The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s Imperial Heights Owners Association, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 489/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9063 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AH MEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.489/RJT/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT. / VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, FOYER-D, IMPERIAL HEIGHTS, 150 FEET RING ROAD, RAJKOT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCI 5187 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, SR. DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.M. RINDANI, AR / DATE OF HEARING 20/04/2017 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/04/2017 $% / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, RAJKO T, DATED 15/07/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - 2. DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: (I). THE LEARNED CIT(A), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO ALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.37,79,70 5/- AGAINST INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER INCOME WHICH WERE ASSESSE D UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS NOT HELD THAT THE RELEVANT INCOME IS CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD PROFIT AND GAIN FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. (II) THE LEARNED CIT(A), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAINTEN ANCE OF BUILDING BUT WHICH WERE NOT LAID OUT OF EXPENDED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING SUCH INCOME. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- APPELLANT COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING IN COME OF RS.NIL UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AUDIT ED ACCOUNTS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT EARNED INCOME BY WAY OF BANK INT EREST AND FEES FROM OWNERS OF THE PREMISES WITHIN THE BUILDING NAMED IM PERIAL HEIGHTS AT RAJKOT. THE APPELLANT ALSO INCURRED EXPENSES ON EMP LOYEES AND FOR ELECTRICITY, MAINTENANCE, SECURITY ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BUILDING. THE NET RESULT WAS A DEFICIT OF RS.3,43,700/-. THE AO H AS TREATED THE GROSS INCOME FROM BANK INTEREST AS SEPARATELY TAXABLE UND ER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH INCOME WAS TAXABLE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB VS. CIT REPORTED AT 350 ITR 509 AND OTHER CASES. THE EXPENSES INCURRED HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ENTIRELY BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE INC URRED BY WAY OF WELFARE ACTIVITIES TOWARDS MEMBERS AND BEING NON-BU SINESS EXPENSES THEY CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIBLE AGAINST INCOME FROM INTEREST. ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - 4. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57 OF THE I .T. ACT, EXPENSES OF RS.37,80,845/- BEING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OF RS.8,81,8 07/-, FINANCE COSTS OF RS.618/-, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSES OF RS. 1,140/- AND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.28,97,280/-, CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE I.T. ACT AND REQU IRES TO BE DISALLOWED. THEREFORE, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.02.2015, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ENTIRE EXPENSES O F RS.37,80,845/- CLAIMED BY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED?' 5 IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 23.02 .2015 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 'THIS HAS REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE REFERRED NOTICE W HEREBY WE ARE REQUIRED TO STAY AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF R S.37,80,845/- CLAIMED BY US SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 57 OF THE ACT. I N REPLY THERETO, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS: (I) THE NATURE OF OUR ACTIVITIES IS SUCH THAT THE ENTIR E EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN NECESSARILY INCURRED MAINLY OUT OF INCOME FROM INTEREST. THE SAID INCOME AND THE INCURRING OF EXPE NSES ARE SO CLOSELY INTERCONNECTED, AND. THEREFORE UNDER THE VE RY CONCEPT OF INCOME, IT IS ONLY THE NET RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE/P ERSON THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR OUR NET IN COME IS NEGATIVE/NIL AND HENCE NO TAX CAN BE PAYABLE THEREO N. (II) EVEN IF THE INTEREST FROM INCOME IS TREATED AS A SE PARATE SOURCE OF INCOME, THE INCOME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE FOR THE S AME YEAR BEING THE INCOME FROM CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES O F THE ASSOCIATION IS NEGATIVE BY RS.35,41,615/- (INCOME O F RS.2,38,900/- LESS EXPENSES OF RS. 37,79,705/-) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70, INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES UNDE R ONE HEAD OF INCOME ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST EACH O THER. ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - THEREFORE, THE NEGATIVE INCOME BEING LARGER THAN PO SITIVE INCOME, THE NET RESULT WOULD BE NIL INCOME. (III) THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING BY THE NAME OF IMPE RIAL HEIGHTS IS THE ONLY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSOCIATION. IN CASE, THE CONTENTIONS AND CLAIM SET FORTH ABOVE ARE NOT ACCEP TABLE TO YOU, ALTERNATIVELY, OUR ENTIRE ACTIVITY MAY BE CLASSIFIE D AS ARISING UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IN THAT CAS E ALSO, THE NET RESULT FOR THE YEAR WOULD BE RS. NIL IN VIEW OF THE EXPENSES EXCEEDING THE INCOME. (IV) AS A FURTHER ALTERNATIVE, EVEN IF INTEREST IS CLASS IFIED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE CONSIDER ED AS ALONGWITH INCOME OF RS. 2,38,090/- MAY BE CLASSIFIE D UNDER THE HEAD INCOME BUSINESS. IN THIS ALTERNATIVE ALSO, CON SIDERING THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC. 71 OF THE ACT, INCOMES FROM DIFFERENT HEADS OF INCOME FOR THE SAME YEAR ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE AGGREGATED AND SET OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER, WHICH IN OUR CASE WOULD AGAIN GIVE RISE TO THE INCOME BEING RS. NIL. (V) THE ABOVE MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED AS OUR ALTERNATI VE CLAIMS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN ORD ER TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE ACT. THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE CONSIDERED. IT MAY THEREFORE KINDLY BE APPRECIATED THAT IN WHATEVER MANNER AND FROM WHATEVER ANGLE ONE MAY LOO K AT THE ISSUE AND ONE MAY COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR, THE NET RESULT COMES TO RS. NIL. HENCE, WE HAVE TO REQUEST YOU NOT TO TREAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS DISALLOWABLE. IT M AY ALSO BE APPRECIATED THAT WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY CIRCUMSCRIB ED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALLY AND THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVES AS SHOWN AND CLAIMED ABOVE, ULTIMATELY THE INCOME M AY KINDLY BE ASSESSED AS RS. NIL. (VI) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, WE MAY ALSO SUBMIT THAT IN CASE THE INCOME FROM INTEREST IS TREATED BY YOU TO BE SEPARA TELY TAXABLE (WHICH IN ANY CASE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AS EXP LAINED ABOVE), THE TAX ON THE SAME IS TO BE COMPUTED AT TH E SLAB RATES APPLICABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL, IN THE LIGHT OF BOARD CIRCULAR NO. CIRCULAR NO. 320 DATED 11-01-1982.' ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - 6. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CAREFULLY CONSI DERED BY THE AO. BUT AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED 34,36,527/-. 7. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AS ALSO THE MATERIAL O N RECORD IS DULY CONSIDERED AND PERUSAL. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE INTEREST INC OME ON BANK DEPOSITS CAN ONLY FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME AND CAN BE BROUG HT TO TAX ON ITS OWN WITHOUT HAVING REGARD TO THE NET RESULT OF COMPUTAT ION OF ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AS REFLECTED IN ITS AUDITED ACCOUNTS. I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ASSESSED BANK INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AT RS.31,98,437/-. AT THE SAME TIME THE A.O. HAS ALSO ASSESSED MEMBERSHIP FEES AND OTHER INCOME TOTALING TO RS.2,3 8,090/- AS ANOTHER SOURCE OF INCOME UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME OF O THER SOURCES AND HAS FINALLY COMPUTED AGGREGATE INCOME AT RS.34,36,5 27/-. I ALSO FIND THAT THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.37,80,845/- CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT AND SHOWN IN ITS AUDITED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE FOR THE YEAR HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A WEL FARE EXPENDITURE ON MEMBERS AND IT IS ALSO A NON-BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, ITS ACTUAL CONDUC T AND THE DEED OF SALE IN FAVOUR OF BUILDING OWNERS, I FIND THAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ARE INVESTED IN BANK DEPOSITS WITH THE ON LY OBJECTIVE OF MEETING WITH EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDING AND TO PROVIDE INCIDENTAL SERVICES. THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING T HE YEAR HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MET WITH SUCH INTEREST INCOME AND SOME OTHE R INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE BUILDING OWNERS. THE A.O. HAS ALREADY TAXE D BOTH THE INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER FEES UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME . WHEN EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME SOURCES OF INCO ME FOR THE YEAR, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE COMPUTED WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ALL COMPUTATION PROVISIONS AND IN PARTICULAR ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - SEC. 70 & 71 OF THE ACT. AS THERE IS MATCHING OF GR OSS INCOME AND EXPENSES AND THAT TOO PERTAINING TO THE VERY SAME A SSESSMENT YEAR, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE EXPENSES OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER THE SAME H EAD OR UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF THE SAME YEAR AND IT IS ONLY THE NET RESULT THAT CAN BE COMPUTED AS TOTAL INCOME FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSMEN T YEAR. I FIND THAT ON DOING SO, THE NET INCOME IS RS. NIL. WITH DUE RESPE CT AND ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I ALSO FIND THAT THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB REFERS TO INCOME BY WAY OF BANK INTE REST EARNED ON DEPOSITS OF SURPLUS FUNDS PLACED WITH MEMBER BANKS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SURPLUS AND ONLY THE DEPOSIT AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM BUILDING OWNERS HAS BEEN) PLACED AS BANK DEPOSITS A ND THUS THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN RECEIPT OF FUNDS, PLACING OF D EPOSITS, RECEIPT OF INTEREST AND INCURRING OF EXPENSES OUT OF SUCH INTE REST AND OTHER INCOME. I MAY ALSO STATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING AN ASS OCIATION OF BUILDING OWNERS IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS RUNNING OF A CLUB OF MEMBERS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE OF THE APPELL ANT-COMPANY IS TO MANAGE AND RENDER SERVICES ONLY TO THE BUILDING OWN ERS OF THE ONE BUILDING. I ALSO FIND THAT IT IS A PRACTICE WIDELY PREVALENT TO COLLECT FUNDS FROM THE OWNERS AND TO COLLECTIVELY DEPOSIT THE SAM E IN AN ENTITY MADE UP OF THE SAME BUILDING OWNERS AND THEN TO MEET WIT H COMMON EXPENSES OF THE BUILDING OUT OF THE INCOME EARNED O N FUNDS SO INVESTED. IN THIS SENSE, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF INTEREST CA NNOT ALWAYS BE TREATED AS SECONDARY SOURCE OF INCOME AND ON THE CONTRARY I T BECOMES THE PRINCIPLE SOURCE OF INCOME IN ORDER TO MEET WITH EX PENSES ON OBJECTS OF SUCH ASSOCIATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, IN REALITY, IT I S A MANNER OR MODE OF CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES OF SUCH ASSOCIATIONS IN PLAC E OF RECEIVING RECURRING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SUCH OWNERS AND THEN S PENDING THE SAME. IT IS THEREFORE OBVIOUS IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT INVESTING OF FUNDS IS NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE APPELLANT-COM PANY BUT IT IS AN INCIDENTAL OBJECTIVE SO AS TO PROMOTE THE MAIN OBJE CT OF THE COMPANY. I ALSO FIND IT PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IT IS STATED IN MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY THAT IT SHALL APPLY ITS PROFIT OR OTHER INC OME IN PROMOTING ITS OBJECTS AND PROHIBIT THE PAYMENT OF THE DIVIDEND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY. IT IS THUS OBVIOUS THAT UNLIKE WHAT IS STA TED BY THE A.O., THE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT BY WAY OF BENEFIT TO THE MEMBERS PER SE BUT THEY ARE FOR THE PROMOTION OF OVERALL INTEREST OF THE MEMBER S BY MAINTAINING THE BUILDING IN WHICH THEY OWN UNITS. ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN NO T ALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.37,79,705/- IS NOT UPHELD AND DEDUCT ION OF THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE GIVEN AGAINST INTEREST INCOME AND OT HER INCOME OF RS.31,99,055/- AND RS.2,38,090/-. IN THE RESULT, TH E A.O. IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE INCOME AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. 9. THE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AN ALTERNATIVE GR OUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO APPLICATION OF SEC. 44A OF THE ACT. AS THE SUBST ANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF APPEA L IS NOT DEALT WITH IN DETAIL. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT SEC. 44A PERMITS DEDUCTION OF DEFICIENCY IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF AN ASSOCIATION UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION TO THE EXTENT PROVI DED FOR IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC. 44A. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IM PUGNED ORDER, LEARNED AR FILED A JUDGMENT [2010] 320 ITR 254 (PUNJAB & HARYANA ): SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES DEDUCTIONS WHERE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY WAS EAR NING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS ACCEPTED FROM ITS MEMBERS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THEIR HOUSES AND OUT OF INTEREST INCOME, ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING EXPE NSES FOR MAINTENANCE OF HOUSES OF MEMBERS WHO HAD MADE SAID DEPOSITS, SU CH EXPENSES WERE DEDUCTIBLE FROM INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM DEPOSIT S [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY WAS ACCEP TING DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THEIR HOUSES. THE AF ORESAID DEPOSITS WERE EARNING INTEREST WHICH CONSTITUTED INTEREST IN COME OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE INTEREST INCOME, TH E RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING EXPENSES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE H OUSES OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAD MADE THE SAID DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSE E'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF SUCH EXPENSES FROM THE INTEREST INCOME FROM SAID DEPOSITS WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - HELD THAT, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUE'S CONTENTIO N THAT THE ACTIVITY OF MAINTENANCE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE OBJECTS AN D REASONS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS A REGISTERED CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETY AND AS SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS AN ACTIVITY BEYOND T HE OBJECTS AND REASONS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WERE PER SE NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BASED ON DEPOSITS MADE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSE SSEE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THEIR HOUSES AND AS SUCH LIABILITY O F THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE TO PAY TAX ON THE SAME COULD NOT BE DOUBTE D, BUT SINCE THE ACTIVITY ON WHICH THE AFORESAID INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD PER SE SOME EXPENSES CONNECTED THEREWITH AS A MATTER OF OBLIGATION AT THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT -ASSESSEE TO ITS MEMBERS WHO HAD MADE DEPOSITS, THE DEDUCTION TO THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS MA INTENANCE OF HOUSES WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AFORESAID JUDGMENT, WE A RE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT. T HEREFORE, APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT I S DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 / 04 /201 7 SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/04/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ITA NO.489/RJT/ 2015 ACIT VS. M/S. IMPERIAL HEIGHTS OWNERS ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 9 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-I, RAJKOT. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / !'# ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) #$ %, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY