Rishabha Silk Mills Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Surat

ITA 509/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6008 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H V VORA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Diversion of income; Additional evidence; Question of law; Third party statement
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 A.Y.2006-07 RISHAB SILK MILLS PVT. LTD., B-2342, SURAT TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT. PAN: AACCR 9909C VS ACIT CIRCLE 4, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MRS. SONIA KUMAR, SR.D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI H.V. VORA, AR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 24/07/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/08/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FRO M AN ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT, DATED 18/11/2009. GROUN DS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,68,935/- IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION ALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE FOREIGN BUYERS AGENT BY WAY OF DEDUCTION FROM THE SALES PRICE, IN RESPECT OF SERVI CES RENDERED BY THE FOREIGN BUYERS AGENTS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY ERRONEOUS AND NE EDS TO BE DELETED 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION FOR FOREIGN BUYERS AGENTS COMMISSION AS MADE BY THE LD. AO NEE DS TO BE DELETED AS BEING DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS VERY BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMIR A. BATRA V. ITO IN ITA NO.4130/AHD/2007, AND SHRI A TMA PRAKASH BATRA V. ITO IN ITA NO.4131/AHD/2007, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2008 WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN BUYERS AGENT COMMISSION ON EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUE . 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 29.12.2008 WERE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 - STATED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND T RADING OF ART SILK CLOTH. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S GOT THE CLOTH PROCESSED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND THEREUPON EXPORT ED THE CLOTH. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION UPTO 12% WAS DEDUCTED FRO M SALE VALUE OF INVOICES. THE TOTAL COMMISSION AMOUNT WHICH WAS DED UCTED WAS AT RS.26,68,935/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. AS P ER AO, THE IDENTITY OF THE AGENT AND THE PURPOSE FOR INCURRING THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH, THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT C ONTENDED THAT INVOICES ISSUED BY HIM AND CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK REFLECT FOREIGN AGENT'S COMMISSION AND THE SAME IS DEDUCTED DIRECTLY BY THE BUYER FROM THE SALE PRICE. FROM THE BANK CERTIFICATE FORMING PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT COULD BE SEEN THAT COLOUMN 12 READS AS COMMISSION/DISCOUNT PAID /PAYAB LE TO FOREIGN BUYERS AGENT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION AMOUNT REFLECTS TH E COMMISSION DEDUCTED AGAINST THE AGENT OF THE BUYER. WHEREAS THE APPELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE ME THAT THE AGENT IS APPOI NTED BY HIM. THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE AP PELLANT COMPANY ALSO PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OBTAINED FROM THE SAID FOREIGN AGENT HAVING CONFIRMED THE COMMISSION EARNED FROM THE COMPANY AN D THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS FROM THE CONCERNED BUYERS. THE APPELLANT H AD NEVER PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO, IT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BE FORE ME, BUT THE SAME CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR WANT OF AUTHENTICITY, AS THE SAME IS A COPY OF THE MAIL SENT DIRECTLY TO THE APPELLANT. AND FILING OF SUCH DOCUMENT AT APPELLATE STAGE CAN BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, TH E CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT READS LIKE THIS, 'REED YOUR MAIL R EGARDING CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS REGARDING COMMISSION DEDUCTED BY US AGAINS T EXPORT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND WE HAVE CHECKED THE ACCO UNTS RELATING TO THE STATEMENT SENT BY YOU AND WE FOUND ALL THE DETAILS ARE CORRECT AS PER OUR RECORDS.' FROM THE ABOVE LINES, IT COULD BE UNDERST OOD THAT THE AGENT HAS DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT. EVEN IF CONSIDER THAT THE BUYE R HAS DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT, THEN TOO THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE AN Y DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 3 - AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE BUYERS AS R EGARD DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION AMOUNT FROM THE AMOUNT AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITI ON AS THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS HAS NOT BEEN ES TABLISHED. THE APPELLANT ALSO ARGUED THAT IN CBDT IN ITS CIRCU LAR NO. 786 DATED 07-02- 2000, THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THE MATTER OF TDS ON S UCH PAYMENTS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER IT IS CLEAR FROM TH E SAME THAT THE CONCEPT OF DIRECT PAYMENT BY THE BUYERS TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS IS A NORMAL TRADE PRACTICE EXISTED IN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS; IN THE PAST AND T HAT WAS THE REASON THE QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF TDS RAISED AND WAS CLA RIFIED BY THE CBDT THROUGH ITS CIRCULAR. THE SAID CIRCULAR RELATES TO TAX DEDUCTION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION DIRECTLY FROM THE SALE VALUE. THE APPELLANT FURTHER RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND EMPHASIZED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD IN THE C ASE OF SAMIR A. BATRA VS. ITO. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT AND I AGREE ON THE POINT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT NOT ON THE POINT OF GENUINENESS OF COMMISSION OF PAYMENT AS HELD IN THE FOREGOING PARA GRAPH. THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE DIFFER FROM THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AS REGARD EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE RELIED UPON DOCUMENTS. IN THE SAID CAS E THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENTS WAS ESTABLISHED AS THE S AME WERE ON THE LETTER HEAD OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS WITH THE DETAILED NA TURE OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY THEM AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, WHEREAS IN TH E APPELLANT'S CASE THE CONFIRMATION IS IN THE FORM OF REPLY TO THE MAIL OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CANNOT BE RELIED UPON, AND THE SAME IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE ME. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LEARNED AR, MR. H.V. VORA APPEARED AND INFORMED THAT THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY CO VERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. PARAMOUNT EXPORTS VS. ITO, (ITA NO.2262/AHD/200 8) 2. ITO VS. BAJAJ OVERSEAS, (ITA NO.2363/AHD/2009) 3. SUPREME INDIA OVERSEAS CORPORATION VS. ACIT (ITA NO.258/AHD/2009) 4. ITO VS. RAJIV N. BATRA (ITA NO.2431/AHD/2008) 5. CIT VS. VISHAL JANAKKUMAR AGARWAL, 41 TAXMANN.COM 4 22 (GUJARAT) 6. CIT VS. ATMA PRAKASH BATRA, (TA 839 OF 2009)(GUJ.) 4.1 HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE EXPORT IN VOICE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE FOREIGN AGENCY COMMISSION @ 12% WAS DEDUCT ED DIRECTLY. FEW OF THE INVOICES HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COMPILATION. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE REALIZATION OF EXPORT SALES HAVE ALSO BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE BANKER WHICH IS AN EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION W AS PAID TO FOREIGN ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 4 - BUYERS AGENT. HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ISSUE IN HA ND HAD TRAVELLED UPTO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, ON THE SAME LINES THE IMPUGNED ADDITION SHOULD BE D ELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DR, MRS. SONIA KUMAR APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND LEARNED CIT(A). HER MAIN ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. ACCO RDING TO LD. DR, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AGENT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMMISSION @ 12% AS ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR HAS REQUESTED TO UP HOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. ON HEARING THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALMOST ON IDENTICAL SITUATION THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VISHAL JANAKKUMAR AGARWAL, 41 TAXMANN.COM 422 (GUJA RAT) ORDER DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2. THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 1346 O F 2010, A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR QUESTION IS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, HOWE VER, COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE CANDIDLY POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR QUESTION IN CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COUR T, IN WHICH THIS COURT REJECTED THE REVENUE'S APPEAL, MAKING FOLLOWI NG OBSERVATIONS : '3. QUESTION NO.1 PERTAINS TO AMOUNT OF RS.58.08 LA CS (ROUNDED OFF) DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF AGENCY COMMISSION TO FOREIGN A GENT. IN APPEAL, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE FURTHER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED THE ADDITION PRIMARILY HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ONLY THE NET AMOUNT IE. A GROSS BILL AMOUN T LESS THE AGENT'S COMMISSION. HE WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH DEDUCTION. THE TRIBUN AL RECORDED ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 5 - THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE COMMISSION P AID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FOREIGN BUYER HAD STATED THAT COMMISS ION WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE AGENTS ABROAD. THE TRIBUNAL, THE REFORE, CONCLUDED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPORT SALE PROCEED RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF NET AMOUNT AND NOT THE GROSS AMOUNT. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID TO THE FOREIGN BUYER ANY AMOUNT BY WAY OF COMMISSION DIRECTLY, BUT THERE WAS AN ADJUST MENT OF SUCH AMOUNT THROUGH THE EXPORT INVOICES WHICH REFLECTED SUCH COMMISSION / DISCOUNT. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, OBS ERVED AS UNDER: '14. WHEN THE FACTUM OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SALE PROC EEDS TO THE EXTENT OF NET INVOICE AMOUNT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN OVERLOOKING UPON THOSE SPEAKING FACTS ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED THE DEPB BENEFIT ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE. THE DEP B CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF PERMISSION GRA NTED BY THE RBI AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL AMOU NT OF EXPORT SALES PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. 15. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS WITHOUT MUCH DIS CUSSION AND DELIBERATION THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE TO HOLD T HE ASSESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.58,08,75 5/-. THE SAID ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. OUR ABOVE VIEW ALS O FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SANJAY JAIN V. DY. CIT IN ITANO.L533/AHD/2008 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ORDER DATED 16-12-2009.' 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED N O ERROR. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE INVOICED AMOUNTS WHICH DID NOT INDICATE THE RECEIPT OF A GROSS, BUT THE NET AMOUNT AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF FOREIGN BUYER COMMISSION. WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW, THEREFORE, ARISES. SUCH QU ESTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY AND NOT EN TERTAINED. 5.1 THERE IS ANOTHER ORDER OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ATMA PRAKASH BATRA (TAX APPE AL NO.838 OF 2009) ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE WAS DISCU SSED AT LENGTH AND THEREAFTER HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 6 - 20. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND AFTER I APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD FOUND THAT THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AMOUNT HAD BEEN DULY CONFIRMED BY THE AGENTS WHICH IN TURN MEANT THAT THE I AMOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE INVOICE VAL UE ACTUALLY REPRESENTED COMMISSION PAYMENTS WHICH WERE FINALLY RECEIVED BY THE AGENT. THIS HAD BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AG REED UPON BETWEEN THE BUYERS AND THE SELLER, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO FOR MAL AGREEMENT. THE AGENTS HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY CONFIRMED AND RECONFIRMED THE NAT URE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORMAL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A GROUND TO DISMISS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WERE CLEAR CONTRA CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE AGENTS. THUS, ONCE THE GENUI NENESS OF THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS ITS JUSTIFICATION OF HAVING BEEN WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS WAS ESTABLISHED, THE SAME BECOMES ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT THE GROSS I NVOICE AMOUNTS WERE WHAT HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT (SOME OF THE CONTENTS ARE NOT LIGIBLE ) THESE WERE THE AMOUNTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL , THE OUTGOING COMMISSION FROM THE INVOICE VALUES WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE GR OSS AMOUNTS, AND THE NET AMOUNT WHICH WAS THE ACTUAL SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN INDIA, AND WHICH WAS DULY CERTIFIED AND PERMITTED BY THE RBI A ND ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER, WAS WHAT HAD BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT DEDUCTED FROM THE EXPORT INVOICES IN AN AD HOC MANNER AND IT WAS CLEARLY UND ER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER, AS ALSO BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE AGENT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT COMMISSION FROM THE GROSS INVOICE VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS A COMPULSION TO DEDUCT THE COMMISSION FROM THE EXPORT INVOICES WHIC H WAS CLEARLY INDICATED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE AGENTS, AND THAT THE INGREDIENTS WHICH WERE NECESSARY FOR SUCH DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION TO BE TR EATED AS DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVER RIDING TITLE WAS CLEARLY PRESENT. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE GROSS EXPORT PROCEEDS NEVER REACH ED THE ASSESSEE, NO SUCH INCOME HAD THEREFORE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH IS WAS BECAUSE OF AN OBLIGATION OR COMPULSION TO DEDUCT THE COMMISSION F ROM THE EXPORT INVOICES WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THIS TO BE A CASE OF DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED FROM THE EXPORT INVOICE S WERE THUS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD FEW ORDE RS OF THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER IN A SITUATION WHEN THE DECISIONS OF THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD; WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLO W THOSE PRECEDENTS AND DIRECT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ALLOW THE CLAIM I N THE LIGHT OF THESE ITA NO.509/AHD/2010 RISHABH SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SU RAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 - 7 - CASE LAWS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. RESULTANTLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUKUL KR . SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/08/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. )*' %, ' ' % , ,-$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 1 11 1/ // /,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % , , , , ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD