The DCIT, Circle-11, Ahmedabad V. Shri Umang Hiralal ThaKkar, Ahmedabad

ITA 560/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0274 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO.560/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2006-07) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, ROOM NO.118, NARAYAN CHAMBERS, NEHRU BRIDGE CORNER, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, 305, SAHAJANAND PLAZA, BHATTA CHBAR RASTA, PALDI, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAVPT 8621 R ON BEHALF OF REVENUE : MR. RAHULKUMAR, SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:MR. A.L. THAKKAR. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10-1-201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-2-2013 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT (A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 9-12-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS ARE AS U NDER. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOTEL BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26-9-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.32,33,520 /-.THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-12-2008 AND TOTAL INCOME WAS DE TERMINED AT RS.2,00,01,140/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 9-12-2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE R EVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE READS AS UNDER;- THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,66,70,811/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACC OUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME BY COMPUTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. 4. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E A.O. NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAHJANAND ENTERPRISE THE ASSESS EE HAS FOLLOWED THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND NO INCOME WAS OFFE RED FOR THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS SUBM ITTED BY ASSESSEE, A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF SAHJANAND ENTERPRISES, SWAMINARAYAN ENTERPRISE, GHANSHYAM ENTERPRISE & NEE LKANTH ENTERPRISES. ALL THE AFORESAID FIRMS WERE ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. IN THE CASE OF SAHAJNAND ENT ERPRISES, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD BUT IN T HE CASE OF OTHER 3 CONCERNS (SWAMINARAYAN ENTERPRISES,GHANSHYAM ENTERP RISE & NEELKANTH ENTERPRISE) THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMP LETION METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR INCOME. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 3 5. THE A.O. ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSE E ASKING HIM TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE INCOME IN THE CASE OF 3 CONCERNS NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. IN RE SPONSE THE ASSESSEE INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT IN THE 3 CONCERNS HE FOLLO WED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND THE INCOME WAS OFFERED IN SUBSEQUENT YEA R WHEN THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING T HE RECOGNIZED SYSTEM OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WHICH HAD COMMENCED I N THE PRECEDING YEARS AND DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION PROJECT W AS NEARING COMPLETION. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT IN ALL THE PROJECTS THE ASSESS EE HAD TAKEN BOOKING ADVANCE AGAINST EACH UNIT UNDER CONSTRUCTION. HE WA S THUS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS FUR THER OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AS FOLLOWED BY THE AS SESSEE DID NOT CONFIRM TO THE SCHEME OF INCOME TAX. HE THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC ) AND THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7 PRESCRIBED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACC OUNTANTS OF INDIA (ICAI) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE HAD TO BE RECOGNIZ ED FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE MIXED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING (NAMEL Y PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD) FO R THE SAME SOURCE OF INCOME, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD, DETERMINED THE INCOME OFFERED ON THE TOTAL WORK DONE DURING THE PERIOD AT AVERAGE RA TE OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE LATER PERIOD. HE WORKED OUT THE TOTAL COMPLETED WORK AT RS.3,70,46,247/- AND INCOME THEREON WAS CONSIDERED AT RS. 1,66,70,811/-. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 4 (45% OF RS.3,70,46,247). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). 6. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECAPITULATED. THE FACTS EMERGING IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE:- (A) IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CARRIED BY THE APP ELLANT, INCOME HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN VIZ. M/ S. SAHJANAND ENTERPRISES BY PERCENTAGE COMPLETE METHOD . HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IT IS FOLLO WING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IN RESPECT OF ALL THE BUSINESS AC TIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS, VIZ. M/S. NEELKANTH ENTERPRISES, M/S. GHANSHYAM ENTERPRISES AND M/S. SWAMINARAYAN ENTERPRISES. (B) IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 200 7-08, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED PROFITS FROM M/S. NEELKANT H ENTERPRISES GHANSHYAM ENTERPRISES AND M/S.SWAMINARAYAN ENTERPR ISES ON THE BASIS OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. (C ) THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS BEING FOLLOW ED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2006 PASSED U/S. 143 ( 3) OF THE I. T. ACT. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS TO WHETHER THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN CHANGING THE METHO D OF ACCOUNTING OF ITS PROFITS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PARTICU LARLY WHEN PROFITS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7(A.S.7) AND DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TIRATH RAM AHUJA PVT. LTD. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 5 VS. CIT (186 ITR 428) WHEREIN RATIO LAID DOWN IN TH E SAME CASE BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS CONFIRMED (103 ITR 15 )(D ELHI.). 10.1. THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS A.S-7 APPLIES IN CA SE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. THESE STANDARDS HAVE COME I NTO AFFECT IN RESPECT OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO DURING ACCOUNTING PERIOD, COMMENCING ON OR AFTER 1-4-2003 AND IS MANDATORY IN NATURE FROM THAT DATE. THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE ACCOUNTING STAND ARDS IS TO PRESCRIBE THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF REVENUE AND COST ASSOCI ATED WITH CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH TO ACCOUNTING STANDARD A.S.7 AS A CON STRUCTION CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY NEGOTIATED FOR THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF AN ASSET OR A COMBINATION OF ASSETS THAT ARE CLOSELY INTER-RELATE D AND INTERDEPENDENT.. A CONTRACT MAY BE FIXED PRICE CO NTRACT OR COST PLUS CONTRACT. PARAGRAPH 21 OF ACCOUNTING STANDAR D A.S-7 HAD LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLES OF RECOGNITION OF CONTRACT REVE NUE AND EXPENSE. WHEN AN OUTCOME OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CAN BE EST IMATED RELIABLY, CONTRACT REVENUE AND CONTRACT COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE AND EXPEN SE RESPECTIVELY BY REFERENCE TO THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE CONT RACT ACTIVITY AT THE REPORTING DATE. THIS IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD. UNDER THIS METHOD, CONTRACT REVENUE IS MATC HED WITH THE CONTRACT COST INCURRED IN REACHING THE STAGE OF COM PLETION, RESULTING IN THE REPORTING OF REVENUE, EXPENSE AND PROFIT WHICH CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPORTION OF WORK COMPLETED. 