Shri Jatin M. Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 524/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1347 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 271(1)(c); 68; 69

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-14) SHRI JATIN M. SHAH SHREE KRISHNA CARGO, M-7, SHREE GHANTAKARAN MAHAVIR MARKET, NEW CLOTH MARKET, AHMEDABAD - 380002 / VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(4), NARAYAN CHAMBERS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD - 380009 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : APZPS2196H ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. F. JAIN, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ADITYA SHUKLA, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/08/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/09/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 02.02.2018 ARI SING IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (AO) UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CON CERNING AYS. 2012-13 & 2013-14. ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 2 - 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BEING COMMON, BOTH THE CAS ES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMON ORDER. 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 524/AHD/2018 CONCERNING AY 2012-13. ITA NO. 524/AHD/2018-AY-2012-13 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 4. AS PER ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,69,855/- FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE W AS CARRIED OUT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN ADDITION OF RS.13,10,40 0/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UND ER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SUCH UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 712/AH D/2015 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.09.2017 HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF AND SUSTAI NED THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF 50% AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT RS. 39,00,300/- WAS F OUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDUSIND BANK IN A .Y. 2011-12 AND RS. 13,10,400/-WAS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN A.Y , 2012-13. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE I S WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, ON PERUSING T HE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF INDUSIND BANK, WE FIND THAT WHENEVER THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO M/S. S HRI KRISHNA CARGO. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS THAT DIE SAME FO RMS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL IN SU PPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND CO NSIDERING THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND TRANSMI TTED TO THE FIRMS ACCOUNT, 50% OF THE CASH DEPOSITED SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WE MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO TREAT 50% OF THE CASH DEPOSI TED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ITATS ORDER, THE CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO TOWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION SUSTAINED. THE PENALTY IMPOSED OF RS.3,39,710/- WAS ACCORDINGL Y SCALED DOWN BY THE CIT(A) TO RS.1,69,855/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE PARTIAL CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ONE CANNOT SAY WITH CLARITY THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE OUT ON ESTIMATED BASIS WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT ONEROUS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE LEARNED AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL YASHPAL KHOSLA VS. ITO ITA NOS. 1078 & 1079/AHD/2015 ORDER DATED 19.03.2018 WHERE THE PENALTY WAS DELETE D IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE LEARNED AR ALSO CONT ENDED THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO FOR TH E IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS VAGUE AND NON-DESCRIPT. THE NOTICE DID NOT SPE CIFY THE NATURE OF DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW . 8. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN QUANTUM PROCEEDI NGS AS WELL AS IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE LAWS CITED WERE ALSO PERUSED. THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IS IN CONTROVERSY. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 4 - 3.3. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,10,400/- TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DTD , 28.03.2015. THEREAFTER THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,39,710/- FOR FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3.4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS BEEN DECIDED AND (HE ITAT SUSTAINED 50% ADDITION AND DELETED THE BALANCE , THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R:- 'PARA 9 : THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT RS.39,00,300/- W AS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDUSHUL BANK IN AY.2011-I2 AND RS. 13,10,400/- WAS FOUND TO BE DEPO SITED IN AY.2012-13. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME LIME , ON PERUSING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF INDUSIND BANK, WE FIND THAT W HENEVER THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO M/S. SHRI KRISHNA CARGO. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE SAME FORMS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LI GHTLY. PARA 10 : THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION AND CONSIDERING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CASH WAS DEPOSI TED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE FIRMS ACCOUNT, 50% OF THE CASH D EPOSITED SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT 50% OF THE CASH DEPOSITED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ' IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BECO MES ESTIMATED ADDITION AND FURTHER THE WORD USED IN SECTION 68 AND 69 IS M AY AND NOT SHALL AND THEREFORE THE UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WILL NOT E NTITLE THE AO TO TREAT THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT H AS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS AS CITED ABOVE. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NOTICE BEING DEFECTIVE AND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO NO SPECIFIC DEFAUL T FOR PENALTY HAS BEEN MENTIONED HENCE ON THIS GROUND ALSO PENALTY IS ALSO NOT LEVIABLE. 3.5. FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE CONS IDERED. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A O HAS VERY MUCH CLEAR BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY AND CLEARLY STATED THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE AC T IS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ON TWO COUNTS I.E. C ONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND BY FURNISHING OF SUCH INACCURATE PARTICULARS SH E HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME ON WHICH ACCOUNT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U /S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO IS NOT AFFIRM ABOUT THE CHARGES IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE CASE OF SNITA TRANSP ORT (P.) LTD. 221 TAXMAN 217, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '9. REGARDING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS AMBIVALENT REGARDING WIDER WHICH HEAD THE PENALTY W AS BEING ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - IMPOSED NAMELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, WE MAY RECORD TH AT THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID ORDER IN ITIATION OF PENALTY ON BOTH COUNTS, IN THE ULTIMATE ORDER OF PE NALTY THAT HE PASSED, HE CLEARLY HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS SUS TAINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSES HAD CONCEALED THE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME. THUS INSOFAR AS FINAL ORDER OF PENALTY WAS CONCERNE D, THE. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CLEAR AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN LIGHT OF THIS, WE MAY PERUSE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CASE OF MANU ENGINEER ING WORKS (SUPRA). IN THE SAID DECISION, THE DIVISION BENCH C AME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' MAY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE FOR PENALTY, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY TO COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETH ER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER AN Y INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY TH EM. IF NO SUCH CLEAR, CUT FINDING IS REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY, PEN ALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH IN FINAL CONCLUSION THE AUTHORITY HAD RECORDED THAT 'I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL HAV E TO HE SAID THAT THE ASSESSES HAD CONCEALED US INCOME AND/OR THAT IT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. ' IT WAS IN THIS RESPECT THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT 'NOW THE LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' M AY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE AS TO PENALTY ORDER OR FRAMING OF CHARGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE OR A QUASI-CRIMINAL CASE, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE IAC TO COME JIO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHE R THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER AN Y T INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. NO SUCH CLEAR CUT FINDING WAS REACHED BY THE IAC AND, ON THAT GROUND ALONE, THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE IAC WAS L IABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN.' A PERUSAL OF PENALTY ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE A O HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U /S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3.6. FURTHER THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS CATEGORICALLY STA TED IN ITS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CLAIM OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS. A PERUSAL OF ORDER- OF THE HON'B LE ITAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EXPLANATIO N REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS SUSTAINED ADDITIONS OF 50% AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EXPLANATION FOR ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT IT BECOMES AN ESTIM ATE ADDITION IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT AT AL L ON ANY ESTIMATES. THERE WAS A CLEAR CUT FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS. THE ADDITION WAS REDUCED TO 50% BY THE HON'BLE ITAT AS THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS LO THE TUNE OF 50% OF TOTAL DEPOSITS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY M UCH CLEAR THAT (HE APPELLANT HAS DEFAULTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY CORRECTLY. HOWEVER, A S THE ADDITION IS REDUCED TO 50% OF TOTAL ADDITION, THE PENALTY IS AL SO REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOW ED. 10. THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE I TAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EXP LANATION REGARDING CASH ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 6 - DEPOSITS. WE FIND NO ERROR IN SUCH CONCLUSION DRAW N BY THE CIT(A). IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH NO SATISFACTORY ANSWER WAS PROVIDED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO TH E ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF 50% AS EXPLAINED . THE ITAT HOWEVER HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT REMAINING PORTION T O BE INCOME OF UNEXPLAINED NATURE. NO VALID EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED TOWARDS SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS. THEREFORE, OBSERVATION OF THE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS REQU IRES TO BE ADOPTED FOR PENALTY PURPOSES AS WELL. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJE CTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DEFECTIVE NOTICE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SNITA TRANSPORT (P.) LTD. 221 TAXMAN 217 (GUJ). IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DE CISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN SHRI ANIL YASHPAL KHOSLA (SUPRA) IS TOTALLY MISPLACED. THE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THAT CA SE WAS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE IN VIEW OF CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS OF THIRD P ARTY FILED WHICH REMAINED UNVERIFIED BY THE AO. NO SUCH FACTS HAVE BEEN SHOW N TO EXIST IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, TH E NATURE OF CONCEALMENT WAS CLEAR TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE PER SE BY SUCH ALLEGED TECHNICAL DEFECT. THE CIT(A) IN OU R VIEW HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITH WHICH INTERFEREN CE IS CALLED FOR. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 20 12-13 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 525/AHD/2018-AY 2013-14 12. THE PENALTY ON PEAK AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.5,49,900/- IS IN CONTROVERSY SIMILAR TO AY 2012-13. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN ITA NO. 524/AHD/2018, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON PRINCIPLES. HOWEVER, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 500/AHD/2017 ORDER DATED 17.09.2018 WHER EBY THE ADDITIONS WERE RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE DEPOSITS. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ITA NOS. 524 & 525/AHD/18 [SHRI JATIN M. SHAH VS. ITO] A.YS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 7 - ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER CONFI RMING THE PENALTY ON THE FULL AMOUNT AS THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION OF THE I TAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER IN RES PECT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WE THUS FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REDUCTION IN THE QUANTUM OR PENALTY IN TUNE WITH THE REDUCTION I N THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. THE AO IS ACCORDIN GLY DIRECTED TO RE-WORK THE PENALTY BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS QUANTI FIED BY THE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 20 13-14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A Y 2012-13 IS DISMISSED AND FOR AY 2013-14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/09/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11/09/ 2019