SHRI HASUMKHBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

CO 35/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around the taxation of a sum received by Hasmukhlal K. Patel from the official liquidator of Patel Mills Ltd, amounting to Rs. 55,39,298/-. This amount was received following a Gujarat High Court order, which directed the payment to the assessee for the conveyance of reversionary rights over a property previously leased to Patel Mills Ltd. The primary legal issue was whether this receipt constituted a 'capital receipt' exempt from tax or a 'capital gain' taxable under the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated it as a capital gain, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) and the ITO, dismissing the assessee's objection.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473965 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. CWT, CIT v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH M ISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVIK KHANDEDIYA; WAY OF
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Bonafide belief; Capital receipt; Capital Gains; Valuation report; Liquidation
• Section: 113; 2; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER C.O. No.35/Ahd/2018 (in ITO No. 3130/Ahd/2016) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Hasmukhlal K. Patel, FF/3, Sun Castle Complex, Sattadhar Cross Roads, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ADSPP7815M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhavik Khandediya, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Cross Objection has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”)-4, Ahmedabad vide order dated 05.09.2016 passed for A.Y. 2009- 10. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal in its Cross Objection:- “(1) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in treating the receipts by the assessee on transfer of reversionary rights amounting to 55,39,298/- as capital gain tax receipts instead of capital receipt exempt from tax. (2) Assessee reserves right to add, alter, delete or amend any or all of the grounds of cross-objections in future.” C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the financial year 2008-09, relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the assessee received a sum of ₹55,39,298/- as per order of High Court of Gujarat passed on 23-06-2008 which was claimed by the assessee to be in the nature of “capital receipt” and hence not taxable. The assessee was one of the ex-co-owners of land situated at Gomtinagar, which was transferred on a “permanent lease basis” to M/s Patel Mills Ltd in 1932, along with all rights etc. Thereafter, M/s Patel Mills Ltd went into liquidation, and the official liquidator of the said property sold the said land to M/s Pushti Private Limited, by way of auction. Though, the assessee had effectively transferred the aforesaid land to M/s Patel Mills Ltd, however, as per Revenue Records, the assessee’s name appeared as “owner” of the said property in question. Accordingly, in light of the above, the assessee filed claim before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, along with other co-owners for claim of reversionary right to be conveyed in favour of the auction purchaser, since the assessee was the legal “owner” of such property, as per Revenue Records. After hearing the case of the assessee, the Gujarat High Court gave appropriate directions, as a result of which the assessee received a sum of ₹55,39,298/- from the official liquidator, for the purpose of allowing the conveyance of such land in favour of M/s Pushti Private Limited. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted/claimed that the aforesaid amount received pursuant to High Court order was a “capital receipt” in the hands of the assessee and since the assessee did possess the title of such property (which as per the assessee had been transferred in favour of M/s Patel Mills Ltd in 1932 by his ancestors), C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 3– the assessee effectively had no “capital asset” in his possession, which was capable of transfer under section 2 (47) of the Act and hence the aforesaid receipts could not be subject to tax in the hands of the assessee by way of capital gains tax. However, the assessing officer did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and held that from the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the execution of conveyance deed in favour of M/s Pushti Private Ltd, there is transfer of rights which is liable to taxed under head “capital gains”. Further, the assessing officer took the cost of acquisition of property at Rs “nil” as per section 55 (2) of the Act. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that though the transfer of such land was liable to be taxed as “capital gains” however, the assessee was eligible to claim benefit of indexation on the cost of acquisition on purchase of the aforesaid property. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed part relief to the assessee, with the following observations: “7.1 The second ground of appeal is against the additions of Rs.55,39,2987- made by the AO. The AO stated in the assessment order that the appellant has received Rs.55,39,298/- during the year under consideration from the Official Liquidator of M7s Patel Mills Limited. The plot No. 139 in T.P. Scheme at Saher Kotda admeasuring 54140 sq. mts. was leased by the ancestor of the appellant to Patel Mills Ltd. in 1932. M/s Pate! Mills went into liquidation and Official Liquidator was appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The said plot of land was sold during the year under consideration by the Official Liquidator and the appellant received Rs.55,39,298/- as his share in the said property. As this amount has not been offered for taxation, the AO made the additions considering the same as income of the appellant for the year under consideration. The appellant contended that he has received this amount against sale of lease rights and he has not incurred any cost for acquisition on this property, therefore, he was under bonafide belief that no capital gain is required to be paid on amount received. The appellant took alternative ground stating that if the amount received on transfer of lease right is taxable under the head capital gain then the cost of acquisition should be taken value of the property as on 1st April, 1981. The appellant filed valuation report from the Registered Valuer during the course of appellate proceedings. As the appellant filed additional evidences and C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 4– took alternative ground of appeal, these were forwarded to the AO for his report. The AO submitted Remand Report vide letter dtd. 10-08-2016, which has been reproduced above. The assessee filed rejoinder against the Remand Report submitted by the AO. The AO referred the matter to the DVO during the Remand Report proceedings and the DVO has also valued the property at Rs.8,90,100/- vide report dtd. 29-01-2016. The DVO submitted the report to the AO. 7.1.1 On going through the assessment order, submission of the appellant, Remand Report, Rejoinder filed by the appellant alongwith the documentary evidences including the valuation reports submitted by the Registered Valuer as well as DVO, it is found that the appellant is correct in claiming that the cost of acquisition of the property should be taken as value given by the DVO as on 01-04-1981. The Registered Valuer and the DVO both have valued the property at Rs.8,90,100/- as on 01-04-1981. The provisions of Income Tax Act are clear that where cost of acquisition is not ascertainable, the value as on 01-04-1981 should be considered as cost of acquisition. In this case, the cost of acquisition is Rs.8,90,100/- valued by two valuers, therefore, there is no doubt about cost of acquisition of said property and it should be considered at Rs.8,90,100/-. The AO is directed to consider the cost of acquisition at Rs.8,90,100/- and after giving indexation as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, capital gain accrued on this transaction should be recalculated accordingly.” 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions made before Ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appellate proceedings before him. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of ₹55,10,298/- is unjustified since the receipts are in the nature of “capital receipts”. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made a claim before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat against the transfer of aforesaid land to M/s Pushti Private Ltd. as the name of the assessee appeared in the Revenue Records as the “owner” of such property. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 23-06-2008 granted monetary consideration of ₹55,39,298/- to the assessee against his claim, even though no right, title, and possession in respect of the said land was effectively held by the assessee and therefore, same could not have been transferred by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not the “owner” of the land on the date of execution of C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 5– conveyance deed dated 22-09-2008 and it is only because his name, was appearing in the 7/12 extracts i.e. Revenue Records that assessee made a claim in the High Court of Gujarat and succeeded and consequently, received the monetary consideration. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not transferred any “capital asset” so as to constitute “transfer” within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not possible for the assessee to transfer any property, right, interest etc. in the land since the land does not belong to him either directly or indirectly. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s ancestors had sold his share of land in question way a back in 1932 by executing the “permanent lease deed” in favour of M/s Patel Mills Ltd along with transfer of all rights, title, possession etc. Accordingly, it was submitted that just because the name of the assessee is appearing in the Revenue Records, it does not indicate that a “capital asset” has been transferred by the assessee for the second time. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee’s ancestors had transferred all rights title and interest in the said land way back in 1932, this amount received cannot be treated as capital asset and is liable to be treated as “capital receipt” which is exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee as it is not towards loss of any earnings or business etc. 7. In response, DR placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. The DR submitted that the asset transferred by the assessee was clearly a “capital asset” within the meaning defined under the Income Tax Act and therefore, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 6– correctly held that such transfer of a capital asset viz. interest in land is liable to be taxed as “capital gains” in the hands of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before deciding the issue, it would be useful to give our observations with respect to various documents placed on record, to ascertain whether what was transferred by the assessee was a “capital asset” in the first place. The argument of the assessee is that since the capital asset in question has been already been transferred way back in 1932 by the ancestors of the assessee to M/s Patel Mills Ltd, then the assessee is incapable of transferring something which is not in his possession. Therefore, it needs to be seen whether the assessee had any right/interest in the “land” which would be considered a “capital asset” within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat dated 23-06-2008, by which certain amount was directed to be given to the assessee. This is important since it would throw useful light as to what particular asset, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was transferred by the assessee, for which a certain amount was directed to be given to the assessee. The relevant extracts of the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court are reproduced for ready reference: “In view of the above submissions, the secured creditors and workers should not have any resistance. However we have been informed by learned Counsel for respective parties that they have no objection if the sale is confirmed in the favour of the company i.e. Auction Purchaser and some reasonable amount is paid over to the lessors in full and final settlement of their all claims i.e. rent due and payable to them from date of closure till today. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, we issue the following directions. (C) Official Liquidator is also directed that out of the sale consideration, 10% of the amount so received may be set apart, as per mutual consensus, and paid over to C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 7– all lessors on proper identification and verification by official Liquidator within two weeks from the date of receipt of the total sale consideration. (D) Lessors are also directed to indicate the name of lessors, who have waived their rights/ interest/ title in favour of existing lessors. (E) On receipt of the full amount of consideration by official Liquidator, the Official Liquidator and all Lessors shall jointly execute the conveyance deed in favour of the Company i.e. Auction Purchaser within 3 days but the vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question will be handed over to the Auction purchaser forthwith upon paying the full consideration. (F) The conveyance deed will specifically state that, pursuant to the aforesaid payment, the official Liquidator has sold off leasehold rights of Company (in Liquidation) and the Appellants No. 1 to 3 i.e. Lessors have sold off their ownership rights over the said land in question to the Auction Purchaser, to enable the Auction Purchaser to have clear and marketable title of the said property in question. The conveyance deed shall specifically mention that, the official Liquidator and the Lessors will not claim in future any right(s), title or interest of whatsoever including right of ownership, tenancy, leasehold and such other rights over the said land in question. (G) It is also made clear that on execution of conveyance deed, the free and clear title will be passed to the Auction Purchaser and Auction Purchaser will be exclusive owner of the land in question, which will thereafter be a free hold land. (H) Lessors, in addition to the aforesaid terms, are also directed to file an undertaking to this Court declaring that they shall not claim any interest and/or right and/or title of whatsoever nature in respect of the property in question at any time hereafter against the auction purchaser and abide by the terms and conditions as unanimously agreed before the Hon'ble Court. The said contents of the undertaking shall also form part of the conveyance and the undertaking shall form part of the conveyance. (L) It is specifically directed that this order is passed in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into merit thereof and this will not form a precedent in future.” 9. From a perusal of the direction of the High Court, it is seen that High Court observed that the assessee is the “lessor” of the said land as per Revenue Records was eligible for claim of rent in respect of the aforesaid property. Further, the High Court also directed the “lessors” to waive their rights/interest/title in favour of the auction purchaser. The High Court also directed that on receipt of the amount of consideration, all the “lessors” shall C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 8– jointly execute a “conveyance deed” in favour of the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Pushti Private Ltd within 3 days. Further, the High Court also stated that the “conveyance deed” referred to above would specifically state that the “lessors” have passed on their “ownership rights” over the said land in question to the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Pushti Private Ltd to enable the auction purchaser to have clear and marketable “title” of the said property in question. Further, the High Court directed that the “conveyance deed” shall specifically mention that the “lessor” will not claim in the future any rights, title or interest of whatsoever nature including the right of ownership, tenancy, leasehold and any other rights over the said land in question. The High Court directed that “lessors” to file an “undertaking” declaring that they shall not claim any interest/right/title of whatsoever nature in respect of the property in question at any time thereafter against the auction purchaser and abide by the terms and conditions as unanimously agreed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, there is a clear understanding between the parties that as per “Revenue Records” the title of the said property continues to be in the name of the assessee as “owner” of such property and therefore, unless the assessee as lessor does not enter into a specific “conveyance deed” as per directions of the Gujarat High Court, then the free and clear title of the property cannot be passed on to the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Pushti Private Ltd. Therefore, in our considered view, from the directions of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, it is evident that there is a clear understanding that such amount has been ordered to be directed to be given to the assessee as “lessor/owner” of the said property since the title/ownership as per Revenue Records continues to be in the name of the assessee and unless the C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 9– assessee enters into a “conveyance deed” with the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Pushti Private Ltd, then the latter cannot get a clear title and possession of such property. Therefore, on perusal of the contents of the order of the Gujarat High Court, we are of the considered view that what has been transferred by the assessee is compensation towards parting with the “ownership rights” with respect to the said property as per the Revenue Records in favour of the “auction purchaser” i.e. M/s Pushti Private Ltd. by way of entering into a separate “conveyance deed” as per directions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court so as to enable the auction purchaser to get a free and clear title and exclusive ownership of the land in question. 10. Now it would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the “conveyance deed” which would again throw useful light of the rights transferred by the assessee/lessor: “AND WHEREAS out of the LESSORS-OWNERS Hasmukhbhai Kantibhai Patel, Vasant Kantibhai Patel and Vinod Kantibhai Patel are the claimants as owners or lessors of the land bearing revenue survey Nos.23-p, 34-b and their names appear in revenue records and therefore they have joined in these presents LESSORS- OWNERS nos. (1), (2) and (3).” ….. “being the full consideration payable by the PURCHASER to the VENDORS, (out of which 10% is receivable by the Vendor-II payable by the Official liquidator as directed by the order of the Honorable High Court of Gujarat dated 23.06.2008) (the payment and receipt whereof the VENDORS do and each of them doth hereby admit and acknowledge and of and from the same and every part thereof doth hereby acquit^ release and exonerate the PURCHASER forever) the VENDORS do and each of them doth hereby grant, convey, assure, release and transfer and delivers the vacant and peaceful possession to. the PURCHASER all that piece or parcel of non-agricultural land or ground situate, lying and being at Mouje Shaher Kotda (Rakhial), Taluka City, District Ahmedabad within the Registration Sub-District of Ahmedabad-7 (Odhav) bearing Final Plot No. 139 palki, admeasuring 54140 sq. mtrs. Of the Town Planning Scheme Ahmedabad No. XVI (Shaher Kotda), more particularly described in the C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 10– schedule hereunder written and shown by red coloured boundary line on the plan thereof annexed hereto as “Annexure-C”” 11. It would also be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the “lease deed” dated 15th July, 1929 between the assessee’s ancestor as lessor, as well for ready reference: “Date : 15 Month July Year 1929 ShethChanubhaiBhailalbhai outside Ahmedabad, Shahibaug --——— Ahmedabad———— ——-— for one rental year, Rs.314-12-0 pai in words quarter to fifteen rupees Mumbaigara. That rent shall be paid by I - the party of the second part to you the party of the first part every year in advance. The details of this agreement are as under. 1. The said farm land have been taken by the party of the second part from the party of the first part on dt. 23rd July Year 1929 on permanent lease basis of accruing lease and on which We-the party of the second part, can construct building, mills, use openly, further give on lease or do as my heart desire or keep the farm land unused, even then the above said full lease premium shall be paid by We-party of the second part along with our heirs, guardian, executors though administrators of the company at even times or whosoever is in the possession to party of the first part, their heirs, guardian, advocates but the premium will continue to be accrued and paid to the party of the first part, and no objection shall be raised and even if we-party of the second part do object, the said objection do not stand due to this agreement. But if we-party of the second part, do further lease this land to any other person or if we use for any purpose whatsoever, then in that case We-party of the first part, our heirs, guardian would not object or dispute the same. 7. Till such time we-the party of the second part, our heirs, descendants shall continue to pay the rent as per the conditions to the party of the first part and their heirs, descendants as agreed, till such time we - the party of the first part shall not have any right to get vacated the said land or take possession in any manner. That means till the rent is being continuously paid, we- the party of the first part cannot take back the possession. 8. We - the party of the first part have given the said land on the leasehold basis, and the party of the first part and his heirs, descendants are eligible to sale, mortgage or to assign by keeping their rights unaffected. And in such case as above the lease rights of the land are sold or transferred in any other manner, that person shall have to pay rent amount every year over all years, as written above on the conditions of compliance of the lease agreement, if they are given by the party of the second part and the agreement shall be made as demanded by the party of the second part and as per instruction of party of the first part at the expenses of the party of the first part, the party of the second part will make the lease deed. C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 11– 9. On this land, if the party of the second part have to construct buildings, and applications are to be submitted to the office of Hon'ble Collector and other court or offices and any undertaking are to be submitted, the party of the first part shall do that and bind themselves and by giving such applications by the party of the first part, the party of the second part suffers any losses or expenses, the party of the second part is eligible to recover such amounts as owner from the party of the first part. 12. Whenever the land is given back by the party of the second part and the possession of the land is given to the party of the first part, at that time all the above rights are to be removed and in that the party of the first part will not raise any objection.” 12. From the terms of the conveyance deed dated 15th July, 1929, it is evident that the complete and clear title has not been passed on to the 2nd party in the said “lease deed”. As per the terms of the lease deed reproduced above, the lessor/assessee continues to remain the legal owner of such property and in certain circumstances as given in the agreement, the possession can revert back to the lessor/assessee. Accordingly, in our considered view, the complete title/ownership of the property has not been passed over to the lessee vide the above lease deed and accordingly, it is evident that the assessee/lessor continues to remain the title owner of such property in question, as per Revenue Records. 13. Section 2(14) of the Act defines \"capital asset\" to mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. Thus, property of “any kind”, if not falling within the exceptions enumerated in section 2(14) of the Act is a capital asset, whether or not connected with the business or profession of the assessee. The expression 'any kind' signifies the legislative intent of giving a very wide meaning to the word 'property'. In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 564, the term 'property' has been described by the Supreme Court as under: C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 12– \". . . 'highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on another's courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade-marks, copy-rights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having a money value, especially with reference to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being injured'. ...\" (p. 591) 14. In Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471 , the Supreme Court has observed that 'property' is a term of the widest import and, subject to any limitation which the context may require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can clearly hold or enjoy. 15. In CIT v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 37 the Calcutta High Court has held that \"a property is a bundle of rights which the owner can lawfully exercise to the exclusion of all others. He is entitled to use and enjoy it as he pleases provided he does not infringe any law of the State. 16. Therefore, given the wide import of “capital asset” under section 2 (14) of the Act and looking into the facts of the assessee’s case, which have been discussed in detail in the foregoing part of the order, we are of the considered view that the “ownership” title in the aforesaid property in question as per Revenue Records is a “capital asset” in the meaning of 2 (14) of the Act, which is capable of transfer and has in fact been transferred by way of “conveyance deed” dated 22-09-2008 in favour of the “auction purchaser” as per directions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. As noted in the order of the Gujarat High Court directing payment of compensation/consideration to the assessee, a specific “conveyance deed” was directed to be entered into between the assessee and the “auction purchaser”, so as to enable the latter to C.O. No. 35/Ahd/2018 Hasmukhlal K. Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 13– have exclusive possession and title to the said property in question. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that such consideration was received by the assessee towards transfer of “capital asset” within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act and hence liable to be taxed as “capital gains” in the hands of the assessee. In our view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has taken a reasonable approach in allowing the benefit of indexation on the cost of acquisition of such capital asset. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 11/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/02/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 10.02.2025(Dictated over dragon software by Hon’ble Member) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 10.02.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.02.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 11.02.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.02.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 11.02.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "