The ITO, Ward-2(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s. Ruchi Builders and Developers, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 449/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2025 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR IE
• Assessee Lawyers: M J RANPURA E N
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Change of opinion
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

N R, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. A.. O, UE O . . O , O BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, AM IT A NO . 449 /RJT/20 1 2 . I I / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 3 - 04 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2),RAJKOT ( T / APPELLANT) VS. M/S RUCHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, OPP. JAYSHREE GUEST HOUSE, KANAK ROAD, RAJKOT. PAN: AAEFR6898M 2T / RESPONDENT P E / REVENUE BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR IE / ASSESSEE BY SHRI. M.J.RANPURA E N / DATE OF HEARING 16 .1.2013 E N / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 . 2 .2013 / ORDER A.. O, UE O / T. K. SHARMA, J. M T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.5. 2012 OF THE LD.CIT(A) - II I - RAJKOT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSTRUCTION IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.11.203 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.16,09,604/ - . THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 8.12.206 DETERMINING THE LOSS OF RS.8,66,571/ - . ON APPEAL, THE LD. ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 2 CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 6.6.2008. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.6.20 0 9 PASSED IN ITA NO.496/RJT/2008 RESTORED THE ISSUE RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS.3,49,283/ - TO THE FILE OF T HE AO AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REST TWO GROUNDS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ISSUES RESTORED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IS AS UNDER : 2. ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.3,49,283/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69C REGARDING THE SAME HONBLE ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDER : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THERE FORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. THEREFORE WE RESORT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. MEANWHILE, ON 2.2.2010, THE AO ISSUES NOTICE U/S 147 R.W.S.148 TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO IT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.11.2010 FILED OBJECTION AGAINST RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED BY RECORDING THE REASONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : DURING THE FY RELEVANT TO THE AY 20 0 3 - 04 THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED PROJECTS ADVANCE OF RS.21,22,000/ - FROM THE PARTY AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN INCOME RESULTING IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF RS.21,22,000/ - . FURTHER IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID IN CASH TO SHRI SURYAKA NT KAKKAD, H UF AND SHRI NIRAJ KAKKAD RS.38,000/ - EACH IS CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS U/S 269T OF THE ACT THEREAFTER, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 29.12.2010 U/S 143(3) R.W.S.254 AND 147 OF THE IT ACT. IN THIS ORDER, THE AO IN ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 3 PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.209 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1679/RJT/205 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 COMPUTED THE INCOME AT ( - )RS.16,09,604/ - (AFTER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT OF CITS ORDER DATED 17.7.2008) . 3 . IN PARAGRAPHS 6 TO 18 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2010, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.21,22,000/ - BY TREATING PROJECT ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR ALLOTMENT OF HOUSES AS INCOME IN RESPECT OF LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET . ACCORDING TO THE AO, THIS RECEIPTS O F RS.21,22,000/ - IS CONTRACT RECEIPT WHICH IS NOT REFUNDABLE. ACCORDING AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN, HE CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 8.5.2012, THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW : 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSU ED ON 2.2.2010, WHICH IS BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE AY 2003 - 04. THERE WAS ALREADY AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 EARLIER. THEREFORE, FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT ALREADY MADE U/S 143(3), THE REASONS FOR REOPENI NG MUST RELATED TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE FACTS SHOW THAT T HE PROJECT ADVANCES OF RS.21,22,000/ - WERE RECEIVED BY APPELLANT FOR BOOKING OF HOUSE BY THE CUSTOMERS OF APPELLANT, WHICH WERE TO BE SOLD AND GIVEN POSSESSION ON A FUTURE DATE. THE REVENUE IN SUCH CASES IS RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SALE OF HOUSE IS MADE/POSSESSION OF HOUSE IS GIVEN BY INCLUDING THE ADVANCES AS PART OF THE SALE AND DEDUCTING THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITALIZED COST OF PROJECT . THIS IS AN ACCEPTED AND ESTABLISHED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WHICH IS REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT, AND WAS ACCEPTED IN AY 203 - 04 IN CASE OF APPELLANT BY THE AO. ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 4 MOREOVER, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COST OF PROJE CT IT CAN NEVER BE BELIEVED BY ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN REASONABLY TRAINED IN INCOME TAX LAW S AND ACCOUNTANCY THAT A PROJECT ADVANCE OF RS.2 1 ,22,000/ - WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OR PROFIT. IT IS FURTHER IMPOSSIBLE TO INFER THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT ADVANCE O F RS.21,22,000/ - WOULD RESULT IN INCOME WITHOUT DEDUCTING ANY COST OF PROJECT. THE CORRECT DETERMINATION OF INCOME CAN BE MADE ONLY AFTER PROJECT IS COMPLETE OR THE PROJECT COST IS DETERMINABLE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE COST OF PROJECT AT ALL AND T HEREFORE AO COULD HAVE NOT KNOWN WHETHER ANY PROFIT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT OR NOT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF TREATING RECEIPTS AS ADVANCE TILL SALE IS MADE , WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002 - 03. THEREFORE, CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE SECOND REA SON TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IS APPARENTLY DERIVED FROM THE AUDIT REPORT WHERE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WAS SHOWN IN CASH TO CERTAIN PERSONS. HERE AGAIN, WHEN THE LOAN IS REPAID IN CASH, IT IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO DEFAULT U/S 269T OF THE IT ACT. THERE MAY BE A CORRESPONDING PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, A REPAYMENT OF LOAN IS IN THE DOMAIN OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT, IS NOT CLAIMED FOR DEDUCTION AS EXPENDITURE IN ACCOUNTS , AND IN NO WAY CAN ALTER THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEE N REASONABLY TRAINED IN INCOME TAX LAWS AND ACCOUNTANCY CAN NEVER BELIEVE THAT A DEFAULT U/S 269T MAY RESULT IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IT MAY RESULT IN PENALTY U/S 271E BUT NOT IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. I THEREFORE, FIND THAT EVEN THE SECOND REASON TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 2.2.2010 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON T WO GROUNDS. FIRST, THE REASONS MENTIONED BY T HE AO TO REOPEN CANNOT BE REASON OF BELIEF OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN REASONABLY TRAINED IN INCOME TAX LAWS AND ACCOUNTANCY AND SECOND, THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND T RULY AL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. I THEREFORE, ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GOUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) RWS 147 STATING THAT THE AO HAS NO PO W ER TO REOPEN THE CASE U/S 147 O THE ACT AFTER COMPLETION OF 4 YEARS ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 5 FROM THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS REOPENED WITH THE DUE PERMISSION FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND THE ADDITION OF RS.21,22,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIPT . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FCS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE SUM OF RS.21,22,000/ - SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AS LIABILITIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET BEING ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF UNITS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO TAX ON THE ADVANCE RECEIPTS OF RS.21,22,000/ - . THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ADVANCE RECEIPT OF RS.21,22,000/ - IS TO BE TAXED BY THE AO CONSIDERING AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE YEAR WHICH WAS MISCLASSIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AS LIABILITIES INSTEAD OF RECEIPT. FURTHER , THE ASSESSEE REPAID LOAN OF RS.76,000/ - IN CASH AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS ESCAPED TO TA TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,22,000/ - ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY FACTS. . 4 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, THE LD.DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT WITH DUE PERMISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.21,22,000/ - AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH IS NOT A LIABILITY BUT IS CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE SALE OF UNITS. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF I NCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A UDIT R EPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 8 TH DECEMBER 2007 WHEREIN S O ME ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE WERE MADE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION ON RECORD INCLUDING THE B A LANCE - SHEET. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RE - OPENING THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS JUST A CHANGE OF OPINION REGARDING THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROJECT ADVANCES OF RS.21,22,000/ - IN THE BALANCESHEET WHICH IS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. EVEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUANCE NOTICE U/S 147 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUPPRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACT AND THERE IS NO NEW DOCUMENTS ON RECORD FROM WHICH SUCH OPINION WAS FORMED. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 147 FOR RE - ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON MATERIAL WHICH WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT ON 8.12.2006. ON SECOND THOUGHT /CHANGE OF OPINION, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IS AFTER FOUR YEARS IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARIXIT INDUSTRIES (P) LTD V/S ACIT REPORTED IN 207 TAXMAN 140 , AGAINST THIS ORDER, SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S PARIXIT INDUSTRIES PVT LTD REPORTED IN 24 TAXMANN.COM 301. CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENT THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THERE IS NO FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS, THE AO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION U/S 147 THAT BEYOND FOUR YEARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATMARAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED V/S DCIT 203 TAXMAN 408, WHEREIN IT IS HELD IF THE AO FAILS TO APPLY LEGAL PROVISIONS , NO FAULT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY REQUIRED TO MAKE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE, STATE OR EXPLAIN THE LAW. A LAPSE OR ERROR ON THE PART OF THE AO ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 7 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERI AL FACTS . 5 . FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, HE SUMMITED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT , THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 6. IN REJOINDER, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144/147, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT WHILE FRAMING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AN OPINION WAS FORMED REGARDING LIABILITY OF RS.21,22,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOTHING BUT CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 7 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORI TIES BELOW . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144/147 ON 8.12.2 0 06 IS A R EGULAR A SSESSMENT AS DEFINED IN SUB - SECTION (40) OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. WHIL E FRAMING THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT , B ALANCE - S HEET AS WELL AS A UDITED A CCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT WHILE FRAMING THIS ASSESSMENT THE AO DID NOT FORM AN OPINION IN RESPECT OF PROJECT ADVANCES OF RS.2 1,22,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE B ALANCE S HEET AS LIABILITY. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARAGRAPH 4 AT PAGE 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS, WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : 1 . THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 2.2.2010, WHICH IS BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 8 04. THERE WAS ALREADY AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT; 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PROJECT ADVANCE OF RS.21,22,000/ - FROM CUSTOMERS FOR BOOKING OF HOUSE, WHICH WERE TO BE SOLD AND GIVEN POSSESSION ON A FUTURE DATE; 3. THE REVENUE IN SUCH CASES IS RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SALE OF HOUSE IS MADE/POSSESSION OF HOUSE IS GIVEN BY INCLUDING THE ADVANCE A S PART OF THE SALE LAND DEDUCTING THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITALIZED COSTS AND THE SAME IS AN ACCEPTED AND ESTABLISHED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WHICH IS REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03; 4. WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COST OF PROJECT, IT CAN NEVER BE BELIEVED BY ANY PERSON WHO HAVE BEEN REASONABL Y TRAINED IN THE INCOME TAX LAW AND ACCOUNTANCY THAT PROJECT ADVANCE OF RS.21,22,000/ - WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OR PROFIT. 8 . IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT A CONCLU DED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELE VANT A SSESSMENT Y EAR UNLESS THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CA S E, THE ASSESS E E HAS DISCLOSED COMPLETE PARTICULARS REGARDING PROJECT ADVANCES OF RS.21, 22,000/ - IN THE B ALANCE S HEET. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACTS AND THERE IS NO DOCUMENTS ON RECORD FROM WHICH AN OPINION CAN BE FORMED THAT INCOME OF THE A S SES S EE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. T HEREFORE, THE VIEW THAT THE VIEW T AKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN INCONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARIXIT INDUSTRIES (P) LTD V/S ACIT(SUPRA) RELIED ON BY T HE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ACTIN OF THE LD. CIT(A ). ITA NO.449/RJT/2012. 9 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( .. P / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( N.. I / T. K. SHARMA) PART / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER P / JUDICIAL MEMBER I/ ORDER DATE 8.2 . 2013 . /RAJKOT SRL EJB B / COPY OF ORD ER FORWARDED TO: - 1. T / APPELLANT - . 2T / RESPONDENT - 3. R V / CONCERNED CIT . 4. V - / CIT (A) . 5. 2R, N R, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. I / GUARD FILE. / B Y ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.