10.2. IN THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, THE CO NTRACTOR CARRIES OUT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PERSON , WHO HAS AWARDED SAID CONTRACT TO HIM. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF BUILDERS, THEY BUILD THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES FOR SALE TO CUSTOMER S. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CASES, THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AS THE APPE LLANT IS ACTING AS A DEVELOPER OF PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, A.S-7 IS NOT AP PLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND IT IS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING THE C ONSISTENT PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTING PROFITS IN RESPECT OF 3 PROPRIETARY C ONCERNS VIZ. M/S. NEELKANTH ENTERPRISE, M/S.GHANSHYAM ENTERPRISES AND M/S. SWAMINARAYAN ENTERPRISES ON THE BASIS OF PROJECT CO MPLETION METHOD. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV WO OLEN MILLS VS. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 6 CIT (279 ITR 434) HAS HELD THAT WHAT IS MATERIAL FO R THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T. ACT, IS THAT THE METHOD SHO ULD BE SUCH THAT THE REAL INCOME, PROFITS AND GAINS CAN BE PROPERLY DEDU CED THEREFROM. THE DEPARTMENT IS BOUND BY THE ASSESSEES CHOICE OF THE METHOD REGULARLY EMPLOYED UNLESS BY THIS METHOD, THE TRUE INCOME/ PROFITS CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NANDI HOUSING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (80 TTJ BANGALORE 750) ALSO APPLIES IN THE CASE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CHOICE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS ENTIRELY UPON THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE HAVING ADOPTED SUCH A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYING SUCH METHOD AND THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PAS T HAS ALSO ACCEPTED SUCH METHOD AS PROPER METHOD, FOR ARRIVING AT THE INCOME, IN SUCH SITUATION, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE DEPARTMEN T TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE INTERMEDIARY AND TRY TO DISTORT THE WHOLE ASSES SMENT. 10.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIRATH RAM AHUJA PV T. LTD. VS. CIT [1976) 103 ITR 15 (DEL.). HOWEVER, IT MAY BE POINTE D OUT THAT IN THE SAID DECISION, THE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER PROFIT, IT WOULD BE REJECTED, BUT THEN SUCH REJECTION SHOULD BE BASED ON COGENT E VIDENCE AND SHOULD BE DONE WITH CAUTION. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SAHJANAND ENTERPRISES, THE ASSESSEE WA S FOLLOWING THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD BUT IN THE CASE OF OTH ER FIRMS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THUS T HE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING TWO SEPARATE METHODS FOR INCOME TAXABLE U NDER ONE HEAD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.145 MIXED SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE W.E.F. 1-4-1997. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 7 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT A CCOUNTING STANDARD- 7 PRESCRIBED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NTS OF INDIA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IS A DEV ELOPER, HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF 3 FIRMS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND HAS DECLARED PROFIT IN THE SU BSEQUENT YEAR AND HAS PAID THE TAXES THEREON. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING SIMILAR METHOD IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY REV ENUE. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF VRAJ DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.19/AHD/2008 DATED 14-5-2010. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED IN A.Y. 2007-08 PROFITS ON THE BASIS OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN A.Y. 2005-06 IN T HE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACTING AS DEVELOPER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7 AS PRESCRIBED BY ICAI ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN CONSISTENTLY AND REGULARLY EMPLOYING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD A ND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAID METHOD IN THE PAST. FURTHER THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE CASE OF VRAJ DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.19/AH D/2008, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 8 5. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O . AND THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ION THE CASE OF NANDI HOUSING (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 750 ( BANG), WHEREIN TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF KHODAY DISTILLERS LTD. IN ITRC NOS. 19 TO 21 OF 199 3.THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES OUR ADJUDICA TION IS THAT THE INCOME IN THE INSTANT CASE IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE OR AS PER ACCOU NTING STANDARD AS-7 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING OF INCOME TAX. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. A READING OF SECTION 145 O F THE ACT SHOWS THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSIS TENT SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE UNLESS SUCH SYS TEM, OF ACCOUNTING IS DEFECTIVE AND/OR FROM SUCH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, PROFIT CANNOT BE DEDUCED. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE OPTION FOR CHOOSING THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT IS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOT WITH THE LD. A.O. PROVIDED THE SYSTEM CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY HIM AND SUCH SYSTEM IS NOT A DEFECTIVE SYSTEM. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, PROVISIONS OF AS-7 CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 IN SO FAR AS THE COMPUTATION OF BUSINES S INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING I NCOME IS CONCERNED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LD . A.O. HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SYSTEM OF AC COUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS NOT C ONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE SYSTEM ADOPTED WAS A DEFECTIVE SYSTEM. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN A PROJECT COMP LETION METHOD IS ALSO A RECOGNIZED SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. SIMPLY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA HAS RECOMMENDED PERC ENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT PROJECT ACCOUN TING OR THE SAME IS A DEFECTIVE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE LD. C IT (A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING AFTER PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT RE CORDS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION ITS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS PER THE CONSISTENT SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOILOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. C OULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ABOVE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT (A) ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 9 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. BEFORE US THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A). CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND THUS UPHOLD HIS ORDER. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-2 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) I, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD ITA NO 560/AHD/20 10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 10 - 1 -2013 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 14 / 1 / 2013 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 29 - 1 -2013. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2013 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2013 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2013. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER