmenthasbeenframedbytheAOwithoutnecessaryverificationand inquirieswhichshouldhavebeenmade.Accordingly,theLd.PCITset-asidethe AssessmentOrderanddirectedtheAOtoframetheassessmentafreshafter necessaryinquiries. 4.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.PCIT,theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 5.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to64and contendedthattherewasnoexemptedincomereceivedbytheassesseeinthe yearunderconsiderationandthereforethequestionofdisallowanceunderthe provisionofsection14Ar.w.Rule8DofIncome-taxRulesdoesnotarise.TheLd. ARinsupportofhiscontentionreliedonthejudgmentofHon’bleJurisdictional HighCourtinthecaseofCITvs.CorrtechEnergyPvtLtd.reportedin223taxman 130whichwassubsequentlyupheldbytheHon’bleSCinthecaseofCITvs. ChettinadLogisticPvt.Ltd.Vsreportedin95taxmann.com250. ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 3 6.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRsubmittedthattheassessmenthasbeen framedbytheAOwithoutproperinquiriesandthereforetheactiontakenbythe Ld.PCITu/s263oftheAct,iswellwithinhisjurisdiction.TheLd.DRinsupportof hisclaimhasreliedonjudgmentoftheHon’bleBombayHighCourtinthecaseof VedantaLtdvs.CITreportedin124taxmann.com435. 7.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.InrevisingtheAssessmentOrderu/s263oftheAct, thetwinconditionsneedtobesatisfiedbeingerroneousinsofarprejudicialtothe interestofrevenue.Ifanyoftheconditionismissing,thentheassessmentcannot berevisedu/s263oftheAct.Admittedly,inthegivencase,thereisnoexempted incomeu/s10(34)oftheActfortheyearunderconsideration.TheHon’bleCourts timeandagainheldthattherecannotbeanydisallowanceundertheprovisionof section14Ar.w.Rule8DofIncometaxRulesinasituationwherethereisno exemptincomeearnedbytheassessee.WealsorelyonthejudgmentofHon’ble JurisdictionalHighCourtinthecaseofCorrtechEnergyPvt.Ltd(Supra)whereinit washeldasunder: Inthepresentcase,thetribunalhasrecordedthefindingoffactthattheassesseedidnot makeanyclaimforexemptionofanyincomefrompaymentoftax.Itwasonthisbasis thatthetribunalheldthatdisallowanceundersection14AoftheActcouldnotbemade.In theprocesstribunalreliedonthedecisionofDivisionBenchofPunjabandHaryanaHigh CourtincaseofCITvWinsomeTextileIndustriesLtd.[2009]319ITR204inwhichalso theCourthadobservedasunder: "7.Wedonotfindanymeritinthissubmission.ThejudgementofthiscourtinAbhishek IndustriesLtd(2006)286ITR1wasontheissueofallowabilityofinterestpaidonloans giventosisterconcerns,withoutinterest.Itwasheldthatdeductionforinterestwas permissiblewhenloanwastakenforbusinesspurposeandnotfordivertingthesameto sisterconcernwithouthavingnexuswiththebusiness.Theobservationsmadetherein havetobereadinthatcontext.Inthepresentcase,admittedlytheassesseedidnotmake anyclaimforexemption.Insuchasituationsection14Acouldhavenoapplication." 5.Wedonotfindanyquestionoflawarising,TaxAppealisthereforedismissed. 8.TheviewtakenbytheHon’bleJurisdictionalHighCourtintheabovecited casehasbeensubsequentlyapprovedbytheHon’bleSCinthecaseof\M/s ChettinadLogisticsPvt.Ltd.(supra).TheheadnoteofthejudgmentofHon’ble SupremeCourtreadsasunder: ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 4 Section14A,oftheIncome-taxAct,1961,readwithrule8DoftheIncome-TaxRules, 1962-Expenditureincurredinrelationtoincomenotincludibleintotalincome(General principle)-Assessmentyear2011-12-HighCourtbyimpugnedorderheldthatsection 14Acanonlybetriggered,if,assesseeseekstosquareoffexpenditureagainstincome whichdoesnotformpartoftotalincomeunderAct;rule8Donlyprovidesforamethodto determineamountofexpenditureincurredinrelationtoincome,whichdoesnotformpart oftotalincomeofassesseeanditcannotgobeyondwhatisprovidedinsection14A-It furtherheldthatwherenoexemptincomei.e.,dividend,wasearnedinrelevant assessmentyearbyassessee,section14Acouldnotbeinvoked-WhetherSLPagainstsaid impugnedorderwastobedismissed-Held,yes[Para1][Infavourofassessee] 8.1NowithasbecomelawofthelandbyvirtueofthefindingsoftheHon’ble SCthattherecannotbeanydisallowanceu/s14Ar.w.Rule8DofIncome-tax Rulesinasituationwheretheassesseehasnotearnedanyexemptedincomeuntil andunlessthereissomechangeundertheprovisionsoflaw.Thefactthatthe assesseehasnotearnedexemptincomehasnowherebeendisputedbytheLd. DRappearingonbehalfoftherevenue.Accordingly,weholdthatthereisnoerror causinganyprejudicetotheinterestofrevenueintheassessmentframedu/s 143(3)oftheAct. 8.2Atthisstage,itisnecessarytodealwiththeamendmentunderthe provisionofsection14AoftheActbywayinsertionofanexplanationclarifying thatthedisallowanceneedstobemadeundersection14AoftheActeventhereis noexemptincomeearnedbytheassessee.However,wefindthatsuch amendmentisnotapplicablefortheyearunderconsiderationbyvirtueofthe orderoftheITATinthecaseofDCITVs.M/sCLPIndiaPvt.Ltd.inITANo. 290/AHD/2020fortheAY2015videorderdated4-11-2022whereinitwasheldas under: 7.TheotherargumentsoftheLd.D.R.namelytheAmendmentnamelyinsertionof ExplanationtoSection14AmadebytheFinanceAct2022willbeapplicableretrospective. ThisargumentoftheLd.D.R.doesnotholditgoodastheveryrecentDelhiHighCourt JudgmentinthecaseofEraInfrastructure(India)Ltd.(citedsupra)whereintheHon’ble Courtheldasfollows: 3.HesubmitsthattheITATerredinrelyingonthedecisionofthisCourtinPCIT vs.IL&FSEnergy)DevelopmentCompanyLtd.,2017SCCOnlineDel9893 (whereinithasbeenheldthatnodisallowanceunderSection14AoftheActcan bemadeiftheassesseehadnotearnedanyexemptincome),astherevenuehas ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 5 notbeenacceptedthesaiddecisionandhaspreferredanSLPagainstthesaid decision. 4.Learnedcounselforthepetitioneralsosubmitsthatinviewoftheamendment madebytheFinanceAct,2022toSection14AoftheActbyinsertinganon obstanteclauseandanexplanationaftertheproviso,achangeinlawhasbeen broughtaboutandconsequently,thejudgmentsrelieduponbytheauthorities belowincludingPCITvs.IL&FSEnergyDevelopmentCompanyLtd(supra)areno longergoodlaw.TheamendmenttoSection14AoftheActisreproduced hereinbelow:- "Amendmentofsection14A. Insection14AoftheIncome-taxAct,- (a)insub-section(1),forthewords"Forthepurposesof",thewords "NotwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedinthisAct,forthe purposesof"shallbesubstituted; (b)aftertheproviso,thefollowingExplanationshallbeinserted,namely:- "'[Explanation.—Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebyclarifiedthat notwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedinthisAct,the provisionsofthissectionshallapplyandshallbedeemedtohavealways appliedinacasewheretheincome,notformingpartofthetotalincome underthisAct,hasnotaccruedorarisenorhasnotbeenreceivedduring thepreviousyearrelevanttoanassessmentyearandtheexpenditurehas beenincurredduringthesaidpreviousyearinrelationtosuchincomenot formingpartofthetotalincome.]" 5.HoweveraperusaloftheMemorandumoftheFinanceBill,2022revealsthatit explicitlystipulatesthattheamendmentmadetoSection14Awilltakeeffectfrom 1stApril,2022andwillapplyinrelationtotheassessmentyear2022-23and subsequentassessmentyears.TherelevantextractofClauses4,5,6&7ofthe MemorandumofFinanceBill,2022arereproducedhereinbelow: "4.Inordertomaketheintentionofthelegislationclearandto makeitfreefromanymisinterpretation,itisproposedtoinsertan Explanationtosection14AoftheActtoclarifythatnotwithstanding anythingtothecontrarycontainedinthisAct,theprovisionsofthis sectionshallapplyandshallbedeemedtohavealwaysappliedinacase whereexemptincomehasnotaccruedorarisenorhasnotbeenreceived duringthepreviousyearrelevanttoanassessmentyearandthe expenditurehasbeenincurredduringthesaidpreviousyearinrelationto suchexemptincome. 5.Thisamendmentwilltakeeffectfrom1stApril,2022, 6.Itisalsoproposedtoamendsub-section(1)ofthesaidsection,soas toincludeanon-obstanteclauseinrespectofotherprovisionsofthe Income-taxActandprovidethatnodeductionshallbeallowedinrelation toexemptincome,notwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedin thisAct. ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 6 7.Thisamendmentwilltakeeffectfrom1stApril,2022andwill accordinglyapplyinrelationtotheassessmentyear2022-23and subsequentassessmentyears." (emphasissupplied) 6.Furthermore,theSupremeCourtinSedcoForexInternationalDrill.Inc.v.CIT, (2005)12SCC717hasheldthataretrospectiveprovisioninataxactwhichis"for theremovalofdoubts"cannotbepresumedtoberetrospective,evenwheresuch languageisused,ifitaltersorchangesthelawasitearlierstood.Therelevant extractofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow: "9.TheHighCourtdidnotrefertothe1999Explanationinupholdingthe inclusionofsalaryforthefieldbreakperiodsintheassessableincomeof theemployeesoftheappellant.However,therespondentshaveurgedthe pointbeforeus. 10.Inourviewthe1999Explanationcouldnotapplytoassessmentyears forthesimplereasonthatithadnotcomeintoeffectthen.Priorto introducingthe1999Explanation,thedecisioninCITv.S.G.Pgnatale [(1980)124ITR391(Guj)]wasfollowedin1989byaDivisionBenchof theGauhatiHighCourtinCITv.GoslinoMario[(2000)241ITR314 (Gau)].Itfoundthatthe1983Explanationhadbeengiveneffectfrom1- 4-1979whereastheyearinquestioninthatcasewas1976-77andsaid: (ITRp.318) "[I]tissettledlawthatassessmenthastobemadewithreference tothelawwhichisinexistenceattherelevanttime.Themere factthattheassessmentsinquestionhas(sic)somehowremained pendingon1-4-1979,cannotbecogentreasontomakethe Explanationapplicabletothecasesofthepresentassessees.This fortuitouscircumstancecannottakeawaythevestedrightsofthe assesseesathand." 11.ThereasoningoftheGauhatiHighCourtwasexpresslyaffirmedby thisCourtinCITv.GoslinoMario[(2000)10SCC165:(2000)241ITR 312].Thesedecisionsarethusauthoritiesforthepropositionthatthe 1983Explanationexpresslyintroducedwitheffectfromaparticulardate wouldnoteffecttheearlierassessmentyears. 12.Inthisstateofthelaw,on27-2-1999theFinanceBill,1999 substitutedtheExplanationtoSection9(l)(ii)(orwhathasbeenreferred tobyusasthe1999Explanation).Section5oftheBillexpresslystated thatwitheffectfrom1-4-2000,thesubstitutedExplanationwouldread: "Explanation.—Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebydeclaredthatthe incomeofthenaturereferredtointhisclausepayablefor— (a)servicerenderedinIndia;and (b)therestperiodorleaveperiodwhichisprecededandsucceededby servicesrenderedinIndiaandformspartoftheservicecontractof employment,shallberegardedasincomeearnedinIndia." TheFinanceAct,1999whichfollowedtheBillincorporatedthesubstituted ExplanationtoSection9(l)(ii)withoutanychange. ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 7 13.TheExplanationasintroducedin1983wasconstruedbytheKerala HighCourtinCITv.S.R.Patton[(1992)193ITR49(Ker)]whilefollowing theGujaratHighCourt'sdecisioninS.G.Pgnatale[(1980)124ITR391 (Guj)]toholdthattheExplanationwasnotdeclaratorybutwidenedthe scopeofSection9(l)(ii).Itwasfurtherheldthatevenifitwereassumed tobeclarificatoryorthatitremovedwhateverambiguitytherewasin Section9(l)(ii)oftheAct,itdidnotoperateinrespectofperiodswhich werepriorto1-4-1979.ItwasheldthatsincetheExplanationcameinto forcefrom1-4-1979,itcouldnotbereliedonforanypurposeforan anteriorperiod. 14.IntheappealpreferredfromthedecisionbytheRevenuebeforethis Court,theRevenuedidnotquestionthisreadingoftheExplanationbythe KeralaHighCourt,butrestricteditselftoaquestionoffactviz.whether theTribunalhadcorrectlyfoundthatthesalaryoftheassesseewaspaid byaforeigncompany.ThisCourtdismissedtheappealholdingthatitwas aquestionoffact.(CITv.S.R.Patton[(1998)8SCC608]). 15.GiventhislegislativehistoryofSection9(l)(ii),wecanonlyassume thatitwasdeliberatelyintroducedwitheffectfrom1-4-2000and thereforeintendedtoapplyprospectively[SeeCITv.Pate/Bros.&Co. Ltd.,(1995)4SCC485,494(para18):(1995)215ITR165].Itwasalso understoodassuchbyCBDTwhichissuedCircularNo.779dated14-9- 1999containingExplanatoryNotesontheprovisionsoftheFinanceAct, 1999insofarasitrelatedtodirecttaxes.Itsaidinparas5.2and5.3. "5.2TheActhasexpandedtheexistingExplanationwhichstates thatsalarypaidforservicesrenderedinIndiashallberegardedas incomeearnedinIndia,soastospecificallyprovidethatany salarypayablefortherestperiodorleaveperiodwhichisboth precededandsucceededbyserviceinIndiaandformspartofthe servicecontractofemploymentwillalsoberegardedasincome earnedinIndia. 5.3Thisamendmentwilltakeeffectfrom1-4-2000,andwill accordingly,applyinrelationtoAssessmentYear2000-2001and subsequentyears." 16.Thedepartmentalunderstandingoftheeffectofthe1999Amendment evenifitwereassumednottobindtherespondentsunderSection119of theAct,neverthelessaffordsareasonableconstructionofit,andthereis noreasonwhyweshouldnotadoptit. 17.AswasaffirmedbythisCourtinGoslinoMario[(2000)10SCC165: (2000)241ITR312]acardinalprincipleofthetaxlawisthatthelawto beappliedisthatwhichisinforceintherelevantassessmentyearunless otherwiseprovidedexpresslyorbynecessaryimplication.(Seea/so RelianceJuteandIndustriesLtd.v.CIT[(1980)1SCC139:1980SCC (Tax)67].)AnExplanationtoastatutoryprovisionmayfulfilthepurpose ofclearingupanambiguityinthemainprovisionoranExplanationcan addtoandwidenthescopeofthemainsection[SeeSoniaBhatiav.State ofU.P.,(1981)2SCC585,598:AIR1981SC1274,1282para24].Ifitis initsnatureclarificatorythentheExplanationmustbereadintothemain ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 8 provisionwitheffectfromthetimethatthemainprovisioncameintoforce [SeeShyamSunderv.RamKumar,(2001)8SCC24(para44);BrijMohan DasLaxmanDasv.CIT,(1997)1SCC352,354;CITv.PodarCement(P) Ltd.,(1997)5SCC482,506].Butifitchangesthelawitisnotpresumed toberetrospective,irrespectiveofthefactthatthephrasesusedare"itis declared"or"fortheremovalofdoubts". (emphasissupplied) 7.TheaforesaidpropositionoflawhasbeenreiteratedbytheSupremeCourtin M.MAquaTechnologiesLtd.V.CommissionerofIncomeTax,Delhi-Ill,2021SCC OnlineSC575.Therelevantportionofthesaidjudgmentisreproduced hereinbelow:- "22.Second,aretrospectiveprovisioninataxactwhichis"forthe removalofdoubts"cannotbepresumedtoberetrospective,evenwhere suchlanguageisused,ifitaltersorchangesthelawasitearlierstood. ThiswasstatedinSedcoForexInternationalDrill.Inc.v.CIT,(2005)12 SCC717asfollows: 17.AswasaffirmedbythisCourtinGoslinoMario[(2000)10SCC 165]acardinalprincipleofthetaxlawisthatthelawtobe appliedisthatwhichisinforceintherelevantassessmentyear unlessotherwiseprovidedexpresslyorbynecessaryimplication. (SeealsoRelianceJuteandIndustriesLtd.v.CIT[(1980)1SCC 139].)AnExplanationtoastatutoryprovisionmayfulfilthe purposeofclearingupanambiguityinthemainprovisionoran Explanationcanaddtoandwidenthescopeofthemainsection [SeeSoniaBhatiav.StateofU.P.,(1981)2SCC585].Ifitisinits natureclarificatorythentheExplanationmustbereadintothe mainprovisionwitheffectfromthetimethatthemainprovision cameintoforce[SeeShyamSunderv.RamKumar,(2001)8SCC 24;BrijMohanDasLaxmanDasv.CIT,(1997)1SCC352;CITv. PodarCement(P)Ltd.,(1997)5SCC482].Butifitchangesthe lawitisnotpresumedtoberetrospective,irrespectiveofthefact thatthephrasesusedare"itisdeclared"or"fortheremovalof doubts". 18.TherewasandisnoambiguityinthemainprovisionofSection 9(l)(ii).Itincludessalariesinthetotalincomeofanassesseeifthe assesseehasearneditinIndia.Theword"earned"hadbeen judiciallydefinedinS.G.Pgnatale[(1980)124ITR391(Guj)]by theHighCourtofGujarat,inourview,correctly,tomeanas income"arisingoraccruinginIndia".Theamendmenttothe sectionbywayofanExplanationin1983effectedachangeinthe scopeofthatjudicialdefinitionsoastoincludewitheffectfrom 1979,"incomepayableforservicerenderedinIndia". 19.WhentheExplanationseekstogiveanartificialmeaningto "earnedinIndia"andbringsaboutachangeeffectivelyinthe existinglawandinadditionisstatedtocomeintoforcewitheffect fromafuturedate,thereisnoprincipleofinterpretationwhich wouldjustifyreadingtheExplanationasoperating retrospectively." ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 9 8.Consequently,thisCourtisoftheviewthattheamendmentofSection14A, whichis"forremovalofdoubts"cannotbepresumedtoberetrospectiveeven wheresuchlanguageisused,ifitaltersorchangesthelawasitearlierstood. 7.1.RespectfullyfollowingtheabovejudicialprinciplestheinsertionofExplanationto Section14AbytheFinanceAct,2022isoperativeonlyfromtheAssessmentYear2022-23 onwardsandnotapplicablefortheearlierAssessmentYearsandthereforetheargument oftheLd.D.R.isherebyrejected. 8.3Atthetimeofhearingtheld.DRhasreferredthejudgmentofHon’ble BombayHighCourtinthecaseofM/sVedantaLtd(supra)butwefindthatthe sameisdistinguishablefromthefactsofthepresentcase,thuswehumblyhold thesamecannotbemadeapplicabletothegivenfactsofthepresentcase. 8.4Inviewoftheabove,wequashtherevisionalorderpassedbytheLd.PCIT u/s263oftheAct.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 9.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton20/10/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (T.RSENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated20/10/2023 Manish ITAno.446/AHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 10 आदेशकीपधतधलधपगेधरत/CopyoftheOrderforwardedto: आदेशािुसार/BYORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबाद/ITAT,Ahmedabad 1. अपीलार्/TheAppellant 2. प्यर्/TheRespondent. 3. संबंधितआयकरआयुक/ConcernedCIT 4. आयकरआयुक(अपील)/TheCIT(A) 5. धवभागीयपधतधिधि,आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण/DR, ITAT, 6. गारधफाईल/Guardfile.