M C Davar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda

ITA 968/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI S H ODHAN JAMES KURIAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDBAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM ] ITA NO. 968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 M C DAVAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD ... .. . .....APPELLANT B - 1, CHANDAN METAL COMPOUND NEAR BIDC GORWA ROAD, GORWA, BARODA 390 016 [PAN: AABCM4283Q] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4, BARODA .. ..................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: URVASHI S H ODHAN F OR THE A PPELLANT JAMES KURIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CO NCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 28, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 28 , 2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2014, PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,23,661 MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE IS A NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY (NBFC), AND HAS, INTER ALIA, MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDENDS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS 14,80,805, WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED A DISALLOWANCE OF RS 9,23,156 BUT WAS OF THE VIEW TH A T THIS IS ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 2 OF 6 INADEQUATE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS 80,20,105, WHICH, DIVIDED IN THE RATIO OF INVESTMENT YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME (I.E. RS 5,21,42,893) TO THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS (RS 30,17,03,046), COMES TO RS 13,86, 103 SO FAR AS IT CAN BE SAID TO BE RELATED TO INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME. ADDING 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS, AS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE UNDER RULE, WHICH COMES TO RS 2,60,714, TOTAL ADMISSIBLE DISALLOWANCE WAS COMPUTED AT RS 16,46,817. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 9,23,156, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,23,661. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURT HER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT RULE 8D COMES INTO PLAY IN THIS CASE BUT ESSENTIALLY DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND AS TO HOW MUCH PORTION OF INTEREST EXPENSES ARE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER THAT RULE. IT IS ON THIS POINT THAT THERE ARE VARYING PERCEPTIONS. WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,70,830 (IN ADDITION TO 0.5 % OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 2,20,714) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ONLY SUCH INVESTMENTS ON WHICH TAX EXEMPT INCOME WAS ACTUALLY EARNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THIS PORTION OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS 13,86,1 03 BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ENTIRE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME - IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY TAX EXEMPT INCOME IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR NOT. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS, HOWEVER, GIVES A NEW TWIST TO THE CASE NOW. SHE SUBMITS THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ARE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME AND THESE INVESTMENTS ARE CARRIED FORWARD FROM AN EARLIER POINT OF TIME MUCH BEFORE THE RELATED BORROWINGS WERE RESORTED TO. HE CONTENTION IS THAT, IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, AS A MATTER OF NO PART OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN WAS FAR MORE THAN ADEQUATE. WHILE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN HER ARGUMENTS, HE NONETHELESS RELIES UPON THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL IS INDEED WELL TAKEN, PARTICULARLY AS IT IS BEYOND ANY DOUBT OR CONTROVERSY THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOME. WE FIND THAT FIRSTLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX EXEMPT INCOM E, A PRESUMPTION IS NECESSARILY TO BE TAKEN THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THAT POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD [ (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM)] , AND A SERIES OF THE ORDERS ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 3 OF 6 PASSED BY VARIOUS COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAVE APPLIED THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT AS WELL . AS A COROLLARY TO THIS PRESUMPTION, NO PART OF INTEREST PAYMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INVESTMENTS YIELDING TA X EXEMPT INCOME. IN SUCH A POSITION, SO FAR AS INTEREST DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D IS CONCERNED, NO PART OF INTEREST EXPENSES CA N BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 8 D AT ALL. THIS PROPOSITION FINDS SUPPORT FROM A DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO LTD [(2012) 139 ITD 108 (KOL)], WHICH NOW STANDS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS BHARTI OVERSEAS LIMITED [(2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 340 (DEL)]. IN THE SAID CASE, THE COORDINATE BENCH, SPEAKIN G THROUGH ONE OF US, HAD OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 11. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT WORKING OF THIS METHOD SO FAR AS RULE 8D(2)(I) AND (III) IS CONCERNED. IT IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAV E DIFFERENT APPROACHES. THIS PROVISION ADMITTEDLY DEALS WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH 'THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT'. CLEARLY, THEREFORE , THIS SUB CLAUSE SEEKS TO ALLOCATE 'COMMON INTEREST EXPENSES' TO TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX EXEMPT INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, GOING BY THE PLAIN WORDINGS OF RULE 8D(2)(I I) WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE ALLOCATED IS 'EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST ..WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT' AND THE ONLY CATEGORIES OF INCOME AND RECEIPT, SO FAR AS SCHEME OF RULE 8D IS CONCERNED, ARE MUTUALLY EXC LUSIVE CATEGORIES OF 'TAX EXEMPT INCOME AND RECEIPT' AND 'TAXABLE INCOME AND RECEIPT'. NO OTHER CLASSIFICATION IS GERMANE TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH RULE 8D IS SET OUT, NOR DOES THE SCHEME OF SECTION 14 A LEAVE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT IT. 12. IRONICALLY, HOWEVER , THE DEFINITION OF VARIABLE 'A' EMBEDDED IN FORMULA UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) IS CLEARLY INCONGRUOUS INASMUCH WHILE IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES INTEREST EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATED TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME, IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE INTEREST EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATED T O TAXABLE INCOME. RESULTANTLY, WHILE RULE 8D(2)(II) ADMITTEDLY SEEKS TO ALLOCATE 'EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT' IT ENDS UP ALLOCATING 'EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST, WHICH IS NOT DI RECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT, PLUS INTEREST WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME ' [ EMPHASIS SUPPLIED ]. THIS INCONGRUITY WILL BE MORE GLARING WITH THE HELP OF FOLLOWING SIMPLE EXAMPLE: IN THE CASE OF A & CO LTD, TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS RS. 1,00,000, OUT OF WHICH INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF ACQUIRING SHARES FROM WHICH TAX FREE DIVIDEND EARNED IS RS. 10,000. OUT OF THE BALANCE RS. 90,000, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 80,000 FOR FACTORY BUILDING CONS TRUCTION WHICH CLEARLY RELATES TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH IS 'NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR RECEIPT OR INCOME' IS THUS ONLY RS. 10,000. ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 4 OF 6 HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF THE FORMULA IN RULE 8D(2)(II), ALLOCATION OF INTEREST WHIC H IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT WILL BE FOR RS. 90,000 BECAUSE, AS PER FORMULA THE VALUE OF A (I.E. SUCH INTEREST EXPENSES TO BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN TAX EXEMPT AND TAXABLE INCOME) WILL BE 'A = AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY O F INTEREST OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCLUDED IN CLAUSE (I) [I.E. DIRECT INTEREST EXPENSES FOR TAX EXEMPT INCOME] INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR'. LET US SAY THE ASSETS RELATING TO TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX EXEMPT INCOME ARE IN THE RATIO OF 4:1. IN SUCH A CASE, THE INTEREST DISALLOWABLE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) WILL BE RS. 18,000 WHEREAS ENTIRE COMMON INTEREST EXPENDITURE WILL ONLY BE RS. 10,000. 13. THE INCONGRUITY ARISES BECAUSE, AS THE WORDINGS OF RULE 8D(2)(II) EXIST, OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSES , INTEREST EXPENSES DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME ARE EXCLUDED, INTEREST EXPENSES DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME, EVEN IF ANY, ARE NOT EXCLUDED. 14. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER WE CAN TINKER WITH THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D(2 )(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, OR CONSTRUE IT ANY OTHER MANNER OTHER THAN WHAT IS SUPPORTED BY PLAIN WORDS OF THE RULE 8D(2)(II). 15. WE FIND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE RIGID WORDS OF RULE 8D(2)(II), THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ABOUT ITS APPL ICATION, AS WAS BEFORE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DY. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 / 194 TAXMAN 203 WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF RULE 8D WAS IN CHALLENGE, IS THAT 'IT IS ONLY THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS THAT WOULD BE APPORTIONED AND THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST THAT WILL BE TAKEN (AS 'A' IN THE FORMULA) WILL EXCLUDE ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT (FOR EXAMPLE - ANY ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS SUCH AS PLANT/MACHINERY ETC.)'. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ONLY TH E INTEREST DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME, I.E. UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I), BUT ALSO INTEREST DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME, WHICH IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF VARIABLE 'A' IN FORMULA AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II), AND RIGHTLY SO, BECAUSE I T IS ONLY THEN THAT COMMON INTEREST EXPENSES, WHICH ARE TO BE ALLOCATED AS INDIRECTLY RELATABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX EXEMPT INCOME, CAN BE COMPUTED. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) : 60. IN THE AFFIDAVIT - IN - REPLY THAT HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OF THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING R. 8D. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL IT HAS BEEN STATED, WITH REFERENCE TO R. 8D(2)(II) THAT SINCE FUNDS ARE FUNGIBLE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ALLOCATE THE ACTUAL QUANTUM OF BORROWED FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING TAX - FREE INVESTMENTS. IT IS ONLY THE INTEREST ON BORRO WED FUNDS THAT WOULD BE APPORTIONED AND THE AMOUNT OF ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 5 OF 6 EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST THAT WILL BE TAKEN (AS 'A' IN THE FORMULA) WILL EXCLUDE ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT (FOR EXAMPLE - ANY ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS SUCH AS PLANT/MACHINERY ETC.) THE JUSTIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THE RATIONALE FOR R. 8D CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BEING CAPRICIOUS, PERVERSE OR ARBITRARY. APPLYING THE TESTS FORMULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT THERE IS WRIT ON THE STATUTE OR ON THE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION PERVERSITY, CAPRICE OR IRRATIONALITY. THERE IS CERTAINLY NO 'MADNESS IN THE METHOD'. 16. ONCE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAK EN A PARTICULAR STAND ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF FORMULA SET OUT IN RULE 8D(2)(II), AND BASED ON SUCH A STAND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY IS UPHELD BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ANY OTHER STAND ON THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORMULA IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE. VIEWED THUS, THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA SET OUT IN RULE 8D(2)(II) IS THAT, AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. ( SUP RA ), 'AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST THAT WILL BE TAKEN (AS 'A' IN THE FORMULA) WILL EXCLUDE ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT (FOR EXAMPLE - ANY ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS SUCH AS PLANT/MACHINERY ETC.)'. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN BY REVENUE'S OWN ADMISSION, INTEREST EXPENSES DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME AS ALSO DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME, ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COMPUTATION OF COMMON INTEREST EXPE NSES TO BE ALLOCATED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II). 17. TO THE ABOVE EXTENT, THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT RIGOUR OF RULE 8D(2)(II) IS RELAXED IN ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION, AND REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HAVING TAKEN THAT STAND WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF RULE 8D WAS IN CHALLENGE BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, CANNOT NOW DECLINE THE SAME. IDEALLY, IT IS FOR THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES TO MAKE THE POSITION CLEAR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER EITHER BY INITIATING SUITABLE AMENDMENT TO RULE 8D(2)(II) OR BY ADOPTI NG AN INTERPRETATION AS PER PLAIN WORDS OF THE SAID RULE, BUT EVEN ON THE FACE OF THINGS AS THEY ARE AT PRESENT, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT TAKE ONE STAND WHEN DEMONSTRATING LACK OF 'PERVERSITY, CAPRICE OR IRRATIONALITY' IN RUL E 8D BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, AND TAKE ANOTHER STAND WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULE IN REAL LIFE SITUATIONS. THEREFORE, EVEN AS WE ARE ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT THE STAND OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE STRICT WORDING OF RULE 8D(2)(II), WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT, FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, THIS RIGID STAND CANNOT BE APPLIED IN PRACTICE. 6. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST WAS WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST COMPONENT. THE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS CERTAINLY MUCH MORE THAN ADEQUATE - PARTICULARLY AS THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN LEARNED COUNSEL S CONTENTIONS ARE NOT EVEN DISPUTED BEFORE US. WE, ITA NO.968/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PA GE 6 OF 6 THEREFORE, VACATE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,23,166. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF TO TH IS EXTENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - S.S. GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMED ABAD , DATED THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD