The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, GANDHIDHAM V. Shri Jagveersingh G. Kalra, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 654/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7798 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAMITA KHURANA
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AH MEDABAD] (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NOS: 654 & 611/RAJKOT/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ADDL. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE, GANDHIDHAM SHRI JAGVEERSINGH G. KALRA, M/S. PEARL SHIPPING AGENCY AND M/S. PEARL INTERNATIONAL, 220- RUSHABH CHAMBER, PLOT NO. 93, SECTOR-8, GANDHIDHAM V/S V/S SHRI JAGVEERSINGH G. KALRA, M/S. PEARL SHIPPING AGENCY AND M/S. PEARL INTERNATIONAL, 220- RUSHABH CHAMBER, PLOT NO. 93, SECTOR-8, GANDHIDHAM ADDL. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE, GANDHIDHAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAPPT0319Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NAMITA KHURANA, SR. D.R . ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 2 ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 25 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -06-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ITA NOS. 611 & 654/RJT/2012 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A)-9, AHMEDABAD DATED 03.09.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10 AND IN ITA NO . 654/RJT/2012 FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE: (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,60,16,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BO GUS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (III) IT IS, THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTE NTS. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL AND RUNNING TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS NAMELY M/S. PEARL SHIPPING AND M/S. PEARL INTERNATIONAL. THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH INCOME TAX OF FICE, GANDHIDHAM SINCE PAST MANY YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/09/2009 ALONGWITH TAX AUDIT REPORT. ASSESSEE ALSO MAINTAINI NG REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH THE CONCERNS AND BOTH THE CONCERN S ARE COVERED UNDER TAX AUDIT U/S 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN RESPECT OF M/S. PEARL SHIPPING, THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE STEVEDORING OPERATIONS. WHEREAS IN CASE OF M/S PEARL INTERNATIONAL, IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF IRON ORE. DURING ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 3 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS PUR CHASED CERTAIN MATERIAL FOR LASHING AND CHOKING OF CARGO. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES AND IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HA S EXPORTED IRON ORE FROM BOTH PORTS AS UNDER; MANGALORE PORT 30,140 MTS KRISHNAPATNAM PORT 81,200 MTS TOTAL EXPORTS 1,11,340 MTS 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE ABOVE GOODS FROM MI NES AT BELLARY. IT IS COMMON BUSINESS MODUS OPERANDI IN MINING BUSINESS TO ACQUIRE THE GOODS AS SOON AS THE SAME IS RELEASED BY THE MINE OWNERS. TH EREFORE, TO COMPLY WITH EXPORT ORDERS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED AND TAKEN G OODS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AT THE PLACE NEARBY THE MINES.THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECT ED THE GOODS AT TWO OF THE COVERED PLOTS NEARBY THE MINES IN CONVENIENT PLACES FOR MANGLORE PORT - KOPAL AND FOR KRISHNAPATNAM PORT - PEARL PLOT. THE FINDIN GS OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE DIRECTLY TRANSPORTED GOODS FRO M MINES TO PORT RATHER THAN COLLECTING THE SAME AT COVERED PLOTS IS NOT FEASIBL E. 5. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE REASON FO R THE SAME IS THAT IT HELPS TO ACQUIRE MAXIMUM GOODS FROM MINES. IT HELPS TO COMPL Y WITH EXPORT ORDERS IN A GIVEN TIME FRAME. IT HELPS TO SAVE TIME AS FOR MI NING AREA, THE BIG DUMPERS ARE USED WHICH CARRIES 16 MTS OF IRON ORE PER DUMPE R, WHEREAS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY ONLY 8 MTS ARE ALLOWED. THE OPTIMUM USE OF TRANSPORTERS VEHICLES, AS THE TRANSPORT OPERATORS ARE NOT HAVING SO MANY FLEETS OF ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 4 VEHICLES WHICH CAN BE USED FOR WHOLE TRIPS. THE D UMPERS USED IN MINING AREAS ARE SPECIAL VEHICLES AND REGULAR TRUCKS CANNOT BE USED IN THOSE MINING AREA. ALL THE MINES ARE LOCATED IN HILLY AREA AND T HEREFORE THE GOODS ARE COLLECTED WITH DUMPERS OF HUGE SIZE AND OTHER TRUCK S ARE USED TO SHIFT THE SAME TO PORTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN HELP OF TWO DIFFERENT, TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS, ONE FOR SHIFTING OF GOODS FROM M INES TO PLOT AND OTHERS FOR PLOTS TO PORTS TO GET THE BEST OF TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY AS IN 35200 MTS OF EXPORT, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED 4400 TRIPS AND THERE FORE DUE TO SUCH ARRANGEMENT THE WORK COULD BE DONE WITH OPTIMUM CAPACITY. IT W ILL ALSO REDUCE COST AS WE CAN USE DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUCKS TO USE THE TRANSPO RTATION. IT WILL HELP TO SAVE WASTAGE OF GOODS BECAUSE OF HEAVY RAIN AS IN THE MI NING AREA AND SAME IS PRONE OF HEAVY RAINS. THE GOODS CAN BE ACCUMULATED FROM D IFFERENT MINES AND THEN SHIFTED TO FINAL DESTINATION AND IT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR ALL INTERNAL CONTROLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE TRANSPORTATION UPTO THE MID-POINT TILL THE AREA OF PLOT. 6. A.O. STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT AS PER DOCUMENTS NAME OF THE 'A' DOES NOT FIGURE ANYWHERE THEREFORE IT IS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PAR T OF THE EXPENSES RELATED TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE HAS PRODUCE D VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES SUCH AS COPY OF PURCHASES BILL OF IRON ORE PURCHASED FROM MINING COMPANIES. COPY OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS FROM THE PARTIES. COPY OF ACCOUNTS FROM ASSESSEE'S BOOKS. ---COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF TRANSPORTER COMPANIES AND CONFIRMATION. PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNEL. TDS CERTIFICATES FO R TDS DEDUCTED ON TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AFFIDAVITS OF M/S ALPINE I NTERNATIONAL , BANGALORE FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTIONS. DETAILED CLAR IFICATION LETTER BY BUSINESS OPERATOR M/S ALPINE INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI FOR T HE GENUINENESS OF ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 5 TRANSACTIONS. COPY OF EXPORT BILL FOR SALE OF IRON ORE. COPY OF BILL OF LADING FOR THE EXPORT OF GOODS. COPY OF BILL OF CARGO SURVEYOR. COPY OF BILL OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY. COPY OF BILL OF KRI SHNAPATNAM PORT TRUST FOR STEVEDORING EXPENSES. THE LD. AO. AT PAGE 12 HE LD THAT THE TOTAL DISTANCE FROM BELLARY TO MANGALORE IS AROUND 600 K.M. WHEREA S THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BELLARY TO KOPAL IS ONLY 90 K.M. ACCORDINGLY THERE IS PRIMA FACIE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH HUGE RATE OF RS.800 PER TON FOR DISTANCE OF ONLY 90 K.M. FROM BELLARY TO KOPAL. FOR THE SAME REASON, A.O. MA DE UP HIS MIND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE REPLIED THA T HE HAS GIVEN GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN JULY 2009 AND IT WAS DULY EX PLAINED THAT SUCH NOTIFICATIONS ARE ISSUED EVERY YEAR AND ASSESSEE CA N PLY TRANSPORTATION AS PER STATE GOVT. NOTIFICATION. 8. THEREAFTER A.O ALSO HELD THAT THE RATES SHOWN ARE N OT JUSTIFIABLE. ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES.THE RATES ARE STATED IN THE BILLS ARE COMMON RATES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT BELLARY TO KOPAL IS HILLY AREA AND ALTHOUGH THE DISTANCE IS LESS BUT IT TAKES HUGE TIME AND REQUIRE E XPERTISED SKILLS TO LOAD AND UNLOAD GOODS. FURTHER THE RATES ARE FIXED BY T HE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION AND ASSESSES HAS NO CONTROL ON IT. THE RATES ARE ALSO INCLUDING LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES. FOR THE PRIORITY OF THE G OODS TO BE TRANSPORTED THE ASSESSEE HAS TO OPT FOR THE RATES QUOTED BY THE TRA NSPORTATION COMPANY. EVEN FOR TWO DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION AGENCY THE RATES ARE SAME. THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED CONSIDERING THE TYPICAL NATURE OF BUSINE SS AND ALSO AS PER NEED OF THE BUSINESS. ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 6 9. LD. A.O. HELD THAT LRS AND LOG BOOK ARE NOT PROVIDE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE HAS FILED AN AFFI DAVIT GIVEN BY PRINCIPLE EXPORTER M/S ALPINE INTERNATIONAL BY WAY OF DETAILE D LETTERS AND AFFIDAVITS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SO FAR AS LRS ARE CONCERNED , THEY ARE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/S ALPINE INTERNATI ONAL AS THE PRINCIPLE EXPORTER IS THE SAID PARTY M/S ALPINE INTERNATIONAL ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME BY FILLING DETAIL LETTER TO THE LEARNED AO. 10. THEREAFTER LD. A.O. HELD THAT OWNERSHIP OF PLOT IS NOT SHOWN. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE PLOT AT MID AREA HAS BEEN ARRANGED BY THE PRINCIPLE EXPORTER. THE SAID EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THEM. T HE SAID PARTY HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEFORE THE LD. A.R. BUT LD. A.R. WAS NOT AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE MADE ADD ITION OF RS. 2,60,16,000/-. 11. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST ST ATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 12. NOW DEPARTMENT IS BEFORE US. 13. IN THIS CASE, LD. A.O HAS DISALLOWED TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE EXCESSIVE AS APPELLAN T COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ADDITIONAL COST INCURRED. WHEREAS THE A.R. OF THE A PPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT JOINT BUSINESS OPERATION WITH M/S. ALPINE INTERNATI ONAL WHEREIN HE HAS SHARED 75% TO 25% BUSINESS RATIO WITH M/S. ALPINE INTERNAT IONAL SINCE THE SAID BUSINESS ASSOCIATE IS THE PRINCIPAL EXPORTER IN CAS E OF ALL THE EXPORTS CARRIED OUT. ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 7 ALL THE PROCEDURE RELATING TO PURCHASES INCLUDING T RANSPORTATION OF GOODS TO THE RELEVANT PORT, CLEARING OF IRON ORE AT THE PORT ETC . IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY M/S. ALPINE INTERNATIONAL. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPORTED SO ME PART OF GOODS FROM MANGALORE PORT AND SOME PART OF GOODS FROM KRISHNAP ATNAM PORT. IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE EXPORT ORDERS, THE APPELLANT HAS TO ACQUIRE THE IRON ORES FROM THE MINES AS SOON AS THE ORDERS ARE RELEASED BY THE MINE OWNERS. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, A.O. CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLAN T COULD HAVE DIRECTLY TRANSPORTED THE GOODS FROM MINES TO THE PORT INSTEA D OF COLLECTING THEM AT THE NEARBY MINE AREAS. IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE THE BONAFIDE BUSINESS DECISIONS AND THERE ARE ECONOMIC BENEFITS CONNECTED WITH SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE TRANSPORTATIO N OF GOODS HAVE BEEN DONE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO AVAILABILITY OF GOODS, TRANS PORT VEHICLES AS WELL AS SECURING THE GOODS FROM THE MINE OWNERS. THE APPELL ANT HAS EXPLAINED VARIOUS REASONS FOR CARRYING OUT SUCH MODE OF ACTIVITIES FO R THE FOLLOWING REASONS : I)IT HELPED IN ACQUIRING MAXIMUM GOODS FROM MINES. II) IT HELPED IN COMPLYING EXPORT ORDERS IN A GIVEN TIME FRAME. III) IT HELPED IN SAVING TIME IN MINING AREA, THE B IG DUMPERS ARE USED WHICH CARRIES 16 MTS OF IRON ORE PER DUMPER WHEREAS ON NA TIONAL HIGHWAY ONLY 8 MTS IS ALLOWED. IV)IT FECILITATED THE OPTIMUM USE OF TRANSPORTER VE HICLES AS THE TRANSPORT OPERATORS ARE NOT HAVING SO MANY FLEETS OF VEHICLES WHICH CAN USED FOR WHOLE TRIPS. V)THE DUMPERS USED IN MINING AREAS ARE SPECI AL VEHICLES AND REGULAR TRUCKS CANNOT BE USED IN THOSE MINING AREAS. VI)ALL THE MINES ARE LOCATED IN HILLY AREA AND THER EFORE THE GOODS ARE COLLECTED WITH DUMPERS OF HUGE SIZE AND OTHER TRUCKS ARE USED TO SHIFT THE SAME TO PORTS. ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 8 VII)THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN HELP OF TWO D IFFERENT TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS, ONE FOR SHIFTING OF GOODS FROM MINES TO PLOT AND OT HERS FOR PLOTS TO PORT. VIII) TO GET THE BEST OF TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY AS IN 35,200 MTS OF EXPORT, THE APPELLANT REQUIRED 4400 TRIPS AND THEREFORE DUE TO SUCH ARRANGEMENT, THE WORK COULD BE DONE WITH OPTIMUM CAPACITY. IX) IT HAD ALSO REDUCED COST AS THE APPELLANT C OULD USE DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTATION. 18 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION: A)COPIES OF PURCHASES BILL OR IRON OR PURCHASES FR OM MINING COMPANIES. B)COPIES OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS FROM THE PARTIES. C)COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FROM APPELLANTS BOOKS. D)COPIES OF CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF TRANSPORTER COMPANI ES AND CONFIRMATION. E)PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNEL. F)TDS CERTIFICATES FOR TDS DEDUCTED ON TRANSPORTATI ON EXPENSES. G)AFFIDAVITS OF M/S ALPINE INTERNATIONAL , BANGALOR E FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTIONS. H)DETAILED CLARIFICATION LETTER BY BUSINESS OPERATO R M/S ALPINE INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI FOR THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. I)COPY OF EXPORT BILL FOR SALE OF IRON ORE. J)COPY OF BILL OF LADING FOR THE EXPORT OF GOODS. K)COPY OF BILL OF CARGO SURVEYOR, L).COPY OF BILL OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY. M)COPY OF BILL OF KRISHNAPATNAM PORT TRUST FOR STEV EDORING EXPENSES. ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 9 19. SO FAR AS GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY PROVIDING VARIOUS DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, LD. A.R. CI TED AN ORDER IN THE CASE OF FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. DEPARTMENT OF INC OME TAX IN ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2010 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS DULY REFLECTED THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF THE SAME, THE AO CANNOT DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO TELL HIM HOW T O CONDUCT THE BUSINESS SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE DULY REFLECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE FROM THE BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW AND NOT AS A MATTER OF INFLATING THE EXPENSES AND THEREBY SUPPRESSING THE INCOME. 20. AND LD. A.R. CITED AN ORDER IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS . SIGMA PAINTS LTD. 188 ITR 6 (BOM.). IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT 'IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT A BUSINESSMAN MAKES CERTAIN EXPENDITURES NOT UNDER AN Y LEGAL OBLIGATION, BUT FOR SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF- HIS BUSINESS AND TO FACILITATE HIS BUSINESS. SUCH DECISIONS ARE PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFL ATING THE EXPENDITURES. THEREFORE, THESE HAVE TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE.' 21. AS WE CAN SEE , ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY REPLIED EACH AND EVERY QUERY RAISED BY THE LD. A.O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISION OF ITAT AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER AND HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETED THE ADDITION. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT I S DISMISSED. 23. IN ITA NO. 611/RJT/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 654 & 611/RJT/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 10 1. THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 20,06,009/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR STEVEDORING OPERATIONS. 2. THAT, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFI ED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE AN REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 24. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A ND WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 654/RJT/2012. TH EREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 06- 2018 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18 /06/2018 RAJESH 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,RAJK OT