Dharmendra Rajnikant Joshi, Ahmedabad V. ITO,Ward-10(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 793/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5128 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; Onus to prove; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 793/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI DHARMENDRA RAJNIKANT JOSHI 23/216,. VIDYANAGAR FLATS, HIMMATLAL PARK, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD- 380015 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10 (3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAPPT0319Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI BIREN SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 19 -09-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -09-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.02.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010- 11 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 2 BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE VERY VALIDITY OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE HIM. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,56,240 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHOWN IN THE APPELLANT'S RETURN, ON THE GR OUND THAT PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION VIZ., RS.21,00,000, HAD NOT BEEN ACCO UNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE MUTU AL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND HIS DIVORCED WIFE AND CHILDREN HA D CREATED AN OVERRIDING TITLE IN THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE WIFE AND CHILDREN WHI CH WAS EVIDENCED BY THE VERIFIABLE FACT THAT THEY WERE MADE PARTIES TO THE SALE DEED UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD AND PART OF THE CONSIDERATIO N AGGREGATING TO RS.21,00,000 HAD INDEED BEEN PAID BY THE PURCHASER DIRECTLY TO THEM AND THAT JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT KEPT HIS WORD TO HIS FOR MER WIFE AND CHILDREN IN THE AFORESAID MANNER, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE P AYMENT OF PART OF THE CONSIDERATION, THOUGH DIRECTLY MADE BY THE PURCHASE R TO THE APPELLANT'S DIVORCED WIFE AND CHILDREN IN CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS, REPRESENTED APPLICATION THEREOF BY THE APPELLANT RATHER THAN SATISFACTION O F AN OVERRIDING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DINGS AFTER OBSERVING THAT NO APPEAL LAY AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S. 271(1)(C). HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULI AR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANT /JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ORDERED FOR T HEIR BEING DROPPED, THEREBY SAVING BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT FROM L ONG DRAWN UNNECESSARY LITIGATION. ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 3 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234 (T HAT BEING THE PROVISION REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLANT'S CASE, THE RA TIO OF THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHARAT MACHINERY AND HARDWARE MART'S CASE (136 ITR 875) AND OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN HAR YANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. DCIT [252 ITR (AT.) 34] WAS ATTRACTED AND THE LE VY DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR ALTER THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER INFORMATION I T IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS.99,00,000/-. ACCORD INGLY, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUEST ED TO FURNISH COPY OF SALE DEED, PURCHASE DEED, CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, I NVESTMENT DETAILS, ETC. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 06.11. 2012 SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE DEED, PURCHASE DEED, VALUATION REPORT AND COPIES OF INVESTMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT IS SEEN THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY AT RS.99,00,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS. 78,00,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.12.2012 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 26. 12.2012. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 4 I) THE ASSESSEE WAS A SOLE OWNER OF THE SOLD PROPER TY. THE SAME IS EVIDENT VIDE PAGE NO.4 OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE (SALE DEED) IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT:- (A) ORIGINALLY, ONE LATE RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL JOSHI BECAME A MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY AND AS A MEMBER HE WAS ALLOTTED 5 (FIVE) SH ARES BEARING NO.6 TO 10 REPRESENTED BY SHARE CERTIFICATE NO.2 AND AS A MEMB ER OF THE SOCIETY HE WAS ALSO ALLOTTED AND WAS SEIZED AND POSSESSED OF OR OT HERWISE WELL AND SUFFICIENTLY ENTITLED TO AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING A PLOT OF L AND BEING BUNGALOW NO.5 AND ADMEASURING 345.60 SQ. MTRS. (413.33 SQ. YARDS) , ON WHICH HE HAD CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE ADMIEASURING 113.30 SQ. MTRS (1 35.50 SQ. YARDS). HE HAD ACQUIRED THE SAID PROPERTY FROM HIS OWN EARNINGS AN D SAVINGS. LATE RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL JOSHI DIED ON 15' APRIL 1999. SAID RAJNIK ANT SHANTILAL JOSHI HAD MADE A REGISTERED WILL DIED 25TH SEPTEMBER 1998 AND BY THE SAID WILL HE HAD BEQUEATHED THE SAID PROPERTY TO ONE DHARMENDRA RAJN IKANT JOSHI, THE VENDOR, BEING THE ONLY SON OF LATE RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL JOSH I. (B) NAME OF VENDOR AND HIS MOTHER SMT. TARABEN WAS RECORDED AS NOMINEES IN THE RECORDS OF THE SAID SOCIETY. HOWE VER, LATE SMT. TARABEN RAJNIKANT JOSHI DIED ON 22ND DECEMBER, 1998 PRIOR T O THE DEATH OF LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL JOSHI. (C) THE SAID SOCIETY THEREFORE BY RESOLUTION N O. 1 DATED 205H DECEMBER, 2000, PASSED IN ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, ENTERED NAME OF THE VENDOR AS OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN ITS RECORDS FURTHER, VIDE PAGE NO. 3 OF DEED OF CONVEYANCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION REPRODUCED BELOW ALSO STATES ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: 'WHEREAS THE VENDOR AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES WAS, AND AS ON DATE IS A MEMBER OF AND A SHARE HOLDER OFSHYAM KUNJ CO-OPERATIVE HOU SING SOCIETY LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID SOCIETY) AND H AS BEEN ALLOTTED 5 (FIVE) SHARES ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 5 BEARING NO. 6 TO 10 REPRESENTED BY SHARE CERTIFICAT E NO.2 AND AS A MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY AND HAS BEEN ALLOTTED AND IS SEIZE D AND POSSESSED OF OR OTHERWISE WILL AND SUFFICIENTLY ENTITLED TO AN IMMO VABLE PROPERTY BEING A PLOT OF LAND BEING BUNGALOW NO.5 AND ADMEASURING 345.60 SQ. MTRS. (413.33 SQ. YARDS), WITH A HOUSE CONSTRUCTED THEREON. ' HENCE, IT IS SEEN AND EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO SHAR E OR PART IN THE SAID PROPERTY OF ANY ONE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO SHARE OR PART IN THE SOLD PROPERTY OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS CHILDRE N AS THE NAME OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE AND HIS CHILDREN WERE INCLUDED IN THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE AS CONFIRMING PARTY OF THE THIRD PART VIDE PAGE NO.3 OF DEED OF C ONVEYANCE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'AND (1) D EEPIKA MANUAL UPADHYAYAGE 40 YEARS, (2) DEEPIKA MANUAL UPADHYAY AGE 40 YEARS ON BEHALF OF MINOR NAMAN DHARMENDRA JO SHI, AGED 12 YEARS AND (3) PUJA DHARMENDRA JOSHI AGED, 1 8 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT C/O. MANILA! B. UPADHYAY, MAHIYAL TA. TALOD, DIST. MEHSANA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 163, PATEL VAS, OPP: SWAMINARA YAN MANDIR, KOCHARAB, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD AS CON FIRMING PARTIES OF THE THIRD PART.' HENCE, IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE WHOLE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN THE SAID SUBMIS SION DTD. 03.01.2013 THAT IT WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER FORME R WIFE THAT WHOLE FAMILY WILL HAVE RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY AND WHENEVER THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET WILL BE SOLD, THE RIGHTS OF THE WIFE AND FUTURE SONS WIL L BE COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNI SHED ANY EVIDENCES OF SUCH MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES, THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED HIS FORMER WIFE AND ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 6 CHILDREN AS 'CONFIRMING PARTY' ONLY AND NOT AS A CO -OWNER OR JOINT HOLDER SO THAT THE PROPORTIONATE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATIO N IS ASSESSED TO THEIR HANDS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PROVED BEYOND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SOLD OWNER OF THE SOLD PROPERTY AND THERE WAS NO SHARE OR PART OF ANY ONE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE SALE RECEIPT IS ASSESSA BLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE AND HIS CHILDREN WERE INCLUDED AS 'CONFIRMING PARTY' AND THE PAYMENT MADE TO THEM DIRECTLY BY THE PURCHASER AT RS.21,00,000/- IS A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH HER FORMER WIFE AND IT WAS NOT FOR THE FORFEITURE OF ANY RIGHT S IN THE SAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE THIRD PART, I.E. HER FORMER WIFE AND CHILDREN WAS L IABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,00,000/- AND HAS ALREADY DISCHA RGED THE CAPITAL GAIN LIABILITY ON RS.21,00,000/-, A LETTER DTD. 04.02.2013 WAS ISS UED TO MS. DEEPIKA MANILAL UPADHYAY AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE DEED OF CONVEY ANCE FOR CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT AND DULY SE RVED UPON HER. IN THE SAID LETTER, SHE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH COPY OF I.T. R ETURN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION STATEMENT OF INCOME AND WORKING OF CAPITAL GAIN ALONG WITH COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT. HOWEVER, SHE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. KEEPING IN MIND THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BEIN G FAIR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ONCE AGAIN, A LETTER DTD. 08.03.2013 W AS ISSUED TO MS. DEEPIKA MANILAL UPADHYAY AT THE PERMANENT ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE, I.E. C/O. HIRABEN MANILAL UPADHYAY, AT & POST VILLA GE MAHIYAL, TAL. TALOD, DIST. SABARKANTHA WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON HER BY POST. HOWEVER, TILL DATE, SHE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 13 3(6) OF THE I. T. ACT. HENCE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE FROM MS. DEEPIK A MANILAL UPADHYAY, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF RS.21,00,000/- REMAINS TO BE U NVERIFIED WHICH WAS CLAIMED ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 7 BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF HER FORMER WIFE AND CHILDREN AS STATED IN HIS SUBMISSION DTD. 03.01.2013. THEREFORE, THE ONUS TO PROVE THE ASSESSIBILITY OF RS.21,00,000/- IN WHICH HANDS RESTS WITH THE ASSESS EE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE -WAS THE SOLE OWNER IN THE SOLD PROPERTY AND THERE WAS NO SHARE OR PART IN THE SAID PROPERTY OF ANY ONE AS EV IDENT FROM THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED H IS ONUS THE PROVE THE ASSESSIBILITY OF RS.21,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF HER FORMER WIFE AND CHILDREN, THEREFORE, I CONSIDER THE SALE RECEIPT OF RS.99,00, 000/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN' WHICH WAS LESS SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE BY RS.21,00,000/- AS STATED ABOVE AND AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF AC QUISITION RS.29,43,760/- AND FURTHER EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.54EC AND 54F OF THE I T. ACT AT RS.35,00,000/- AND RS.15,00,000/-; RESPECTIVELY, ADD RS.19,56,240/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISEN OUT OF SA LE OF PROPERTY.' 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST ST ATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WI TH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE ONLY OWNER OF THE PROPER TY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE ONLY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SHARING OF THE S ALE CONSIDERATION BY FORMER THREE FAMILY MEMBERS WAS NOTHING BUT IT WAS THE APP LICATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION DUE TO THEIR AGREEMENT OF DIVORCE AND DECREE OF DIVORCE WHICH WOULD NOT AFFECT THE TAX LIABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. SIMPLY BY MENTIONING THAT THE THREE FORMER FAMILY MEMBERS WOU LD BE LIABLE FOR THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THEIR SHARE WOULD NOT BE L EGAL AND THE SAME IS UNJUSTIFIED. EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED A NY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN PAID BY EACH OF THE THREE PERSONS ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 8 ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.21 LAKHS HAVING REC EIVED BY FORMER FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTAL SALE CONS IDERATION OF RS.99 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT TO WORK OUT THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN IS FOUND CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND THE IM PUGNED ORDER. IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT SOLD HIS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY SHARE F OR RS. 99,00,000/- AND OUT OF 99,00,000/- HE PAID RS. 7,00,000/- TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE AND RS. 7,00,000/- TO HIS MINOR SON AND RS. 7,00,000/- TO HIS MINOR DAUGH TER WHO ARE STAYING WITH THE DIVORCED WIFE. REVENUE IS OF THE OPINION THAT L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO BE CHARGED ON RS. 99,00,000/- WHEREAS APPELLANTS CONT ENTION IS THAT HE ACTUALLY RECEIVED RS. 78,00,000/- AND HE HAS ALREADY PAID TA X ON RS. 78,00,000/-. HENCE, THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY ON THE APPELLANT. 7. IN THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AMENDED IN 2005 S TATE THAT HINDU FAMILY GOVERNED BY THE MITAKSHARA LAW, THE DAUGHTER OF A C OPARCENER SHALL BE A COPARCENER BY BIRTH IN HER OWN RIGHT IN THE SAME MA NNER AS THE SON AND WILL HAVE RIGHTS IN THE COPARCENARY PROPERTY AS SHE WOUL D HAVE HAD IF SHE HAD BEEN A SON. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT SINCE ANCEST RAL PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS MINOR SON AND DAUGHTER ARE EQUAL BENEFICIARY OF THE SOLD PROPERTY BUT OUT OF 99,00,000/- APPELLANT HAS PAID RS. 14,00,000/- TO THE MINOR CHILDREN AND RS. 7,00,000/- TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE. W E HOLD THAT FOR RS. 14,00,000/- WHICH WERE PAID TO MINOR CHILDREN WILL NOT BE TAXED IN THE HAND OF APPELLANT AND REMAINING 7,00,000/- WHICH WAS PAID T O DIVORCED WIFE WILL BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. IN OTHER WORDS , APPELLANT SHALL BE TAXED FOR RS. 85,00,000/- NOT FOR RS. 99,00,000/-. IN TERMS O F ABOVE, WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 793/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 9 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 - 09- 2018 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28 /09/2018 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,AHME DABAD