DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s.Sthapatya Shilp Developers, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 164/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7306 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 153C; 147; 68; 69; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO. 164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O.NO.161/AHD/2019 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD. VS. M/S STHAPTYA SHILP DEVELOPERS, 203-204 ABHISHIP COMPLEX, NR. VISHWESHWAR MAHADEV TEMPLE, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD-380015. PAN: ABBFS3315E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA. CIT.D.R ASSESSEE BY : MS NUPUR SHAH, A.R /DATE OF HEARING : 26/07/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/08/2021 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CO IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 11, AHMEDABAD, DATED 25/01/2019 (IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)) ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION IN THE REVENUES APPEALS BEARING IT(SS)A NO. 164/AHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE L.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH REQUIRES THE TOTAL INCOME TO BE BROUGHT UNDER TAX WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT SUCH ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE L.T. ACT, 1961 IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,95,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,18,34,0007- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE WHOLE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOTHING BUT AN ACT OF ROUTING OF UNACCOUNTED CASH OF SIPL IN BOOKS OF SIPL, SIDDHAM FINANCE AND OTHER FAMILY CONCERN BANK ACCOUNT VIA ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN SAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 7. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. THE 1 ST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 & 2 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THE REASONING THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT OF INCRIMINATING NATURE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, BUILDING OF THE REAL ESTATE PROJECTS INCLUDING SOCIETY ORGANIZERS AND SCHEME ORGANIZER. 4.1 THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT DATED 4 TH DECEMBER 2014 IN THE CASE OF BARTER GROUP/ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER GROUP. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN EXCEL SHEET WAS FOUND CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF CASH RECEIPT AND PAYMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2 APRIL 2010 TO 26 AUGUST 2010. IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 3 FROM THIS SHEET, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 BASED ON ABOVE, THE AO SOUGHT AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH FOR 1,18,34,000/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE MANNER AS DETAILED BELOW: RS. SCRAP SALES 33,00,000 EXTRA CHARGES RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS 22,50,000 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY SANJAY M SUTARIA 7,00,000 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY SANJAY M SUTARIA 7,00,000 CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM SARAL MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY, SIDDHAM FINANCE, STHAPATYA SLIP CONTRUCTION ETC. 50,00,000 TOTAL 1,19,50,000 4.3 HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 4.4 LIKEWISE, THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO 44,95,000/- WHICH WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT (A). 6. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 4 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.69OF THE ACT RS.1,18,34,000/-.LT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AS REGARDS TO CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND AND SEIZED THE MS EXCEL SHEET WHICH THE A.O IS REFERRING TO IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PERTAINING TO A LIMITED PERIOD FALLING UNDER AY.2011-12, HENCE MAKING IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR U/S. 68 WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CONTENTION, THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- I) PR. CIT US SSUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD [2017] 387 ITR 523 II) INTAS PHARMACEUT1CALS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2015) 44 CCII 0490AHDTRIB, HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD. III) CIT-11, THANE V. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION {NHAVA SHEVA) LTD. [2015] 58 TAXMANN.MM 78 (BOMBAY) IV) HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-LLL US. KABUL CHAWLA, [2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 412 (DELHI) V) PGT V. SUNRISE FINLEASE (P.) LTD. [2018] 89 TAXMANN.COM 1 (GUJARAT) ONGOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATED TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, IS FOUND FACTUALLY CORRECT. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE MENTIONED BINDING JUDGMENTS, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7.1 THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE IN TWO FOLD. FIRSTLY ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL CONTENTION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF THE AFORESAID PARTIES FOR WHICH THE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 44,95,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE AFORESAID FIVE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3} R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) IS UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT-4 VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD [2017] 387 ITR 529, OTHER HIGH COURTS AND HON'BLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS OTHER TRIBUNALS IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT REVEALS THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND/OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE FIVE PARTIES AS STATED ABOVE. ON GOING THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENTS. THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTION THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND/OR SEIZED MATERIAL IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 5 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 44,95,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED, HENCE, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BOTH THE LEARNED DR AND THE AR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WHEN A SEARCH IS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH MAY BE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PERSON SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SOMETIME THE DOCUMENTS/RECORDS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DO NOT BELONG TO THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT BUT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON MAY INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. AMONG OTHER CONDITIONS, ONE OF THE CONDITION FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BUT BELONGING TO THE OTHER PERSON, MUST HAVE THE BEARING ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON. 10.1 IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT AN EXCEL SHEET WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF CASH RECEIPT AND PAYMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2 APRIL 2010 TO 26 AUGUST 2010. THE DATES MENTION IN THE EXCEL SHEET IN ITSELF SUGGEST PERTAINING TO THE FINANCIAL 2010-11 CORRESPONDING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE DOCUMENTS, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACT WHETHER THESE REPRESENT INCRIMINATING MATERIALS OR NOT, DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 6 CASH IN ITS BANK ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10.2 LIKEWISE, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT FOUND OF INCRIMINATING NATURE WITH RESPECT TO THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 44,95,000.00 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION INDICATING THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF, ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 10.3 IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 387 ITR 529 WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CONNECTED WITH SOMETHING FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, VIZ., INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH REVEALS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, WHILE IN VIEW OF THE MANDATE OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IN EVERY CASE WHERE THERE IS A SEARCH OR REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OBLIGED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE SIX YEARS PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE, ANY ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN CASE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, AS HELD BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) (SUPRA), THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE REITERATED. IN CASE WHERE PENDING ASSESSMENTS HAVE ABATED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PASS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS, IF ANY, FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN CASE WHERE A PENDING REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAS ABATED, NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD INCLUDE ANY ORDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 10.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON TECHNICAL COUNT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE. AS SUCH THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT OF THE CASE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019 WITH C.O. NO.161/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-2010 7 10.5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. COMING TO THE CO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING NO. 161/AHD/2019 (IT(SS)A NO.164/AHD/2019) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 12. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN DELETED BY US IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH BEARING NUMBER 10 ON THE REASONING THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH QUA THE DEPOSIT OF CASH AND UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION, PLEASE REFER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CO. AS SUCH THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 12.1 IN THE RESULT, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE COMBINED RESULTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/08/2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) ) AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/08/2021 MANISH