Gayatri Corporation, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Surat

ITA 894/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6227 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences; Revised return; Reason to believe
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.894/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 GAYATRI CORPORATION 303, GOLDEN POINT NR. GAJJAR CHAMBERS FALSAWADI, RING ROAD SURAT 395 002. PAN : AAFFG 6965 R VS. ITO, WARD-5(1) SURAT. ./ ITA NO.1099/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 ITO, WARD-5(1) SURAT. VS. GAYATRI CORPORATION 303, GOLDEN POINT NR. GAJJAR CHAMBERS FALSAWADI, RING ROAD SURAT 395 002. PAN : AAFFG 6965 R / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ALBINUS TIRKEY, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 09/03/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/04/2017 %& / O R D E R ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 2 PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN CROSS-APPEALS AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 28.1.2014 PASSED FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IN TER-CONNECTED IN BOTH APPEALS THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO T AKE NOTE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE APPELLANTS AS UNDE R: ITA NO.894/AHD/2014 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY ISS UING NOTICE U/S SEC 148 OF ACT AND THEREBY FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ID CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIO N OF ITS CASE BEING COVERED U/S 44AE OF THE ACT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2,ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ID C IT (A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICE R AND IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,32,343/- BEING 10% OF TRUCK EX PENSES OUT OF RS. 3,30,858/-. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUB JECT, THE ID CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,36,660/- BE ING 10% OF CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES OUT OF RS.68,41,650/-. 5. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.1099/AHD/2014 ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 3 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF TRUCK EXPENSES FROM 25% TO 10% I.E. FROM RS.3,30,858/- TO RS.1,32,343/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENT IRE TRUCK EXPENSES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES FROM 25% TO 10% I.E. FR OM RS.68,41,650/- TO RS.27,36,660/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE G ENUINENESS OF ENTIRE CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LID.CIT(A), SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-1, SURAT MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER'S ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. 3. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND GRO UND NO.5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L. THEY DO NOT CALL FOR RECORDING OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING, HENCE REJECT ED. 4. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GR OUND NO.3 AND 4 OF ASSESSEES ARE INTER-CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER . THE LD.AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,30,858/- OUT OF TRUCK E XPENSES AT THE RATE OF 25%. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THIS DISALLOW ANCE TO 10%. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE CONFI RMATION OF DISALLOWANCE AT 10%, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH PART DELETION OF ADDITION. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.4 I N THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.2 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. WE TAKE THESE GROUNDS LATER ON. FIRST, WE DEAL WITH GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 4 6. IN GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2017 DEC LARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,17,511/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC TION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO HAS RECORDED REASONS FOR HABOURING A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. SUCH REASONS WERE RECORDED ON 5.6.2009. COPY OF THE REASON IS A VAILABLE AT PAGE NO.14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX. 8. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION ON THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. SUCH OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO, AND H E PROCEEDED TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.COUSSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AO SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY ANALYSING THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN. HE HAS NO T POSSESSED ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL COLLECTED AFRESH I.E. AFTER EXPIR Y OF LIMITATION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT F OR SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN. THEREFORE, THE AO IS PRECLUDED TO REOPEN T HE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE REL IED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADH UKAR KHOSLA VS. ACIT, WRIT PETITION NO.(C) 1320/2014. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THIS DECISION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 9. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS N O SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED ONLY UNDER SE CTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NOTHING WITH THE ASSESSEE TO SAY THAT THE AO WAS NOT POSSESSED ANY FRESH INFORMATION. THE OBSERVATION O F THE AO IN THE REASONS TO THE EFFECT IS THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RE CORD HE FOUND CERTAIN ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 5 DISCREPANCIES. NOW THIS RECORD WOULD CONTAIN ALL T HE INFORMATION POSSESSED BY HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC SOURCE OF INFORMATION, BUT HE HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS DISCERNED TO HIM ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD, AND THE REFORE, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE. IF THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE WITH THE AO VIS--VIS FORMATION OF BELIEF EXHIBITING ESCAPEM ENT OF INCOME, THEN PROPOSITION MOOTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE JUSTIFI ABLE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT EXPRESSION REASON TO BELIEVE EMPLOYED IN SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE A RELATION OR LINK WITH AN OBJECT IVE FACT IN THE FORMATION OF INFORMATION OR FACTS EXTERNAL TO THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWING THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, A PERUSAL OF THE REASON WOULD INDICATE THAT THE AO HA D THE INFORMATION AND THEREFORE HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING NOTICE UN DER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL. IT IS REJECTED. 10. NOW WE TAKE GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL ALONG WITH GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEA L. 11. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.13,23,432/- UNDER THE HEAD TRUCK EXPENSES. ACCO RDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIM OF EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY , HE DISALLOWED 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,30,858/- . ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) RE-APPRECIATED THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE AT 10%. HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,32,343/- WH ICH IS IMPUGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND NO.3. DELETION MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1. 12. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE FACTS O F THIS ISSUE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACTS RELAT ING TO GROUND NO.4 OF ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 6 THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVEN UES APPEAL. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.3,02,66,798/-. IT HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2, 73,66,599/- TOWARDS CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO THE AO T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUPPLY REQUISITE INFORMATION, AND THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED 25% OF THE TOTAL CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES. HE MADE AN ADDI TION OF RS.68,41,650/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RESTR ICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. APART FROM THESE TWO ISSUES, THE LD.AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNPAID CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPEND ITURE OF RS.42,84,977/-. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION OF TH IS AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68,41,650/- WOULD T AKE CARE OF THIS ITEM ALSO. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF UNPAID CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES AT 10% I.E. R S.4,28,898/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DIRECTED FOR MAKING SPECIFIC ADDI TION BECAUSE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TOTAL LABOUR EXPENSES WOULD TAK E CARE OF THIS ITEM ALSO. 14. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT S INCE IT WAS PLYING TRUCKS AND IF ITS BOOKS ARE NOT RELIABLE I.E. HE FA ILED TO SUBMIT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES, THEN, INCO ME SHOULD BE COMPUTED BY TAKING GUIDANCE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF T HE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE C ASE OF TRANSPORTER, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN SECTION 44AE THAT INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF RS.3,500/- PER MONTH PER TRUCK. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF KESHARBHAI GHAMARBHAI CHAUDHARY VS. ITO, 23 TAXMANN .COM 273. IN THIS WAY, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 11 TRUCKS DURING THE YEAR, AND ITS INCOME OUGHT TO BE ASSESSED AS PE R SECTION 44AE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 7 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AO HAS MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH ARE DEBI TED IN THE BOOKS. 16. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT ALSO. ON PAGE NO.23 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS AND HOW IT CALCULATED DEPRECIATION. IN THESE DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REGISTRATION NUMBER OF 11 TRUCKS. OUT OF WHICH, ON E TRUCK WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR I.E. ON 1.4 .2006. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 10 TRUCKS IN THE BEGINNING, BUT ON CLOSING OF THE ACCOUNT, IT WAS HAVING 11 TRUCKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,73,66,599/- UNDER THE HEAD CARTAGE AND LABOUR EXPENSES. THE AO DISALLOWED 25% OF THIS EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEE N REDUCED BY THE CIT(A) AT 10%. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. A PERUSAL OF THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO WOULD INDICATE THAT HE MAINLY MADE T WO ADDITIONS IN THE DECLARED INCOME AND DETERMINED TAXABLE INCOME A T RS.72,90,020/- AS AGAINST RS.1,17,511/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, INCOME HAS BEEN MULTIPLIED 70 TIMES. THE REASON FOR THIS MULT IPLICATION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN SUCH SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE LOOKED INTO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AE WHICH PROVIDES TAX ON PRESUMPTIVE B ASIS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND IT HAS LITTLE HIGHER NUMBER OF TRUCKS (I.E. ONE MORE ) THAN THE PRESCRIB ED LIMIT, THEN ATLEAST THE AO SHOULD LOOK INTO THE SCHEME OF ACT FOR GUIDA NCE PURPOSE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT IN THE CASE OF KESHARBHAI GHAMARBHAI CHAUDHARY (SUPRA) AND MADE FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS: ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 8 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PLYING THE GOODS CARRIAGES WH ICH WERE FOUR. THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF GOODS CARRIAGES PLIED BY T HE ASSESSEE WERE WELL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE S. 44AE. THE AO H AS REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY MAK ING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE. HE ALSO ENHANCED THE RECEIPT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS PARTLY REDUCED BY T HE CIT(A). THEREFORE, UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, TH E ACTUAL DISPUTE IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME FRO M TRUCKS PLYING BUSINESS. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED SOME FORMULA FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF A T RANSPORTER, WHO OWNS LESS THAN TEN GOODS CARNAGES, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN S. 44AE. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THE REVISED RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VALID O R NOT. WHEN THE QUESTION OF ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME OF A TRANSPORT ER COMES, S. 44AE IS A GOOD GUIDELINE IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORTER WHO OWNS LESS THAN TEN GOODS CARRIAGES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE S. 44AE OF THE IT ACT. 17. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THESE ASPECTS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO BE ESTIMATED BY TAKING A GUIDANCE UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. THE AO OUGHT TO HAV E NOT ENHANCED THE INCOME AT SUCH A LEVEL UNDER GARB OF MAKING DISALLO WANCE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, WHEREBY IT HAS PRAYED THAT ITS I NCOME OUGHT TO BE COMPUTED WITH THE HELP OF SECTION 44AE. WE DIRECT THE AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING 11 TRUCKS AT T HE RATE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 44AE RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO, THEREAFTER GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS I.E. SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS AS PER SECTION 40B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 18. SINCE WE HAVE CHANGED VERY BASIS FOR DETERMINAT ION OF INCOME, THEREFORE ALL OTHER GROUNDS VIDE WHICH PARTIAL DISA LLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE ARE CONCERNED, THAT WOULD BECOME REDUNDANT, AND THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT R EQUIRED TO RECORD ITA NO.894 AND 1099/AHD/2014 9 SPECIFIC FINDING ON THESE ISSUES. IN THIS WAY, BOT H THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH APRIL, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER