The DCIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 933/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0393 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Assessee Lawyers: UKTI SHAH ARS
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D, AM. ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE-3, AHMEDABAD. VS. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD., SIHL HOUSE, OPP. AMBAWADI JAIN TEMPLE, NEHRUNAGAR CHAR RASTA, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAFCS 4436C APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, & UKTI SHAH, ARS DATE OF HEARING: 28/9/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/9/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) VI, AHMEDABAD, DATE D 6.1.2014 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A) VI/DCIT CIR.3/201/2011-12, PASSED AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), FRAMED ON 30.12.2011 BY JT.CIT, RANGE-3, AHMEDABAD. REVENUE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2 ' (1) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.70.18 LACS U/S 40(A)(IA) DESPITE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS PER SECTION 1941 ON EXPENSES IN THE NATURE O F RENT PAID TO ASHVIN CHINUBHAI BROKING PVT. LTD. (2) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,51 LACS U/S 40(A)(IA) DESPITE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS PER SECTION 1941 ON EXPENSES IN THE NATURE O F RENT PAID TO NSE/BSE/RELIANCE COM./TATA COM.' ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EX TENT MENTIONED ABOVE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME/BOO K PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GR OUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND STOCK BROKING, DEPOSITORY PARTICIPANTS. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 26.9.2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7, 69,84,540/- FOLLOWED BY REVISED RETURN ON 30.03.3010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,90,55,360/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS SESSMENT UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. V ARIOUS DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE DULY SUPPLIED ALONG WITH DETAILED EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE. IN COME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.8,83,72,015/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.85,51,845/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AT RS.81,69,889/- AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 69 OF THE ACT AT RS.1,86,562/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS IN MARK TO MARKET AT RS.1,95,394/-. ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 3 3. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND GO T PART RELIEF THEREIN. 4. NOW AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ON ACCOUNT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.70.18 LACS AN D RS.11.51 LACS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TOWARDS RENT PAID TO ASHWI N CHINUBHAI BROKING PVT. LTD. AND RENT PAID TO NSE/BSE/RELIANCE .COM/TATA.COM. 5. WE WILL TAKE BOTH THE GROUNDS TOGETHER AS THEY A RE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.70,18,471/- TO M/S ASHWIN CHIN UBHAI BROKING PVT. LTD. (ACBPL) AND DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 19 4C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF EXAM INATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ACBPL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NATURE OF PAYMENT IS RENT AND NOT CONTRACT CHARGES AND, THEREFORE, TDS U/S 194I OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE AND ACCORDING LY DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ALSO IT WAS O BSERVED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PAYMENTS OF RS.11.51 LACS WE RE MADE TO NSE/BSE/RELIANCE COMMUNICATION/TATA COMMUNICATION. TOWARDS LEASE-LINE CHARGES AND NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURC E U/S 194J & 194C OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF TYPE OF PAYMENTS. W HEREAS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT PAYMENTS MAD E ARE OF RENT IN NATURE TOWARDS LEASE-LINES, B-SET CHARGES AND HAVE BEEN PAID TOWARDS PLANT AND MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENTS AND LIAB LE TO TDS U/S 194I OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE EXP ENSES FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 4 6. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL B EFORE LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF RS.70,18,471/- AND R S.11,51,418/- WERE DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER :- TOWARDS PAYMENT OF RS.70,18,471/-(GROUND NO.1) 3.2 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO OBSERVED THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD PAID RS.70,18,471/- TO M/S ASHWIN CHINUBHAI BROKING PVT. LTD.; SAID PAYMENT INCLUDING (I) REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARY, TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES (RS.31,18,471/-):- APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TAX U/S.1940 WHEREAS A.O. WAS THE OPINION THAT THE LX WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S.1941 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNE CTION, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, MY PREDECESSOR VIDE THE ORDER DT D.05.10.2011 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-VI/ACIT.CIR.3/699/ 10-11 HELD AS UNDER:- 'ON THE ISSUE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES APPELLAN T SUBMITTED THAT NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON REIMBURSEMENTS W HICH WERE BILLED SEPARATELY. APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE RECENT DECISI ON OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S. OM SATYA EXIM P RIVATE LTD., ITA NUMBER 1335/AHD/2010 DATED 13.05.201 J. THE RELE VANT PART OF THE DECISION IS QUOTED BELOW;- FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT AS PER JURISDICTION AL ITAT NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN THE CASE WHERE REIMBURSE MENT BILLS WERE SEPARATELY RAISED. APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE PAYMENT BY SEPARATE BILLS IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASHWIN C. BROKERS PRIVATE LTD. ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT, THE FACT THAT SEPARATE BILLS WERE ISSUED FOR USE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOR REIMBURSEMENTS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. SINCE FACTS OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE IN WHICH JURISDICTIONAL TRIBU NAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASHWIN CHUNNIBHAI BROKING PRIVATE LTD ON ITS BEHALF. CONSEQUENTLY THE ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 5 DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37,43,705 IN ADDITION TO RELIEF GRANTED IN RESPECT OF RENT. TH IS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' IN THE INSTANT CASE, TAX WAS ACTUALLY DEDUCTED U/S. I94C AND THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. IN OTHER WORDS THE APPELLA NT IS PLACED IN A BETTER POSITION COMPARED TO THE CASE OF M/S.OM SATYA EXIM PVT. LTD., RELIED ON MY PREDECESSOR IN THE PRECEDING A.Y. 2008-09. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE TWO CASES RELIED ON BY THE ID. A.R., IT WAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE IN A CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CHANDABHOY AND JASS OBHOY (2012) 49 SOT 448 (MUMBAI) IT WAS HELD THAT 'SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX BUT NOT FOR LESSER DE DUCTION OF TAX'. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. TEKRIWAL 90 DTK 26 (201 3), CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT 'EXPENSES ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A )(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE '. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX BY THE APPELLANT U/S.194C AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS, DISA LLOWANCE OF THIS SUM OF RS.31,18,471/-IS DELETED. (II) OFFICE MANAGEMENT CHARGES FOR THE USE OF OFFICE PREMISES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.(RS.39,00,000/-) :- APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TAX ON THIS AMOUNT U/S.!94J WHEREAS A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED U/S. 1941. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, MY PREDECESSOR VIDE THE ORDER DT 05.10.2011 HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO P ROPORTIONATE RELIEF OF THE AMOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE TDS MADE. HOWEVER, D URING THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ID. A.R, RELIED ON THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS CITED AT 49 SOT 448 (2012) (SUPRA) AND 9 0 DTR 26 (2013) (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)( IA) CAN BE MADEON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT OF THE APPELLANT DEDUCTING TAX U/S.!94J AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DE CISIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE OF THIS SUM OF RS.39 LAKHS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6 TOWARDS PAYMENT OF RS.11.51,418/- (GROUND NO.2) 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. IMP UGNED DISALLOWANCE COMPRISES OF TWO COMPONENTS FIRST ONE WAS OF LEASE LINE CHANGES PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO RELIANCE COMMUNICATION AND TATA COMMUN ICATION TOTALING TO RS.5,25,738/-, ON WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED. IN THE CASE RELIED ON BY THE ID. A.R. NAMELY ACIT VS. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SHARES AN D SECURITIES LTD. 25 ITR TRIB. 63 (MUM.) (2013), IT WAS HELD THAT NO TAX AT SOURCE IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED WITH REGARD TO LEASE LINE CHARGES AND V -SAT CHARGES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION, APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO H AVE COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. HENCE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,25,738/- IS N OT SUSTAINABLE. 4.4. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS TRANSACTION AND OTH ER CHARGES PAID TO NSE AND BSE TOTALING TO RS.6,25,680/-. THE CONTENTION O F THE A.R. IS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE FOR SHUN DED UCTION OF TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TAX ON THI S AMOUNT U/S.194C WHEREAS A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED U/S.1941. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, MY PREDECESSOR VIDE THE ORDER DT. 05.10.2011 HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS EN TITLED TO PROPORTIONATE RELIEF OF THE AMOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE TDS MADE . HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ID. A. R. RELIED ON TWO SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS CITED AT 90 DTR 26 AND 49 SOT 448. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CHANDABHOY AND JASSOBHOY (2012) 49 SOT 448 (MUMBAI) IT WAS HELD THAT 'SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX BUT NOT FOR LESSER DEDUCTION OF TA X'. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. TEKRIWAL 90 DTR 26 (2013), CALCUTTA HI GH COURT HELD THAT '''EXPENSES ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40( A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE'. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT OF THE APPELLANT DEDUCTING TAX U/S.194C AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DE CISIONS, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,25,680/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4.5. TO SUM-UP, IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE TOTALING T O RS.11,51,418/- IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 7 7. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-VI/ACIT.CIR.3/699/10-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 5.10.2011 HAS ALLOWED THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL FOR ASST. Y EAR 2008-09 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3032/AHD/2011 AND ASS ESSEE IN ITA NO.3034/AHD/2011 AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. LD. AR, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE DEC ISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH MAY BE FOLLOWED FOR ASST. YEAR 2009- 10 ALSO AS THE GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR IN BOTH THE YEARS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY LD. C IT(A) OF RS.70.18 LACS AND RS.11.51 LACS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TOW ARDS MANAGEMENT CHARGES PAID TO ASHWIN CHINUBHAI BROKING PVT. LTD. AND LEASE LINE RENT PAID TO NSE/BSE/RELIANCE COMMUNICATION/TATA CO MMUNICATION. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE RAISED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YE AR 2008-09 WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3032/AH D/2011 AND ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3034/AHD/2011 AND DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 8 7.2. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE BASIC REASON FOR D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO RESTED UPON HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, PAYMENT OF RS.68,32,4521/- TO ACBPL DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE RE NT EXPENSES BECAUSE ACBPL IS A BUSINESS DEVELOPER APPOINTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT ACBPL IS PROVIDING MULTIPLE SERVICES RELA TING TO STOCK MARKET AND WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MORE SO, MOST OF THE EXPENSE INCURRED ON THE OFFICE PREMISES OF ACBPL ARE REIMBU RSED BY THE ASSESSEE. CERTAINLY, SUCH KIND OF ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT FALL W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF RENT EXPENSES AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUC TED TDS BY BIFURCATING THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ACBPL UNDER THE HEAD BROKERAGE , FEES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE AND HAS DULY DEDUCTED TDS ON ALL THESE PAYMENTS UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISI ONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. SIMILARLY, PAYMENT OF RS.7,76,690/- INCURRED ON LEA SE LINE EXPENSES AND V- SET CHARGES ALSO DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF RENT EXPENSES BECAUSE THE MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENTS USED FOR PROVIDING THES E SERVICES ARE SHARED BY MANY STOCK-BROKERS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED TDS U/S.194-C. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.AO ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS U/S.194-I OF THE ACT ON THE PAYMENTS OF RS.68,32,451/- AND R.7,76,690/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED TDS UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE A CT, I.E. U/S.194-J & 194- C RESPECTIVELY AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS C ALLED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 ABOVE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE ITA NO. 933/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 9 CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, NO DI SALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 30/9/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 29/09/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 30/09/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 30/9/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: