M/s. Bhoomi Tractors Sales & Services, Valsad v. The ACIT.,Vapi Circle,, Vapi

CO 112/AHD/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11220523 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAGFB8071J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number CO 112/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Bhoomi Tractors Sales & Services, Valsad
Respondent The ACIT.,Vapi Circle,, Vapi
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 23-07-2015
Next Hearing Date 23-07-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NOS. 775 TO 777/AHD/2013 AND CO NOS. 111 TO 113/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 TO 2008-09 ACIT VAPI CIRCLE VAPI V/S. M/S BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES & SERVICES N.H. NO. 8 KILLA PARDI PAN : AAGFB 8071 J / // / (APPELLANT) / // / (RESPONDENT / CROSS-OBJECTOR) REVENUE BY : SHRI KRISHNA MORARI CIT-DR SHRI NARENDRA SINGH SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR AR !' # $%&/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 23/07/2015 '( # $%& / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/07/2015 )* )* )* )*/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT: THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROS S-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) VALSAD ALL DATED 31.12.2012 PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 AND 2008-09. SINCE THESE A PPEALS AND CROSS- OBJECTIONS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 775/AHD/2013REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2006-0 7 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO IS INVALID AS THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION143(2) HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED B EFORE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 142(2A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON 19.06.2012. THE CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT NO NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER:- 7.2 DECISION : I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. TO VERIFY T HE FACTUAL POSITION THE CASE RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS CAREFULLY. THE SEQUENCE EVENTS OF ASSESSMENT & RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO FINALIZATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT IS PRODUCE D HERE TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS ARISING OUT THE CONTENTION BY THE APPELLANT T HAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BEFORE COMPLETION OF RE-ASSESSMENT; FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07) AS PER ASSESSMENT RECORD R.O.I. FILED ON 31.12.2006 DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 12.03.2007 143(2) 27.07.2007 HEARING 12.09.2007 / RECEIVED 31.07.2007 142(1) 27.08.2008 HEARING ON 22.09.2008 / RECEIV ED 28.08.2008 142(1) 06.10.2008 HEARING ON 22.10.2008 RECEIV ED 06.10.2008 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(B)- 22.10.08- HEARING ON 03.11.08- RECEIVED 22.10.08 142(1) - 22.10.08 HEARING ON 03.11.08 - RECEIVED 2 2.10.08 143(3) - 12.12.2008 SERVED ON 30.12.08 154 - 18.03.2009 SERVED ON 27.03.09 FRINGE BENEFIT FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 :- RETURN FILED ON - 1.12.2008 115WE(2) - 03.12.2007 HEARING 3.11.07 - RECEIVED 04. 12.07 115 WH - 17.11.2008 - RECEIVED - 17.11.2008 115WG - 12.12.2008 RE-ASSESSMENT FOR ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07:- NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 22.09.2010 - SERVED ON 22.09. 10 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 30.06.2011- HEARING - 13.07 .11- RECEIVED 09.07.11 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 04.11.2011- HEARING 14.11.2 011 ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 3 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DTD 17.11.2011- HEARING-25.11.201 1-RECEIVED - 18.11.11 142(2A) APPROVED BY CIT VALSAD FOR ASSTT. YEARS 2006 -07 TO 09-10 ON 20.12.2011 RECEIVED ON 23.12.2011. ORDER U/S.120(5) RECEIVED BY THE ACIT- 12.06.2012- HE ARING FIXED 18.06.12 SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE - 18.06.12 DRAFT ORDER SENT FOR APPROVAL OF THE JCIT VAPI-18.0 6.12 ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT VAPI U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 19.06.12. 4. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT(A) HI MSELF HAS VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND DATE-WISE TABULATED THE ISSUA NCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO RECORDED AT PAGE NO.17 OF HIS ORDER THAT IT IS SEEN FROM ABOVE THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF AN Y SUCH NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAVING BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS CONFIRM ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE HE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURNISHED COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DATED 23.09.2013 IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE DATE OF I SSUE AND SERVICE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2). FOR READY REFERENCE THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. A.Y. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICE U/S 148 NOTICE U/S 143(2) 2006-07 BHOOMI TRACTOR SALES AND SERVICES ISSUED ON 22.09.2010 AND SERVED BY POST ON 23.09.2010 ISSUED ON 18.11.2011 AND SERVED BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE ON 23.11.2011 2007-08 BHOOMI TRACTOR SALES AND SERVICES ISSUED ON 22.09.2010 AND SERVED BY POST ON 23.09.2010 ISSUED ON 18.11.2011 AND SERVED BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE ON 23.11.2011 2008-09 BHOOMI TRACTOR SALES AND SERVICES ISSUED ON 22.09.2010 AND SERVED BY POST ON 23.09.2010 ISSUED ON 18.11.2011 AND SERVED BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE ON 23.11.2011 ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 4 6. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS DULY ISSUED AND SERVED BY AFFIXTURE; AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER CONFIRMED THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) IN THE ABOVE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THE COP Y OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 18.11.2011 THE REPORT OF THE NOTICE SERVER D ATED 18.11.2011 AND PANCHANAMA DATED 23.11.2011 WITH REGARD TO SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS DULY SERVED THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS POINT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W .S. 147 R.W.S 143(2A) SHOULD BE HELD TO BE VALID. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HE STATED THAT IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO ISSUANCE OF EA CH AND EVERY NOTICES. HOWEVER THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 18.11.2011. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED FOR THE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE. HOWEV ER ON ENQUIRY FROM US THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 30.06.2011 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DENIED MENTIONING OF ISSUANCE O F ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) IN THE ORDER SHEET. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE 3 OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 17.11.2011. THIS NOTICE DATED 17.11.20 11 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.11.2011. THIS NOTICE WAS U/S 14 2(1). HE STATED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MENTION ABOUT THE ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 5 FROM TIME TO TIME THERE COULD BE NO REASON WHY THE NOTICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S 143(2) ON 18.11.2011 IS NOT MENTION ED ANYWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE ORDER-SHEET. THE LD. CO UNSEL HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 17.11.201 1 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.11.2011 THEN WHY THE NOTICE DAT ED 18.11.2011 CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S 143(2) COULD NOT BE SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE. AS PER CLAIM OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON 18 .11.2011 THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS CLOSED AND THEREFORE NOTICE WAS SERVE D THROUGH AFFIXTURE. HE STATED THAT WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) CAN BE SERVE D ON 18.11.2011 THEN OBVIOUSLY THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) THE PREMISES WAS CLOSED IS FALSE. HE AL SO STATED THAT THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF NOTICE I.E. THE SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY IF THE OTHER NORMAL MODE OF SERVICE FAILS. HE REFERRED TO CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS OF ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE NOTED BY THE C IT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT ALWAYS IN THE ORIGINAL HEARING AS WELL AS IN THE S ET ASIDE HEARING ALL THE NOTICES ISSUED WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. THEN HOW COME ONLY FOR THE PURPORTED NOTICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S 143(2) THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS CLOSED. HE ALSO REFERRE D TO THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23.09.2013 ON THE STRENGTH OF WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) WAS SERVED. HE STATED THAT IN THE LETTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIO NED THAT NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON FILE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER EVER CONFIRMED THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) IN THE ABOVE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED/SERVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARED IN PE RSON BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION WITH HIM THE A SSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE AGREED ORALLY IF NOTHING IS GIVEN IN WRITING THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF THE ADMITTANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE C IT(A) WRONGLY MENTIONED ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 6 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THE FACT OF NO N-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREFORE THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ONLY LI MITED QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE CHRONOL OGICAL DETAILS BEGINNING WITH FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND A LL NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING DURING THE ASSESSME NT OF FRINGE BENEFIT AND DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) HA S PREPARED THIS CHART HIMSELF AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORD CARE FULLY. THUS AT THE RELEVANT TIME ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THERE WAS NO COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND NO EVIDENCE OF AFFIXTURE OF ANY SUCH NOTICE UPO N THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 7.2 IN PAGE 17 IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE CONFRONTED THESE FACTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MUST HAVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM IN PERSON IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADMITTED ABOUT NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE TILL THE D ATE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) OR TILL THE DATE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ALLEGED NOTICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S 143(2) ON 18.11.2011 WAS NOT ON RECORD. THEN HOW COME IT SUB SEQUENTLY SURFACED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TRIED TO EXPLAI N THAT THERE IS A BULKY ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND MAY BE THESE NOTICES MIGHT H AVE BEEN PLACED IN SOME OTHER FILES OR MIGHT HAVE ESCAPED FROM THE NOT ICE OF THE CIT(A). WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS METICULOUSLY MENTIONED THE IS SUANCE AND SERVICE OF VARIOUS NOTICES INCLUDING THE NOTICE U/S 148 142( 1) AND HAS CHRONOLOGICALLY ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 RECORDED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANC E OR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON EACH DATE OF HEARING. THERE IS NO MENTIONING OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 18.11.2011. THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE ORDER-SHEET ALSO THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 18.11.2011. TH US APART FROM THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NOW PLACED BEFORE US THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH NOTICE WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE NOTICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE GROUND THAT ON 18.1 1.2011 THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS CLOSED AND THEREFORE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED BY NOTICE SERVER. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL EV ENTS OF THE ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE AS MENTIONED BY THE CIT(A) IT IS EVIDENT THAT ONE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 17.11.2011 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.11.2011. WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1 ) CAN BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.11.2011 THROUGH NOTICE SERVER HOW T HE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO BE CLOSED FOR THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2). FROM THE CHRONOLOGY OF DATE-WISE EVENTS WE FIND THAT SE VERAL NOTICES AND ORDERS WERE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME AND EACH AND EVERY NO TICE/ORDER HAVE BEEN DULY SERVED AT THE SAME PREMISES. FROM THE TOTALIT Y OF THESE FACTS WE ONLY SAY THAT THE PURPORTED NOTICE DATED 18.11.2011 (PHO TOCOPY OF SAME IS PLACED BEFORE US AND CLAIMED ITS SERVICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE ) LACKS CREDENCE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THERE IS NO CONTEMPORIOUS E VIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM OF THE REVENUE. ON THE OTHER HAND ALL CONTEMPORIOUS EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS EVER ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HEL D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE INVALID FOR WANT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 9. THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS N EED NO ADJUDICATION ITA NOS.775 TO 777 & CO 111 TO 113 AHD 2013 BHOOMI TRACTORS SALES& SERVICES AYS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 8 BECAUSE ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS BEEN Q UASHED NO ADDITION WILL SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. 10. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2 008-09 ARE IDENTICAL; THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREI N HE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THOSE YEARS ALSO SINCE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN QUASHED OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPE AL AND ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS NEED NO A DJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES CROS S-OBJECTIONS ARE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE AND THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST JULY 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/07/2015 BIJU T. PS )* # $+ )+$ )* # $+ )+$ )* # $+ )+$ )* # $+ )+$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ !- / CONCERNED CIT 4. !- ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. +01 $ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 13 4' / GUARD FILE . )*! )*! )*! )*! / BY ORDER TRUE COPY 5 55 5/ // / 6 6 6 6 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD