The DCIT, Circle-9, Surat V. The Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Surat

ITA 779/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$0 00 0! !! !0 00 0 %$ %$ %$ %$, , , , &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( & & & & BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT. VS THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. SHRI NIDHI, VARACHHA ROAD, KHAND BAZAR, SURAT. PAN: AABAT1407E )*/ APPELLANT ,-)* / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE $'. / 0'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 23/05/2014 123 / 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/05/2014 &4 &4 &4 &4/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 16.11.20 10. 2. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS 11,09,378/- MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DIVI DEND INCOME OF RS 11,61,400/- RECEIVED FROM INVESTMENT OF RS 4 CRORES IN MUTUAL FUND AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURR ED TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, SINCE THE DIVIDEND INCOM E WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXEMPT, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO T HE ASSESSEE. HE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, COMPUTED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AS P ER RULE 8D AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 11,09,378/-. 4. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HELD THAT RULE 8D WAS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND AS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE. FURTHER, THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE FUNDS INVESTED IN MUTUA L FUNDS AND BORROWED FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FREE RESER VES OF RS 5.69 CRORES WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT FOR INVESTING RS 4 CRORES IN T HE MUTUAL FUNDS. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT AS SESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE ON 02.05.1 4 AND THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT RETURNED THE NOTICE UNSERVED. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. THE BENCH BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE DISPOSED OFF IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. 7. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT RULE 8D HAS BEEN HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V S. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM.). HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO HE LD THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISALLO WANCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE MADE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF M/S. SIMPSON & CO. LTD. VS. DCIT IN TAX (APPEAL) NO. 2621 OF 2006 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2012 HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATED ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - DISALLOWANCE OF 2% OF GROSS DIVIDEND INCOME AS THE EXPENDITURE, AS BEING INCIDENTAL TO THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME U/S. 1 4A OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITU RE INCIDENTAL TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME, ESTIMATION WAS MADE OF THE EXPENDI TURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIVIDEND INCOME AT 2% OF THE GROSS DIVIDEND INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT , WE ESTIMATE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS EARNING OF EXEMPT DIVI DEND INCOME OF RS 11,61,400/- AT 2% OF THE GROSS DIVIDEND INCOME WHIC H WORKS OUT TO RS 23, 228/-. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DI SALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT TO RS 23,228/-. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS 9,76,311/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 36(1) (VIIA). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) AT RS 9,76,311/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT MADE ANY PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A ND ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - 10. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS 7,00,000/- AS PROV ISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT BELOW THE LINE I.E. IN PROFIT AND LOS S APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO DEBIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS NOT CORRECT. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 7,00,000/- HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLAIM OF RS 9,76,311/- MADE AS PROVISIO N FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS THE ALLOWANCE FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DE BTS TO THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) DOES NOT PUT ANY CONDITION UP ON THE ASSESSEE THAT DEBTS SHOULD BE WRITTEN OF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 36(1)(VIIA). THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) READS AS UNDER: (VIIA) IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUB TFUL DEBTS MADE BY (A) A SCHEDULED BANK NOT BEING A BANK INCORPORATED BY OR UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA OR A NON-SCHEDULED BANK OR A CO- OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CR EDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOP MENT BANK, AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN AND ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME (COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VI-A) AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TEN P ER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCH ES OF SUCH BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER: EXPLANATION: - IN THIS CLAUSE, ......... (VI) 'CO-OPERATIVE BANK', 'PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CRE DIT SOCIETY' AND 'PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELO PMENT BANK' ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 6 - SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO TH EM IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P ; THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. CIT (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) HAS HELD AS UNDER: A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AS APPLICABL E TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 SHOWS THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SE CTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION MADE. THEREFORE, MAK ING OF A PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT MENTI ONED IN THE SAID SECTION IS A MUST FOR CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION . 12. WE FIND THAT HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT HAS LAID EMPHASIS ON THE WORDS ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DO UBTFUL DEBT MADE BY TO HOLD THAT CHARGING OF PROVISION IN THE PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT IS MANDATORY. THEREFORE, LET US EXAMINE THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTI ON 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA): A. SECTION 36(1)(VII) BAD-DEBTS WRITTEN-OFF B. SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUB TFUL DEBTS PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) READS AS UNDER: (VII) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE AMOUNT OF ANY BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) READS AS UNDER: (VIIA) IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY (A) A SCHEDULED BANK NOT BEING A BANK INCORPORAT ED BY OR UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA OR A NON-SCHEDULED BANK OR A CO- OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CR EDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOP MENT BANK, AN ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 7 - AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN AND ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME (COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CL AUSE AND CHAPTER VI-A) AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TEN PER CENT OF T HE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER; 13. THUS, A READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WILL S HOW THAT THE DISTINCTION IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION IS REQ UIRED TO BE MADE BUT NEED NOT BE IN THE SAME PREVIOUS YEAR FOR WHICH THE DEDU CTION U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) IS CLAIMED, SINCE THE WORDS IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE P REVIOUS YEAR DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE SAID SECTION, WHEREAS, IT SPECIFICALL Y APPEARS IN RELATION TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII). THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE SPECI FICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE BUT DID NOT HOWEVER REQUIRE THAT THE PROVISION NEEDS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS COULD BE CLEARLY SEEN ON COMPARATIVE READING OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VIIA). 14. FURTHER, WHERE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATUR E WAS REQUIRING THE DEBIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT HAS BEEN SP ECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE SECTION AS WILL BE SEEN FROM A READING OF SECTION 3 3AC WHICH READS AS UNDER: RESERVES FOR SHIPPING BUSINESS: - (1) IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING A GOVERNME NT COMPANY OR A PUBLIC COMPANY FORMED AND REGISTERED IN INDIA WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION OF SHIPS, THE RE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS SECTION, BE ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING FIFT Y PER CENT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION OF S HIPS (COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION' AND BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION), AS IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN RES PECT OF WHICH ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 8 - THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED AND CREDITED TO A RESERVE ACCOUNT, TO BE UTILIZED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SUB-SECTION (2): CONTRADICTORY TO THIS RESERVE, IN THE CASE OF RESER VE U/S. 36(1)(VIII), THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE CREATED IN T HE SAME PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE RELEVANT PROVISION READS AS UNDER: (VIII) IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIAL RESERVE CREATED B Y A FINANCIAL CORPORATION WHICH IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LONG-TERM FINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA OR BY A PUBLIC COMPANY FORMED AND REGISTERED IN INDIA WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LONG-TERM FINANCE FOR CONSTRU CTION OR PURCHASE OF HOUSES IN INDIA FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING FORTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME (COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VIA) CARRIED TO SUCH RESERVE ACCOUNT : THEREFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHEREAS PROVISION FOR B AD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) CAN BE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF PROVISION MADE IN ANY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS MADE THERE IN, THE DEDUCTION FOR ACTUAL BAD DEBTS CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMI LARLY, THE RESERVE CREATED U/S. 36(1)(VIII) CAN BE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF PROVI SIONS MADE IN ANY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR, THE RESERVE CREATED U/S. 3 3AC IS ALLOWABLE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE RESERVE WAS ACTUALLY CRE ATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LEGISL ATURE, WHENEVER IT INTENDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE DEBIT IN THE PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT OR AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR, IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ITS INTENTION IN THE SECTION ITSELF WITH SPECIFIC WORDS. ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 9 - 15. IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA, THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT AS THE BANK WAS CR EATING EXACT AMOUNT OF PROVISION AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN THE PARTICULAR YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE WAS NO SUFFICIE NT PROVISION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PROVISION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, I.E., 1985-86, BY MAKING SUPPLEMENTA RY ENTRIES AND BY REVISING ITS BALANCE-SHEET. THE PROVISION HA S BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR . FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT THAT ADDITIONAL PROVISION WAS CREATED ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY. THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HOLDS GOOD FOR THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT S SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S. 36(1)(VIIA), TO THE EXTENT OF PROVISION MADE AND AV AILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHETHER MADE IN THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR OR IN THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEARS AS WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES I.E. EITHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THIS AN GLE AND AS THE ENTIRE FACTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR US TO ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSS IONS MADE HEREINABOVE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHAL L ALLOW REASONABLE AND ITA NO. 779/AHD/2011 THE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 10 - PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 30 TH OF MAY, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/05/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY &4 / ,5 6&53 &4 / ,5 6&53 &4 / ,5 6&53 &4 / ,5 6&53/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. 5': ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;< =. / GUARD FILE. &4$ &4$ &4$ &4$ / BY ORDER, / // / # # # # ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD