Dr. Hitesh A. Patel, Himatnagar V. The Income Tax Officer, S.K.Ward-3, Himatnagar

ITA 528/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7668 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIS K DE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A

Judgement Text

, A - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT &SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-11 DR. HITESH A. PATEL C/O. HARSH HOSPITAL UMIYA COMPLEX, NR. MEHTA PETROL PUMP HIMATNAGAR, (S.K.)- 383001 PAN:ABE PP1 040 J VS. ITO S.K. WARD-3 HIMATNAGAR(S.K.) / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRIS. N. DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRIS. K. DE ' #$% /DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2019 &' $% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/04/2019 () / O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY- JM : THE INSTANT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 15.12.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD A RISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 PASSED BY THE ITO S.K. WARD-3, HIMATNAGA R U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL, CARRYING ON MEDICAL PRACTICE AS GYNAECOLOGIST IN THE HARSH HOSPITALATHIMATNAGAR FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 25.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,72,420/-. UPON SCRUTINY A NOTICE DATED 16.09.2011 ISSUED U/S. 143(2) FOLLOWED BY A FURTHER NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 29.06.2012 DUE TO CHANGE OF INCUMBENT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IN FACT A SURVEY PRO CEEDING U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 2 CARRIED OUT ON 04.09.2009 IN THE HARSH HOSPITAL O F THE ASSESSEE WHERE CERTAIN INCRIMINATING LOOSE PAPERS AND/OR DOCUMENTS WERE FO UND; THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF EVERY YEAR AND AGREED TO PAY TAX IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 ON UNDISCLOSED/UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF RS. 14,15,120 /-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER AGREED TO PAY TAX FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 ON UNACCOUNT ED INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,99,883/- ON BUILDING AND RS. 15,00,530/- ON FURNITURE. HO WEVER, BY AND UNDER A LETTER DATED 07.09.2009 THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM THE DISCLOSU RE GIVEN BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON 04.09.2009. GROUND NO.1:- DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(3) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 99,29 6: - 3.1. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED CERTAIN MEDICINE B Y CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- FROM ONE M/S. VAIBHAVSURGICAL ON FOUR DIFFERENT DAT ES AMOUNTING TO RS. 99,296/- DUE TO NECESSITY AND URGENCY FOR TREATMENT OF THE PATIE NTS ON URGENT BASIS INCLUDING THE TREATMENT UNDER VARIOUS GOVERNMENT SCHEME DETAILS W HEREOF WERE DULY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SUCH CH ARGES WERE RECOVERED FROM PATIENTS. THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. AO, AS NON-GENUI NE TRANSACTION, FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE COORDINATE BENCH I N ITA NO. 2526/AHD/2013 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, COPY WHEREOF AS ALSO BEEN HANDED OVER TO U S. HE, THEREFORE, PRESS FOR SAME RELIEF. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR FAILED TO REBUT SUCH CO NTENTIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 3 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH; THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- 5. I HAVE NOTED THAT BASIC CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT GOODS LIKE MEDICINES AND SURGICAL DISPOSABLES, THAT TO IN VERY SMALL END USE QUANTITIES, IS INHERENTLY AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE AND NO SHOPKEEPER IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CASH FOR SUCH SMALL PURCHASES. I QUITE AGREE WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN TODAY'S WORLD. RS 20,000/- IS TOO SMALL AN AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF THI NGS LIKE EMERGENCY MEDICINES AND SURGICAL DISPOSABLES BY CASH. WHILE LOOKING AT, AND INTERPRE TING, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, WE CANNOT BE SO PEDANTIC IN APPROACH SO AS TO BE COMPLETELY D IVORCED FROM THE GROUND REALITIES AND SO AS TO OVERLOOK THE GLARING FACTUAL SCENARIO. THESE REALITIES ARE STARING AT US AND WE CAN CANNOT BE LIVING IN DENIAL JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS NOT STATED SO IN SO MANY WORDS THE PURCHASE OF THESE SMALL QUANTITIES OF SURGICAL DISP OSABLES AND EMERGENCY MEDICINES, IN CASH - EVEN THOUGH THE BILLING AMOUNTS ARE MARGINALLY MORE THAN RS 20.000 IN EACH INSTANCE- ARE QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE AND ARE COMPULSIONS OF NORMAL PRACTICES. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, AND IN THE LIGHT OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANUPAM TELE SERVICES VS ITO [(2014) 366 ITR 122 (GU J)] WHICH PERMITS DEDUCTION OF EVEN CASH PURCHASES IN EXCESS OF RS 20,000 IN DESERVING CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE MATTER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE INDEED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGMENT WE AL LOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 99,296/- DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2:- THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,000:- 4.1. ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RENT EXPENSES. DURI NG THE POST SURVEY PROCEEDING THE STATEMENT OF ONE DR. MANOJSUTHAR BEING THE TENA NT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH ON 16.02.2009 WHEREIN HE HAS CATEGORICALLY STA TED THAT HE WAS PAYING RS. 8,000/- PER MONTH BY CHEQUE AND RS. 3,000 TO 4,000 PER MONT H IN CASH FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE HOSPITALS TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH PAYMENT OF RS. 48, 000/- FOR A YEAR HAS BEEN ADDED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. RELYING UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED SUCH ADDITION. ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 4 4.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL T HE LD. AR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCH IN ITA NO. 2470/AHD/2012 OF 09.06.2016. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 3 UNACCOUNTED MEDICAL RECEIPTS:- 5.1. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING FROM INVENTORIZED DOCUMENTS IT APPEARS ACTUAL RECEIPTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS OF RS. 22,75,090/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ISSUED RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,59,070/- THE LD. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPRESSED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 14,15,120/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. BEING DISSATISFIED WITH E XPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. AO ADDED RS. 14,15,120/- AS UNACCO UNTED RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN APPEAL RESTRICTED TO RS. 8,15,130/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPTS RECORDED IN DOCUMENTS F OUND DURING THE SURVEY AND DECLARED IN RETURN. 5.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL T HE LD. ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE COORDINATE BE NCH IN ITA NO. 2526/AHD/2013 BY ITS ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER; COPY WHEREOF AS ALSO BE EN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. 5.3. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ALSO CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON BLE COORDINATE BENCH THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- IT IS BY NOW A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE STAT EMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE, AND THUS , FOR THE REASON OF STATEMENT ALONE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THE MATERIAL GATHERED DUR ING THE SURVEY, HOWEVER, CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. ON THESE FUNDAMENTA L PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND HAVING NOTED THAT THE ADDIT ION IS CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBS ERVATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 5 GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AS SESSEE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. ORDERED, ACCORDINGLY. 5.4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE SAID JUDGM ENT REPRODUCED ABOVE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. GROUND NO. 4 THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNAC COUNTED COST OF CONSTRUCTION:- 6.1 IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE DOCUMENT SH OWS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY REFLECTS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF A HOSPITAL WAS OF RS. 45,24,569/- TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY. BUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOW S SUCH COST AT RS. 19.24 LACS. HENCE, ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE L D. AO. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS THAT THE DVO ON THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE L D. AO ESTIMATED SUCH COST OF CONSTRUCTION LESS THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN APPEAL THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO 4,25,534/-. HE THUS, PRAYED FOR DELETION OF SUCH ADDITION. 6.2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2470/AHD/2012 WAS DISPOSED OF WHEREIN THE DIFFERENCE WAS LESS THAN 15%. COPY WHEREOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE U S. 6.3. FURTHER THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. AO. 6.4. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2470/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09; RELEVANT PORTION WH EREOF IS A FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 6 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. APROPOS SECOND GROUND, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BE EN MADE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION REPORT THE ASSESSEES D ECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TOTAL VALUATION BETW EEN THE ASSESSEES COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND VALUATION REPORT IS ADMITTEDLY LES S THAN 15%. A POST FACTO VALUATION OF PROPERTY IS AN ESTIMATE AS COMPARED TO ASSESSEE S MAINTAINED RECORD. THE DIFFERENCE BEING NEGLIGIBLE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION IS UNCALLED-FOR; HENCE IT IS DELETED. THUS, THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGMENT WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALL OWED. GROUND NO. 5:- THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,53 0 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE:- 7.1. FROM THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE DURING THE SURV EY INCLUDING INVENTORIZED DOCUMENTS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXP ENSES ON FURNITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,00,530/-. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 7.2. THE LD. AO RELYING UPON THE DISCLOSURE MADE DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ADDED THE SAID SUM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FURNITUR E WAS OF RS. 1,17,809/-. IN FACT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN EXCEPT RELYING ON THE F ACT THAT THE STATEMENT AS HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY HIM AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN T HE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE US. IF THAT BE THE POSITION THEN WE FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT TO THE MATTER TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATING OF THE SAME DENO VO UPON GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND UPON TAKING INTO CONSID ERATION THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF THE HEAR ING OF THE ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 6:- THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE DEPRE CIATION OF RS. 46,528:- ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 7 8.1. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THREE PORTIONS OF THE HOSPITAL PREMISES TOTALING TO AN AREA OF 1950 SQ. FT. WERE LET OUT TO THREE PARTIES, PRO RATA DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING HIS PRED ECESSORS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 8.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. ADVOCATE APPEAR ING FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 2470/AHD/2012 BY ITS ORDER DATED 09.06.2016. HENCE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, IS THUS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 7:- THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 60,000 ON CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO ONE DR. SUBH ASHHARIBHAI PATEL:- 9.1. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING ON PROFESSION IN THE FIELD OF GYNEC. DR. SUBHASHHARIBHAI PATEL BEING A HOMOEOPATHY CANNOT BE THE TEAM MEMBER AND THE REMUNERATION THEREON AS CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO HIM HAS BEEN FOUND NON-GENUINE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE LD. AO THAT THERE WAS NO NEED OF HOMOEOPATHY DOCTOR IN THE FIELD OF APPELLANT, HENCE SUCH DISALLOWANCE. BUT THE ASS ESSEES CASE IS THIS THAT THE SAID DOCTOR WAS AN ASSISTANT DOCTOR IN THE TEAM AND CONS ULTANCY CHARGES WERE DULY PAID THEREON. IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT THE HOMOEOPATHY DOCTOR CANNOT AT ALL BE A PART OF THE D OCTORS TEAM. THE DOCTORS TEAM MAY COMPRISED OF HOMOEOPATHY, AYURVEDIC AND ALLOPAT HY, WHICH IS ALSO RECOGNIZED BY THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES CONTROLLING MEDICAL FI ELD. IN FACT THE MINISTRY OF AYUSH FORMED ON 09 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WAS TO ENSUR E THE OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT PROPAGATION OF AYUSH SYSTEM AND HEALTH CARE. EARLIER THIS WAS KNOWN AS DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND HOMO EOPATHY (ISM&H) WHICH WAS CREATED IN MARCH, 1995. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT AYUSH STANDS THAT AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMOEOPATHY AS WELL. IT IS A COMBINED PROGRAMME OF DIFFERENT FIELD OF MEDICAL FACILITIES/ DISCIPLINED/TREATMENT. THUS, THE ITA NO. 528/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 8 CONTRIBUTION OF A HOMOEOPATH CANNOT AT ALL BE BRUSH ED ASIDE IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT MEDICAL SCENARIO OF THE COUNTRY. IN THAT VIEW OF T HE MATTER WE FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO RE EXAMINE THE SAME TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OUR VIEW UPON GIVING A REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT AND ALSO UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCES BE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE SERVICES R ENDERED BY THE SAID DOCTOR IN THE SAID HOSPITAL OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENT WHICH THE A SSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. IF SUCH EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED, UPON BEING SATISFIED ON THE SAME THE AO WOULD PASS ORDERS ALLO WING SUCH CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. [ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04-04-2019.] SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/04/2019 TANMAY ()$*+,(+ /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. - / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' . / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' . ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. +/0 , / DR, ITAT, 6. 012# / GUARD FILE. () ' / BY ORDER 3 / 4 (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD