M/s. S.M. Badat Education & Welfare Trust, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharuch

ITA 477/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0996 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Source of fund
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.477/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 M/S.S.M. BADAT EDUCATION & WELFARE TRUST, VALIA ROAD, AT & POST : KONDH TALUKA ANKLESHWAR BHARUCH 393 001. PAN : AAATS 8449 K VS ITO, WARD - 2 BHARUCH. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/07/2016 $%/ O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-III, BARODA DATED 14.11.2014 PASSED FOR T HE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF T HE ACT. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF HT AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.9,00,684/- 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.14,58,500/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A P UBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND REGISTERED WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER, BHARUCH SINCE 1977. IT IS HOLDING REGISTRATION NO.B-839. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GETT ING ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 2 UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. IT HAS AL SO BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE LET TER NO./BARODA/CIT- III/TAK/12(K)/110 (76-S)/2012-13 DATED 28.6.2013. DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ENJOYING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT HAS FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 9.12.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. IN THE CO MPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN, AS IF IT WAS ENJOYING RE GISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BUT LATER ON IT HAS CHANGED ITS COMPUTATION AND CONTENDED THAT SINCE IT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST SOLEL Y EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, IT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJ ECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT CONTE MPLATES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD SOLELY BE EXISTING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. A PERUSAL OF THE TRUST-DEED, WOULD INDICATE THAT APART FROM EDUCATION, THE ASSES SEE COULD UNDERTAKE WORK OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF SUNNI MUSLIM VOHRA COMMUNITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE STAND OF THE AO WAS THAT APART FROM EDUCATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS OTHER OBJECTS ALSO, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.52,45,736/-. IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.31, 650/- AS ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES, RS.42,56,507/- AS SCHOOL FEES AND RS.56,8 95/- AS TRUST EXPENSES. THE AO HAS TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSOCIATION O F PERSONS. HE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.43,45,052/- FROM THE GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 52,45,736/- AND WORKED OUT A SUM OF RS.9,00,684/-. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT. SIMILARLY, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,58,500/- IN RESERVE FUND VIZ. UNITY SCHOOL BUILDING FUND. SINCE THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A, THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THIS AMOUNT. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,58,5 00/-. THE AO HAS DETERMINED TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.23,59,184/- AS AGAINST ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 3 NIL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL TO T HE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE ME, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS C ONTENDED THAT IN VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE JUDGMENTS AT THE END OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A TRUST OR SOCIETY MIGHT HAVE VARIOUS OBJ ECTS IN THEIR MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, BUT IN IF ANY PARTICULAR YEAR THEY ARE EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, THEN, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO SUCH SOCIETIES. IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) C.P. VIDYA NIKETAN INTER COLLEGE SHIKSHABN SOCIETY, 359 ITR 322 (ALL) II) HARDAYAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATION TRUST, 355 ITR 0534 (ALL) III) VANITA VISHRAM TRUST, 327 ITR 121 (BOM) IV) GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY, 339 ITR 333 (KAR) HE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THESE JUDGMENTS. FO R SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS SOLELY EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, HE TOOK ME THROUGH PAGE NO.23 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREI N THE STATEMENT OF INCOME RETURNED HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. HE POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR. HE ALSO TOOK ME THROUGH PAGE NO.26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THESE DETAILS ARE CON TAINED IN SCHEDULE-A, B, C AND D FORMING PART OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS. HE ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY A REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A HAS B EEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, MEANING THEREBY, OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DOUBTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONS IDERED ALL THESE ASPECTS IN ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 4 DETAIL AND HIGHLIGHTED AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN CARRYING OUT ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN EDUCATION. HE PARTICULARLY TOOK ME THRO UGH PARA 4.3.2 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. 6. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD. I HAVE PERUSED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AVAILABLE AT PAG E NO.23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS COMPUTATION ALONG WITH REVISED COMPUTAT ION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS FILED TO THE AO. IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS COMPUTATION. IT READS AS UNDER: INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES: RENT RS.12,305 BANK INTEREST RS.519,568 FEES FROM SCHOOLS RS.4,479,685/- INTEREST FROM SCHOOL RS.118,178/- RS.5,245,736 LESS: ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES RS.31,650/- 5,214,087 LESS: EXPENDITURE ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST SCHOOL EXPENSES RS.4,256,507/- TRIST EXPENSES RS.56,895/- RS.4,313,402/- RS.900,685/- LESS: STATUTORY ACCUMULATION @ 15% PERMITTED U/S.11(2) ON RS.52,45,736/- RS.786,860 RS.113,824 TAXABLE INCOME RS.NIL TAX PAYABLE RS.NIL 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED FOLLOWIN G EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,79,332/-. THEY ARE - 1) DEPRECIATION RS.2,74,132/- 2) AUDIT FEES RS.4,500/- 3) LEGAL FEES RS.700/- RS.2,79,332/- MOREOVER, THE TRUST WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.10(23C)(IIIAD) AS UNDER. ITS COMPUTATION IS AS UNDER: NET SURPLUS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C. RS.2,79,996/ - ADD: SCHOOL FEES OF UNIT ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANKLESHWAR RS.44,79,685/- ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 5 LESS: EXPENDITURE ON OBJECT OF THE TRUST SCHOOL EXPENSES RS.(-)42,51,507/- NET SURPLUS RS.6,26,352/- LESS: DEDUCTION U/S. 10(23)(IIIAD) RS.6,26,352/- TAXABLE INCOME RS.NIL 7. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE ABOVE FA CTS, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE PROPOSITION OF LAW CANVASSED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE STRENGTH OF VARIOUS AUTHORI TATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS IS SUE IN THE CASE OF C.P. VIDYA NIKETAN INTER COLLEGE SHIKSHAN SOCIETY (SUPRA ). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE O BJECT CLAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS OTHER OBJECTS ALSO THAN THE EDUCATION. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO ELIMINATED THE APPREHENSION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN FUTURE THE ASSESSEE SHALL PURSUE SUCH NON-EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS. ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THERE ARE VARIOUS SAFEGUARDS TO DEAL WITH THAT SITU ATION. THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN PARA-23 OF THE JUDGMEN T IS WORTH TO NOTE. IT READS AS UNDER: 23. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PETITIONER SOCIETY IS REGISTERED CHARITABLE SOCIETY WITH THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND IS ALSO REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A WITH ITS OBJECTS OF ESTABLISHING, RUNNI NG AND MAINTAINING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IT HAS A SCHOOL BY THE NA ME OF C.P. VIDYA NIKETAN INTER COLLEGE. AT PRESENT THE SOCIETY DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN RUNNING AND MAINTAINING EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTIONS. THE OTHER OBJECTS AND PURPOSES IN THE 'SMRITI PATRA' MAY, IF SUCH OBJECTS ARE UNDERTAKEN, MAY CONSTITUTE SUCH PURPOSE, TO BE OTHE R THAN EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, BUT AT PRESENT IT CANNOT BE SAID NOR THERE IS ANY ALLEGATION OR MATERIAL EITHER BROUGHT BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD OR REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT, WHICH MAY BE OTHER THAN EDUCATION. THERE ARE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, THAT IF THE ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN, T HE EXEMPTION MAY BE WITHDRAWN, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ALLEGATIO N IT CANNOT BE SAID MERELY ON THE ENUMERATION OF THE ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE ALL PRIMARILY CONNECTED WITH EDUCATION AND CHARITY THAT THE SOCIE TY DOES NOT EXIST ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 6 SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. THE CASE IN HAND IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THAT OF VANITA VISHRAM TRUST V. CHIEF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA), AND SATISFIES THE TESTS LAID DOWN IN AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THIS COURT IN EWING CH RISTIAN COLLEGE SOCIETY (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SOCIETY RUNS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, AND IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING PROFIT, MERELY BECAUSE THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS ALSO TO SERVE THE CHURCH AND THE NATION WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PUR POSE. 8. SIMILARLY, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDER ED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY (SURPA) . ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES EXCEPT EDUCATION, THEN, THE BENEFIT OF S ECTION 10(23C) CANNOT BE DENIED. THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE HONBLE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT PARA 11 AND 13 IS WORTH TO NOTE. THEY READ AS UNDER: 11. FROM BARE PERUSAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN HOTEL'S CASE, WHAT APPEARS TO US, IS TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE CASE, SUCH AS ONE IN HAND, HAS TO CLOSELY ANALYSE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTE, OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTE, ITS SOURCES OF INCOME AND UTILIZATION. IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME C OURT CONSIDERED ITS ACTIVITIES AS REFLECTED IN THE PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABO VE AND THEREFORE, WHILE REMANDING THE MATTER, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FULFILLED THE THRESHOLD PRE-CONDITION OF ACTUAL EXI STENCE OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (VI) WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOT TO REJECT THE APPROVAL APPLICATION ON THAT GROUND. TWO OF THE OBJ ECTS IN THAT CASE AS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT WERE ALSO TO OFFER THE NA TIONAL COUNCIL THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICES FOR THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICE S SOLD TO OR UTILIZED BY THE SCHOOLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND SO ALSO TO UTILIZE INDIAN AUTHORS WHENEVER POSSIBLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOMIZED PROGRAMMES. THE SUPREME COURT, DESPITE T HESE OBJECTS/ACTIVITIES, HELD THAT THE INSTITUTION IN AM ERICAN HOTEL WAS INVOLVED ONLY IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, PERHAPS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT CARRYING ON THOSE ACTIVITIES. .. ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 7 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN CONDUCTING THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SINCE 2002. NOR IS THERE ANY DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT SAVE AND EXCEPT FOR CONDUCTING SCHOOL, THE SOCIETY HAS CARRIED ON ANY O THER ACTIVITIES SINCE THEN. WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION WHETHER THE OB JECT, AS REFLECTED IN CLAUSES 3(B) AND 3(H) OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIAT ION, ARE RELATED TO EDUCATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT SAVE AND EXCEPT EDUC ATIONAL ACTIVITY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT/DO NOT CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITY IS THE FACT, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN OTHER WORDS, THOUGH THE ACTIVITI ES AS REFLECTED IN CLAUSES 3(B) AND 3(H), MAY CONSTITUTE THE PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, BUT, DURING THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE NOR IS THERE ANY MATERIAL T O SHOW, THAT THE SOCIETY WAS GINNING ANY ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN THE E DUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT AND DESERVES T O BE SET ASIDE. THERE ARE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS THAT IF THE ACTIVITIES OTHE R THAN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY THE SOCIETY, EXEMPTION GRANTED CAN BE WITHDRAWN. MERELY, BECAUSE THERE EXISTS OBJECT, WHI CH IS NOT RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT SUFF ICIENT TO DENY THE EXEMPTION/BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. IN SHORT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGATION OR MATERIAL AGAINST THE S OCIETY SHOWING THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES THAN THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, IN OUR OPINION, IT CANNOT BE DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ANSWER BOT H THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAI NST THE REVENUE. 9. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNC EMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE HAVING OTHER OBJECTS IN ITS MEM ORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, BUT IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, IT HAS ACTED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, THEN, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) CANNOT BE DEN IED TO AN ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, LET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WOULD INDIC ATE THAT MAJOR AMOUNT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS SCHOOL EXPENSE S. IT IS A SUM OF RS.42,56,507/-. THE OTHER EXPENDITURE IS OF ONLY R S.56,895/-. SIMILARLY, MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE IS FEES FROM SCHOOL AMOUNTING TO RS.44,79,685/-. THE ALLEGED BANK INTEREST ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT ITA NO.477/AHD/2015 8 OF THE DEPOSITS FROM COLLECTION OF FEES ETC. THUS, THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE EXCEPT SMALL AMOUNT ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES THAN THE EDUCATION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS HIGHLIGHTED MASJID EXPENSES OF RS.21,900/- WHICH IS A VERY MEAGER AMO UNT, WHICH IS NOT A DECIDING FACTOR FOR THE ACTIVITIES O F THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS ARE TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHE RE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/07/2016