Sujal Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,(OSD) Range-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 552/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9097 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , (BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M. & SHRI AN IL CHATURVEDI, A.M.) ( !' $ %& ' , ( !' !) * ) ITA NOS: 2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS 41, SANSKARBHARTI SOCIETY, ANKUR ROAD, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS 41, SANSKARBHARTI SOCIETY, ANKUR ROAD, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD VS. & VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD), RANGE -9, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAMFM1427H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI BHARAT SHAH, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06 -01 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -03 -2016 ( )/ ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 04.06.2010 & 28 TH OCTOBER, 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 2 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, BUT SOLITARY ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEARS IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY HIM WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R. WE THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A COMMON ORDER AND PROCEED WITH THE FACTS FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. ASSESSEE FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 05.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.46,40,938/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S.46,40,940/- INTER ALIA BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 04.06.2010 (IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XV/ITO.9(1)/324/20 08-09) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS, WHICH HAVE BEEN LATER ON CONCISED, AND THE CONCISED GROUNDS IN ITA NO.2427/AHD/2010 RE AD AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY AO DATED 26.12.2008 AND ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.46,37,637/- U/S.8018(10) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER LAND AND ACTED AS CONSTRUCTIO N AGENT FOR THE LAND OWNER. (II) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB CLAUSES (A), (B) AN D (C) OF SECTION 80IB(10) ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 3 INSTEAD OF THE GROUND OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND NOT IN T HE APPELLANTS NAME AS STAND TAKEN BY LEARNED AO. (III) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) XV, AHMEDABAD HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THA T THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A. O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED HOUSING PROJECT ON THE LAND WHICH W AS PURCHASED BY SAKAL CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND THE APPROVAL FOR PROJECT FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY NAMELY AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY (AUDA) WAS ALSO OBTAINED FROM AUDA BY SAKAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SO CIETY LTD. A.O. WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS ACTING MERE LY AS AN AGENT AND HAD NOT ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ASSE SSEE HAS ACTED MERELY AS AN AGENT OF CONTRACTOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS REQUIRED U/S.80I B(10) OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED BY ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.46,40,938/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O. OF DENYING THE DEDUCTION BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. THE REASONS FOR DENYIN G THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT BY LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THER E WERE VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (A), (B) & (C) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, NAMELY, THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT BEFORE THE DATE STIPULATED IN THE ACT, THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS UNDERTAKEN WAS NOT HAVING THE MINIMUM AREA OF ONE A CRE AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT BY THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BUILT UP AREA IN EXCE SS OF WHAT WAS STIPULATED IN THE ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 4 ACT (I.E. THE AREA OF THE FLATS CONSTRUCTED WERE IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ. FT.). HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.1 BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. A.O. HAD REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LA ND WAS NOT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND BUT LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF VIO LATION OF CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (A), (B) & (C) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF THE GROUND OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND NOT BEING ASSESSEES NAME, AS WAS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DE DUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF LAND THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS REPORTED IN 341 ITR 483 (GUJ) AND MANY OTHER DECISI ONS OF TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION. AS FAR AS THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIZE OF THE PLOT ON WHICH THE H OUSING PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS NOT HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AREA OF PLOT IS 8838.74 SQ.MTRS. WHICH IS MORE THAN ONE ACRE AND THUS, THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE AREA OF LAND ON WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED IS FULFILLED. WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE UNITS HAVING AREA IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ.FT. (NAMELY, A 41-42, A 47-48 & A 79-80), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE UNITS WERE SEPARATE UNITS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE BUT CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAME TO BE A SINGLE UNIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDIN G PLAN WAS APPROVED WITH SEPARATE UNITS, ALL THE UNITS WERE SOLD AS SEPARATE UNITS, THE BU PERMISSION WAS GRANTED TO SEPARATE UNITS AND THE UNITS WERE ALSO A SSESSED SEPARATELY BY ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 5 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BUT THE OCCUPANTS A FTER HAVING OCCUPIED THEIR UNITS, MODIFIED THE UNITS BY COMBINING THE TWO UNIT S TO ONE UNIT SO AS TO SUIT THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND THE MODIFICATIONS BY THE PURCHASER S WERE DONE BY THEM SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE MADE BY ASSESSEE. HE SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE EACH UNIT WAS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. AT THE TIME OF SALE AND THE SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS BY THE PURCHASERS COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF BENE FIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WHICH WERE APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND THAT THE CONDITION AS STIPULATED IN CLAUSE (E) & (F) TO SECT ION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO NOT ALLOTTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT TO AN I NDIVIDUAL AND HIS RELATIVES WAS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT (NO.2), 2009 W.E.F. 01/04 /2010 AND WAS THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WITH R ESPECT TO THE OBSERVATION OF DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) OF ASSESSEE NOT EF FECTIVELY DEVELOPED MINIMUM ONE ACRE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID OBSERVATI ON OF THE DVO WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF FSI C ALCULATION WORKED OUT BY DVO IS WRONG IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PLOT AREA OF 8838.74 SQ. MTRS. HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED T HE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF 6945 SQ. MTR. WHICH IS AS PER AUDAS BU PERMISSION AND C ERTIFICATE. HE ALSO POINTED TO THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ISSUED BY AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (AUDA) WHICH CERTIFIES THE TOTAL BUILD UP AREA, NUMBER OF UNITS, DATE OF APPROVAL ETC. HE, THEREFO RE, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS STIPULAT ED U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THUS, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB( 10) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTI ON. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF A.O. AND LD. CIT(A). WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF UNUTILIZED FSI, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT PROFITS RELATABLE TO S ALE OF UNUTILIZED FSI WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN V IEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 6 GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT VS. DESA I DEVELOPERS [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 331 (GUJ). HE ALSO PLACED THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DE NIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT A.O. HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH AT ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR. ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE, WE FIND THAT I SSUE IS NOW WELL SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RADHE DEVELOPERS (2012) 341 ITR 483 (GUJ.). 7.1 WE FIND THAT ONE OF THE GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DE DUCTION BY LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THE SIZE OF FLAT SOLD BY ASSESSEE WAS IN EXCES S OF 1500 SQ.FT. ON THIS GROUND, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 4 FLATS NAMELY A 41-42, A 47-48 & A 79-80 TO 6 DIFFERENT PURCHASERS VIDE SEPARATE SALE DEEDS WHI CH HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND AT THE TIME OF ITS SA LE, EACH FLAT WAS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE INSPECTION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE DVO SUBSEQUENT AND MUCH AFTER THE DATE WHEN ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OV ER THE POSSESSION TO RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF THE FLAT. THE RESPECTIVE OWNER S HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE MODIFICATION IN THOSE FLATS AND COM BINING THOSE 6 FLATS INTO 3 FLATS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ACT OF THE PURCHASERS OF F LATS OF CONVERTING THE 2 FLATS IN TO 1 FLAT RESULTING INTO THE AREA OF THE COMBINED FLAT BEING IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ. FT., CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DONE BY ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD FLAT WHOSE AREA WAS IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ. FT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIZE OF FLAT WAS IN EXCESS OF RS.15 00 SQ.FT., THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED TO ASSESSE E. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 7 CIT(A) HAD DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR THE RE ASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED UNDER CLAUS E (A), (B) & (C) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THE BASIS SUCH CONCLUSION W AS DVO'S REPORT. IT IS CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED ONLY ON 5686.74 SQ.MTRS., BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT HAS DEVELOPED ON THE AREA OF 8838.74 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND AND FOR WHICH, SUPPORT IS DRAWN BY LD. A.R. ON THE CERTIFICATE BEING NO. 1870 DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ISSUED BY AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (AUDA). ON PERUSAL OF THE AF ORESAID CERTIFICATE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AUDA ON 09. 09.2010 WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS DATED 04.06.2010 ME ANING THEREBY THAT WHEN THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), THE AFORESAID CERTI FICATE ISSUED BY AUDA WAS NOT BEFORE HER AND THEREFORE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEF IT OF THE AFORESAID CERTIFICATE. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE CERTIFICATE, IT IS SEEN T HAT IT GIVES DETAILS ABOUT THE AREA OF LAND, PERMISSION NUMBER, APPROVED BUILT UP AREA, DA TE OF APPROVAL ETC. WHICH ARE IMPORTANT FACTORS WHICH WOULD GO IN DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN SUCH A SITUA TION, IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE ABOUT DE DUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESA ID CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AUDA AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE THEREFORE RESTORE T HE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10 ) OF THE ACT AFRESH IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREINABOVE. NEEDLESS TO STA TE THAT LD. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY FURNISH ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AUTHORITIES. THUS, THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2 006-07 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS .2427/AHD/2010 & 552/AHD/2011 FOR A.YS. 200 6-07 & 2007-08 (M/S. SUJAL DEVELOPERS VS. ITO) 8 NOW WE PROCEED WITH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.552/AHD/2011(A.Y. 2007-08) 9. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMI TTED THAT GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY T HEM WHILE ARGUING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN A.Y. 2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FOR THE REASONS AS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING TH E GROUNDS FOR A.Y.2006-07 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2007-08 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28-03- 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED 28 /03/2016 TRUE COPY S K SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD