Creelotex Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 254/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9878 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A KHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure; Date of conversion
• Section: 45(2); 143(3); 153A; 132; 10; 139

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A.NO.254/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 CREELOT E X ENGINEERING P.LTD. C/O. MEHTA LODHA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 105, SAKAR-I, ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380 009. PAN : AACCCC 2970 L VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.2(4) AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH D.SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI M.S.A. KHAN, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/10/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2018 +,/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-12, AHMEDABAD DATED 31.8.2015 PASSED THE ASSTT.YEAR 200 8-09. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (38) OF THE ACT FOR CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,16,74,502/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL PLEA BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT DISALLOWANCE OF E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) HAS BEEN MADE ERRONEOUSLY IN AN ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) BECAUSE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF RIDDHI SIDDHI ON 22.9.2011 UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 25.9.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, RETURN WAS FILED ON 25.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.66,96,554/-. ORIGINAL RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 WAS FILED AT RS.NIL AS OBSERVED BY THE AO IN PARA-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) AND INVESTIGATED VARIOUS ISSUES. APART FROM OTHER ISSU ES, HE TOOK ONE OF THE ISSUES, WHEREBY AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) F OR CAPITAL GAIN WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. HE DISALLOWED SUCH EXEMPTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 31.1.2014. ON AP PEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE DET AILED REASONING AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ID. A.O. I HAVE ALSO HEARD THE ID. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT LENGTH AND GON E THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLAN T. THE SHORT ISSUE REQUIRING DECISION IS WHETHER THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (38) WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO 'DEEMED TRANSFER' OF CONVERSION OF INV ESTMENT /CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE. IT IS NOTICED THAT AS PE R SECTION 45(2) THE CHARGEABILITY TO TAX OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING O N CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS BEEN POSTPONED TILL T HE DATE OF ACTUAL SALE, BUT THE DATE OF DEEMED TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSE T HAPPENS ONLY ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION AND THERE IS NO DEEMING CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO MECHANISM AND NO POSSIBILITY OF PAYMENT OF STT O N SUCH CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE 'DEEMED TRANSFER' HAPPENS ON ACCOUNT OF CONVERSION. MOREOVE R, ONCE THE CONVERSION HAPPENS, THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS BY WAY OF SALE, OR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IMPACT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE HOLDER. AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY, IN FACT, HAS INCURRED LOSS ON THE ULTIMATE TRANSACTION OF SALE O F THESE VERY SHARES AND THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ID. ASSES SING OFFICER. NOT ONLY THIS, FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ON A CCOUNT OF FALL IN MARKET PRICE FURTHER LOSS IS ALSO HELD ALLOWABLE BY ME IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-12/714/DCIT/CC-2(4)/2013-14 DECIDED BY ME ALONG WITH THIS APPEAL. OBVIOUSLY, TINDER THE SCHEME, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT HAVE THE IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 3 SIMULTANEOUS AND DOUBLE BENEFIT OF FIRSTLY CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREAFTER ALSO CLAIMING THE LOSS AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL SALE. THE LD. A.R. HAS PRIMARILY ARGUED THAT THE D EEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 45(2) WITH REGARD TO 'YEAR OF TAXABILITY A LSO, GOVERNS THE 'YEAR OF TRANSFER. I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE L D. A.R. THE YEAR AND TIME OF 'TRANSFER' IS THE YEAR AND TIME OF 'CONVERS ION OF CAPITAL ASSET'. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(38), THIS TRAN SACTION OF 'CONVERSION' SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO STT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS NOT THE CASE. THEREFORE, BY IMPLICATION ALSO, SECTION 1 0(38) EXCLUDES FROM ITS BENEFIT THE TRANSFERS BY WAY OF CONVERSION OF C APITAL ASSET INTO STOCK- IN-TRADE. THEREFORE, I FIND MYSELF IN FULL AGREEMEN T WITH THE- ARGUMENT AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICE R AND FIND NO MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ID. A.O. REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED, AND IS ACCOR DINGLY REJECTED. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL, THE LAW ON TH E SCOPE OF SECTION 153A WAS NOT DEVELOPED TILL THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., 380 IT R 529 (GUJ). APART FROM THIS DECISION VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS AT THE END OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED THAT WHEN NO INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEN ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A WILL NOT BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. KABUL CHARWALA, 380 ITR 0183 (DEL) II) CIT VS. KURELE PAPERS, 380 ITR 571 (DEL) III) CIT VS. LATA JAIN, 384 ITR 543 (DEL) 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THOU GH THERE MAY NOT HAVE ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA THIS ISSUE, BUT THER E WERE MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO OTHER ISSUES, AND THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 4 UNDER SECTION 153A. THE LD.AO HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN UP THIS ISSUE ONCE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS PENDING BEFORE HI M. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER WOULD REVEAL THAT ONLY ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS W ITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS DETERMINED TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,84,13,556/-. OUT OF THIS, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(38) STANDS AT RS.1,16 ,74,502/-. AS FAR AS REST OF THE ADDITIONS IS CONCERNED, THESE ARE THE ADDITI ONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THUS, THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED ANY SEIZED MATERIAL F OR MAKING OTHER ADDITIONS ALSO. HE SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHANKARLAL CHOWDHARY RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WHO DISCLO SED RS.85 LAKHS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THIS AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. OTHER AMOUNT IS STT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE QUESTION B EFORE US IS, WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND SHOWING THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUM ENTS OR INFORMATION WHICH CAME TO HIS POSSESSION DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. THIS IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ACCORDING TO THE AO, ORIG INAL RETURN WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 139 AT NIL AMOUNT. NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) APPEARS TO HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE ORIGI NAL RETURN. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LET US FIRST TAKE UP PROPOSITION LAID D OWN BY HONBLE COURTS ON SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) H AVE EXAMINED SCOPE OF SECTION 153A. AFTER A DETAILED ANALYSIS HONBLE COURT HAS SUMMARI ZED LEGAL PROPOSITION EMERGING OUT FOR APPLICATION OF S ECTION 153A. SUCH PROPOSITION READS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 5 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLA INED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT E MERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS F OR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE O F THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS W ILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REA SSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN S EPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEAR S. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST- SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FO UND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR M ADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS S ECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSM ENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECT ION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PEND ING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 6 TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT S HALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FIN DINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT O N THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON T HE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED I N COME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH W ERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 7. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT RETURN FOR ASSTT.YEARS 2002-03, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WERE ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT. THUS, HONBLE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ACCEPTANCE OF RET URN AS AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1). IN CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH , THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, ASSESSMENTS FOR A. YS. 2002-03, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED AND NO INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE THE FINDING RECORDE D BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAUMAYA CO NSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARA 18 AND 19 OF THE JUDGMENTS. IT READS AS UNDER : 18. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELL ANT THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH . AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEN THE NOTICE CAME TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTIO N 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. MUCH LATER , AT THE FAG END OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS TO BE MADE, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE LIMIT FOR FRAMING TH E ASSESSMENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 153 WAS ABOUT TO EXPIRE, THE NOTICE HAS BEEN IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 7 ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE SEEKING TO MAKE THE PROP OSED ADDITION OF RS.11,05,51,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL WHIC H WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF ANOTHER PERSON. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IN A CASE LIK E THE PRESENT ONE, WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED EARLIER AND NO ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WAS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 153A OF THE ACT, ADDITIONS OR DISALLOWANCES CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OR R EQUISITION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HOWEVER, IT IS ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MU CH SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CAME TO BE MADE. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED T HAT IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, NOTWITHSTANDING TH AT IN RELATION TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO MAKE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE I N RESPECT OF ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THE SAID CONTENTION DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE, INASMUCH AS, THE ASSESSM ENT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ASSESSMENT. UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN RELATION TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, NAMELY, IN R ELATION TO MATERIAL DISCLOSED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IF IN R ELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND , NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RELATION TO THAT ASSESS MENT YEAR IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AN D THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT SHALL HAVE TO BE REITERATED. IN THIS REG ARD, THIS COURT IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE RAJ ASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA), JODHPUR (SU PRA). BESIDES, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDS CON CLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYABEN RATIL AL SORATHIA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE IT CANNOT BE DI SPUTED THAT CONSIDERING SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN AND/OR ASSESS THE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SIX PRECED ING YEARS; HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE TRANSACTIONS IN TH E PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT(SS)A NO.254/AHD/2015 8 9. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LD.AO HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE. THE REFORE, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SE CTION 153A AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ALLOW THIS GROUND AND DELETE IMPUG NED DISALLOWANCE. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER