The DCITGNR Circle, Gandhinagar V. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gandhinagar

ITA 946/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76721 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR VS GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, BLOCK NO.-11, UDHYOG BHAVAN, SECTOR NO.11, GANDHINAGAR. PAN: AAALG 0094J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK JOHRI, CIT-D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/05/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/05/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), GANDHINGAR, DATED 20.12.2010. THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,79,70,032/- BEING THE INTEREST EAR NED ON GRANTS RECEIVED AND SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 07.12.2009 WERE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A TRUST (AOP) AND ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION. AS PER THE RETURN A DEFICIT/LOSS OF RS.1,40,32,47,731/- WAS DECLARED. IT WAS NOTED BY T HE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.9,79,70,0 32/- FROM THE FUNDS ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 2 - PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. THE SAID AMO UNT WAS DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES CLAIMED TO BE PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED AND APPLIED THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN ITS OBJECTS. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE FU NDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALLEGED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUJARAT EMERGENCY EARTHQUAKE REHABILITATION RECONS TRUCTION. THE FUNDS PROVIDED AS ALSO THE INTEREST ON THE SURPLUS FUND TILL THEIR UTILIZATION ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE NATURE OF A LIABILITY. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT CERTAIN INTEREST INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE AS INCOME; THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE LIKE MANNER S HOULD ALSO BE TAXED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED A DECISION OF RESPECTED ITAT PRONOUNCED IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IN PARA, 10, PAGE-10, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT THAT INTEREST CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD VS DCIT-222 ITR 317, BASICALLY ACCEPT ING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST WAS DIVERTED AT SOUR CE BY AN OVERRIDING TITLE IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT ETC. THE HON'BLE ITA T REGARDING THIS ISSUE HAS DECIDED THAT SINCE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE INTE REST SHOULD BE REFUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND PART OF THE GRANT ITSELF AND THE RE WAS BAR ON THE ASSESSEE'S RIGHT TO ENJOY THE INTEREST INCOME; RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION, SUCH INTEREST DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE HON' BLE ITAT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF T HE STATE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF THE INCOME FOR THE PUR POSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, ON COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST IN QUESTION IS HELD TO BE NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NOT TAXABLE IN ITS HANDS. THE QUESTION OF, ITS APPLICATION BECOMES REDUNDANT . ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 3 - 4. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. BEFORE US AN ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH FOR A.Y.2006-07 TITLED AS GUJARAT STATE DISA STER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY VS. ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR BEARING ITA NO.949/AHD/2009, DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2009 IS CITED WHEREIN AN ORDER OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF GUJA RAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD, 221 ITR 317 IS CITED AND THEREAFTER HELD AS UNDER: THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEE ALSO IN ITS CONTENTION THAT THE INTEREST W AS DIVERTED AT SOURCE BY AN OVERRIDING TITLE IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTIVE FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, IN THE CITED CASE THE IN TEREST WAS HELD NOT TO AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE GUJARAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE B OARD AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST WAS DIVERTED TO THE STATE GOVERNM ENT BY AN OVERRIDING TITLE. THE STATE GOVERNMENT COULD TREAT THE INTEREST ALSO AS PART OF THE GRANT ONLY BECAUSE IT HAD FULL CONTROL AND DOMINION OVER THE I NTEREST BY REASON OF THE OVERRIDING TITLE CREATED IN ITS FAVOUR BY ITS DIREC TIVE TO THE GUJARAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD. SIMILARLY IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THERE WAS A LETTER 31-12-2004 WRITTEN BY THE FINANCE DEPA RTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE T O DEPOSIT THE INTEREST TO THE CREDIT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND OF THE STATE. THIS DIRECTIVE WAS REITERATED IN THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. THES E DIRECTIVES CREATED AN OVERRIDING TITLE IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT SO FAR AS THE INTEREST ELEMENT WAS CONCERNED. THUS, ON THIS POINT ALSO, NA MELY, THE CREATION OF OVERRIDING TITLE, THE JUDGMENT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE AND HOLD THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.9,82,70,573/- CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE ASSES SEE'S INCOME. IN THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE AL TERNATIVE CONTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(L)(A) OF THE ACT, ON COMMERCIAL CONSIDER ATION. THUS GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THER EUPON DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 4 - 6. GROUND NO.2 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,36,17,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REF UND OF GRANT TO DRDA. 7. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REF UNDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,36,17,000/- GRANTED BY DISTRICT RURAL DEVEL OPMENT AGENCY. SINCE, THE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED; THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE SAID PAYMENT IS NOT TREATED A S NON APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST. THE ASSESSEE HAS F URNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED TIME TO TIME AND ALSO INFORMED THE AO THAT THE UNSPENT BALANCE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED TO DRDA. HOWEVE R, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND ACCORDING TO HIM REFUND OF UNSPEN T GRANT OF EARLIER YEARS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED EXE MPTION U/S.11(1)(A) IN RESPECTIVE YEARS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN APP LICATION OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE F OR THE EXEMPTION; HENCE, IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. 8. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL P RONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 IT WAS POINTED PUT TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 9/12/2010 BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THEY SHOULD SHOW CAUSE AS W HY RETURN OF ORIGINAL GRANT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF MONEY. ONCE THE ORIGINAL GRANT HAS BEEN DECLARED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, REFUND SHOULD B E REDUCED FROM INCOME AND 85% OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AS REQUIRED SHOULD BE FROM THE NET AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED TO THIS ISSUE VIDE LETTER DATED 16/12/2010, AS UNDER: 'DURING THE DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHETH ER THE REFUND OF UNSPENT GRANTS TO DRDA AMOUNTING TO RS.2,36,17,000 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REDUCTION OF INCOME OR WHETHER IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WOULD LI KE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, REFUND OF GRANTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 5 - REDUCTION OR REVERSAL OF INCOME. AS PER THE RETURN, INCOME BEFORE DEDUCTIONS IS SHOWN AS RS.192,33,34,778 WHICH IS TH E INCOME AS PER AUDITED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. WHILE ARRIV ING AT THIS INCOME, AS PER SCHEDULE F OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS, REFUND OF RS.2,36,17,000/- HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM GRANTS RECE IVED. CONSIDERING THIS FACT AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OUR CASE FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 THAT REFUND OF GRANTS, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME DURING EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE ADDED BACK TO INCOME, WE REQUEST YOU TO DELETE THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' 5.2 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REPLY AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IT IS HELD THAT REFUND OF GRANT IN QUESTION WOULD BE REDU CED FROM INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, NET AMOUNT OF GRANT RECEIVED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A). THE REF UND IS NOT AN APPLICATION OF INCOME, IN ANY MANNER. 9. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y.2006-07 (SUPRA), RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 13 IS REPRO DUCED BELOW: 13. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTEN TIONS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESEE IS ENTITL ED TO SUCCEED FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.13 CRORES WAS ASSESSED AS INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-20 03 AND 2003-2004. ONCE THE AMOUNT IS ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT B E ADDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME OVER AGAIN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL. IF WE APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE GRANTS CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS INC OME AS THEY WERE MADE FOR SPECIFIC OR ASSIGNED PROJECTS, AS WE HAVE HELD IN R ESPECT OF THE FIRST GROUND, THEN THE POSITION WOULD BE A FORTIORI. IN THE CASE OF C1T VS. GANGA CHARITY TRUST FUND, (1986) 162 ITR 612, IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE INCOME O F THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY MU ST BE DETERMINED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IN DOING SO, ALL OUTGOING S INCLUDING INCOME-TAX MUST BE DEDUCTED AND IT IS ONLY FROM THE SURPLUS IN COME IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES THAT THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF INCOME CAN ARISE. IN C1T VS. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISRAM BHAVAN TRUST, (1992), 19 8 ITR 598 IT WAS HELD THAT DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST WAS DE DUCTIBLE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN T HESE JUDGMENTS TO THE PRESENT CASE, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13 CRORES WHICH WAS EARLIER ASSESSED AS INCOME, REFUNDED TO DRDA DURING THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL, CONSTITUTES A DEDUCTION WHILE ASCERTAINING THE APPL ICATION OF THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION AND ALLOW GROUNDS NO.3 AN D 4. 14. GROUND NO.5 IS TO THE EFFECT THE C1T(A) ERRED I N LAW IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE AMOUNTS OF ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 6 - RS.9,82,70,573/- AND RS.13 CRORES. THIS GROUND IS C ONSEQUENTIAL TO EARLIER GROUNDS AND THEREFORE NO SEPARATE DECISION IS REQUI RED. 10. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT IN TAX APPEAL NO.80 OF 2010 ORDER DATED 13 TH JUNE, 2011 THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS UPHELD THE VIE W OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 6. THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO WHETHER THE GRANT F ROM THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT CONSTITUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PE R PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2). THE TRIBUNAL HAS SOUGHT TO RELY UPON THE JUD GMENT OF THIS COURT GIVEN IN CASE OF GUJARAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD VS. DCIT (ASSESSMEN T) REPORTED IN (1996) 221 ITR 317. 7. RESULTANTLY, TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT THE GRANTS ARE SANCTIONED THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE PROJECT UNDER REHABILITATION PROGRAMME AND SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME. IT ALSO REFERRED TO T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF GUJARAT SAFAI KAMDAR VIKAS NIGAM (ITA NO.3232/AHD/2 008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06)] WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE GRANT GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ANOTHER ENTITY WHICH WAS TO SPE ND GRANTS NLY FOR THE STATED PURPOSE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS VOLUNTARY CO NTRIBUTION NOR CAN THE SAME BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT AS INC OME OF RECIPIENT.. 9. AS FAR AS ISSUE NO.2 IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LARGELY DEPENDED ON JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GUJARAT M UNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD (SUPRA). AS IN THE CASE OF GRANT, IT HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST DERIVES BY INVESTING THE GRANT TEMPORARILY FOR INTEREST IS ALS O NOT TAXABLE. IT DID NOT CONFIRM WITH THE VIEW OF CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE ASS ESSEE TREATED THE GRANTS GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS ITS INCOME AND THE REFORE THE INTEREST EARNED BY TEMPORARY INVESTMENT OF THE GRANTS CANNOT BE EXE MPTED BY HOLDING THAT RATIO IN THE SAID JUDGMENT IS THAT ANY GRANT-IN-AID CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE THE GRANT IS TREATED AS I NCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS, THE INTEREST DOES NOT BECOME TAXABLE 10. AS FAR AS ISSUE NO.3 IS CONCERNED THE SAME RELA TES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REFUND OF GRANT TO THE DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DRDA). THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY TO THE TRIBUNAL WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE REFUND CAN BE TREATED AN A PPLICATION OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST. IT CLAIMED THAT THE REFUND AMOUNTED TO A PPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CIT(APPEALS) ENDORSED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT REFUNDED DID NOT FORM PART OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR BEING APPLIED TO THE TRUST ITA NO.946/AHD/2011 DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR VS. GUJARAT STATE DISASTER MAN AGEMENT AUTHORITY A.Y.2007-08 - 7 - THERE DOES NOT TO BE ANY INFIRMITY OR MISTAKE IN TH E REASONINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. RESULTANTLY, THERE DOES NOT ARISE ANY QUE STION OF INTERFERENCE AS FAR AS ALSO THIS ISSUE ALSO IS CONCERNED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO FORCE IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE; HENCE HEREBY DISMISS. 12. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/05/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD