M/s. Shreemad Corporation, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 497/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9226 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 80IB; 201

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 08 SHREEMAD CORPORATION , .......... . APPELLANT HASMUKHBHAI KALIDAS PATEL, 15, RAMYAKUNJ SOCIETY, OPP. GALAXY CINEMA, N.H. NO.8,NARODA, AHMEDABAD 382 330. [PAN: A BCFS 6139 B ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 9(1), AHMEDABAD. .... ............. RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: DHIRE N SHAH , FOR THE APPELLANT DINESH SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 14.02. 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 17 . 0 2 .2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 6 TH JANUARY , 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE LEARNED C I T(A ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.34,76,223/ - UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. B RIEFLY STATED, THE RELE VANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE LAND AND THAT HE HAS ONLY WORKED AS CONTRACTOR . IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A PIE CE OF LAND, HAVING AN AREA OF 8991 SQ. METERS, WAS ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 7 PURCHASED BY RAJ CHANDRA CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SAID HOUSING SOCIETY. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A S SET OUT IN PARA GRAPH NO. 2.4 OF THE A SSESSMENT O RDER, ARE AS FOLLOWS : - 2.4 ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RAJ C HANDRA CO. OP. HOUSING SOC. LTD. (PROPOSED) ON 26.08 . 2005. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING UNITS AS PER THE PLAN, (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO ENRO L L PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AS THE MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY, (III) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO COLLECT THE CONSIDERATION FOR LAND AS WELL AS S UPER - STRUCTURE FROM THE BUYERS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY, (IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND CHARGE THE LAND COST TO THE SOCIETY. IN OTHER WORDS THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED FOR GROUP HOUSING OF THE MEMBERS AND WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSTRUCT AND TRANSFER THE HOUSES TO THE MEMBERS, (V) ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SINCE THE SOCIETY HAD NO EXPERIENCE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSES ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY AS PER THE TERMS N ARRATED IN THE AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN OF THE SOCIETY. 4. IN THIS BACKDROP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS : - 2.23 TO SUM UP - (A) THE SOCIETY IS A LEGAL ENTITY AND IT ACQUIRED T HE LAND AND HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. (B) THE POA OF ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS GOT THE PLAN FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS TO CO ME UP. (C) IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE SOCIETY OR THE SOCIETY APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION. (D) THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SOCIETY IS THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR SATISFYING ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE CONTRACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. (E ) THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A MERE BUILDER WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS PER THE APPROVAL OBTAINED BY THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE SOCIETY. ( F) IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT AS IT IS NOT THE DESIGNER, CREATOR AND OWNER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 3 OF 7 (G) THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERE BUILDER AND DOES NOT SATISFY THE PRIMARY REQUIR EMENT OF THE SECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST DEVELOP AND BUILD A HOUSING PROJECT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMP L Y DONE THE WORK OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE HOUSING PROJECT (AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH THE SOCIETY) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB(10) AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE SECTION 80IB BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 W.E.F 1.4.2001 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW. EXPLANATION, FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB - SECTIO N SHALL APPLY TO ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH EXECUTES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTRACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTRAL OR STALE GOVERNMENT). 2.24 IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD TH A T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB F OR THE FO L LOWING REASONS. 1. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOTH DEVELOPER AND BUILDER AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEVELOPER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONCEPTUALIZE AND OWN THE PROJECT IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS NO T THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE APPROVAL WAS NOT ISSUED TO IT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 2. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER AND CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE AS P ER THE AGREEMENT AND HENCE THE ASSES SEE IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SO L D ANY UNIT TO THE PURCHASER BUT THE SOCIETY HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEEDS AS A SELLER AND THE ASSESSEE JOINED ONLY AS A CONFIRMING PARTY TO THE TRAN SACTION. THIS ALSO PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A CONTRACTOR/ AGENT OF THE SOCIETY. 4. AS PER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80IB BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009, A WORKS CONTRACTOR WHO EXECUTES THE WORK AWARDED BY ANY PERSON IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U /S 80 I B. ANY PERSON INC L UDES THE RAJ CHANDRA CO. OP. HOUSING SOC. LTD., WHICH IS A LEGAL ENTITY. 2.25 THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB (10). THEREFORE, NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS ALLOWED. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271 ( 1 )(C) ARE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUBJECT TO ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED AS UNDER: TOTAL INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION RS. NIL ADD: DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S . 80 I B (10) OF THE ACT (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) RS.34,76,223/ - -------------------- ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME RS.34,76,223/ - I.E. RS.34,76,220/ - ============ ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 4 OF 7 5. AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A) , BUT WITHOU T ANY SUCCESS. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO HELD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BY RAJ CHANDRA COMMERCIAL C O - OPERATIVE H OUSING S OCIETY LIMITED WAS A SHAM AND THE ARTIFICIAL BIFURCATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT WAS ONLY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TH US CONFIRMED FOR THIS ADDITIONAL REASON AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. I FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE CORE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOW COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY A DIVISION BENCH ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI UMEYA CORPORATION V S. ITO (ITA NO.211/AHD/2010; ORDER DATED 07.07.2015) WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED A S FOLLOWS : - 6. WE FIND THAT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RADHE DEVELOPERS [(2012) 341 ITR 403 (GUJ)], HON BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND, ON WHICH HOUSING PROJECT IS DEVELOPED, IN THE CONTEXT OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS, IN THIS CONTEXT, INTER ALIA OBSER VED AS FOLLOWS: 32. SEC. 80 - IB(10) OF THE ACT THUS PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTIONS TO AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE LAND MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING SUCH DEDUCTIONS. 33. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHILE INTERPRETING THE STATUTE, PARTICULARLY, THE TAXING STATUTE, NOTHING CAN BE READ INTO THE PROVISIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE CONDITION WHICH IS NOT MADE PART OF S. 80 - IB(10) OF THE ACT, NAMELY THAT OF OWNING THE LAND, WHICH THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPS, CANNOT BE SUPPLIED BY ANY PURPORTED LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 34. WE HAVE REPRODUCED RELEVANT TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN BOTH THE SETS OF CASES. IT CAN BE SE EN FROM THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN FULL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EXECUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. UNDER THE AGREEMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE LAND AS PER HIS DISCRETION. THE ASSESSEE COULD ENGAGE PROFESS IONAL HELP FOR DESIGNING AND ARCHITECTURAL WORK. ASSESSEE WOULD ENROLL MEMBERS AND COLLECT CHARGES. PROFIT OR LOSS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT BELONGED ENTIRELY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED THE HOU SING ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 5 OF 7 PROJECT. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE OWNED THE LAND WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US) 7. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB HAS BEEN SATISFIED INASMUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS , ALL THAT IS MATERIAL IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS TAKING THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK IN EXECUTION OF SUCH PROJECT . WHEN PROFITS OR LOSSES, AS A RESULT OF EXECUTION OF PROJECT AS SUCH, BELONG PREDOMINANTLY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS OBVIOUSLY TAKING THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK QUA THE PROJECT AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) IN RE SPECT OF THE SAME. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISK IS NOT DEPENDENT ON OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS BY BUYING, ON OUTRIGHT BASIS, AND CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEREON COULD PR OBABLY BE THE SIMPLEST BUSINESS MODELS IN THIS LINE OF ACTIVITY, BUT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPROVISATION IN THE BUSINESS MODEL OR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED SOME OTHER BUSINESS MODELS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT DO ES NOT VITIATE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS LONG AS THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT, IN SUBSTANCE, REMAIN WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIFFICULT, IF NOT ALTOGETHER IMPOSSIBLE, TO VISUALIZE ALL THE BUSINESS MODELS TH AT AN ASSESSEE MAY USE IN THIS DYNAMIC COMMERCIAL WORLD EVEN AS, IN SUBSTANCE, THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS REMAINS THE SAME, BUT CERTAINLY SUCH MODALITIES OR COMPLEXITIES OF BUSINESS MODELS CANNOT COME IN THE WAY OF ELIGIBILITY FOR AN INCENTI VE WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING A HOUSING PROJECT . THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION, CONCEPTUAL OR LEGAL, IN RESTRICTING ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) TO ANY PARTICULAR BUSINESS MODEL THAT AN ENTREPRENEUR ADOPTS IN THE C OURSE OF DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROJECT. 8. AS REGARDS LEARNED CIT(A) S RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF A LARGER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF B T PATIL & SONS (BELGAUM) CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS ACIT [(2010) 1 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 703 (MUM)] , WHAT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY HER IS THE VIEW OF THE THREE MEMBER BENCH RESOLVING THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION BENCH. HOWEVER, THIS VIEW WAS STILLBORN, AND ITS RELEVANCE IS CONFINED TO ACADEMIC SIGNIFICANCE, FOR THE REASON T HAT THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE MAJORITY VIEW, VIDE ORDER DATED 28TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AND ON SOMEWHAT PECULIAR FACT SITUATION IN THIS CASE, THE FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ENDORSE THESE VIEWS. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, FOLLOWING HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD AND ORS [(2010) 322 ITR 323 (BOM)] AND UPON BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT S SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS IN THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL S FINAL ORDER HAD, INTER ALIA, CO NCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: .WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE OPINION OF THIRD MEMBER U/S.255(4) OF THE ACT, WE TAKE VIEW IN CONFORMITY WITH ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME THOUGH CONTRARY TO TH E OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE THIRD MEMBER. SO IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 6 OF 7 TO THE ASSES SEE WITH REGARD TO THE PROJECTS IN QUESTION FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 9. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ASSUME THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISKS OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE FORMAT OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF BUILT UP U NIT, AND BUSINESS MODEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT PURPOSE, IS NOT DECISIVE FACTOR FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB (10), BUT THAT IS ALL THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FOUND FAULT WITH. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN DECLINING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) AND ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS INCORRECT. WE VACATE THE SAME AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 10. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED . 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW SO EXPRESSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH , I UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJ ECT OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 9. AS REGARDS THE POINTS RAISED BY THE LEARNED C IT ( A ) WITH REGARD TO COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION BY SOME OTHER SOCIETY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND AS TO WH AT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PRE SENT CLAIM. THE APPROVAL IS GIVEN TO THE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROJECTS OF THE SAME. THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN B Y TH E LEARNED CIT (A) A RE PURELY O N THE FIELD OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. I REJECT THE SAME. 10. FO R THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, I UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED T O DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.34,76,223/ - UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 7 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 17 TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY , 2017 . PBN/* ITA NO. 497 /AHD/201 1 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 7 - 08 PAGE 7 OF 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD