The ITO, GNR Ward-1,, Gandhinagar v. Shri Dilipbhai Ambalal Patel,, Gandhinagar

ITA 135/AHD/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13520514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ASEPP2927R
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 135/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, GNR Ward-1,, Gandhinagar
Respondent Shri Dilipbhai Ambalal Patel,, Gandhinagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags Section 54F
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2017
First Hearing Date 11-07-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 16-01-2014
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] I.T.A. NO.135/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER .....APPELLANT GNR WARD-1 GANDHINAGAR VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL .RESPONDENT 7 PATEL SOCIETY ADALAJ GANDHINAGAR-382421 [PAN : ASEPP 2927 R] APPEARANCES BY: VK SINGH FOR THE APPELLANT DK PARIKH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 29.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 30.11.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) GA NDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE A S FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT SALE PRICE AS RS.67 88 100/- INSTEAD OF RS.1 86 98 130/- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. SO FAR AS FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS CONCERNED IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SALE CONSIDERATION STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION A DOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 6 VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME AND PROCEEDED TO REFER THE VALUATION TO DEPART MENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY AS AGAINST THE STATED SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.67 88 100/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE DVOS VALUATION AT RS .1 86 98 130/- FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO REVERSED THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE WELL REASON ED CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED BY THE CIT(A). IT IS INDEED TRUE AS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH ENABLES OR JUSTIFIES ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTI ON OF REFERRING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD TO THE DVO UNLESS THE STAMP DUTY VAL UATION OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IS HIGHER THAN THE STATED SALES CONSIDERATION. THA T CERTAINLY IS NOT THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 5. SO FAR AS SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS CONCERNED RELEVANT FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE RELIEF CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: NOW COMING TO THE INVESTMENT PART OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE PURCHASED TWO FLATS NOS. 302 AND 303 FROM KALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54F THE LAW HAS MA NDATED TO PURCHASE / CONSTRUCT (PURCHASE IN THIS CASE) ONE YEAR BEFORE A ND TWO YEARS' AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE'S LAND WAS SOLD ON 28/01/ 2010 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TIME TILL 31/01/2012 TO PURCHASE A PROPE RTY. THE ACT HAD CLARIFIED INVESTMENT IN SOLITARY PROPERTY BY USING ARTICLE 'A '. ON THE FIRST ASPECT ONE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S 54F IF IT IS PURCHAS ED. THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23/02/2012 - REPL Y OF KALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. IN THE INQUIRY CON DUCTED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WITH KALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ONE SHRI NARAIN DAS MAHERCHANDANI HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN POSSESSION AS NO T AGREEMENT/SALE DEED WERE MADE. FURTHERMORE TILL THIS JUNCTURE NEITHER POSSESSION NOR SALE DEED WERE EXECUTED AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE TILL DATE I.E. AFTER ELAPSE OF 3 YEARS FROM SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT THE PROPERTY IS TREATED AS SOLD ONLY WHEN DEED(S) TOOK PLACE. FURTHER AS PER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT THE TRANSACTIO N IS STATED TO BE SETTLED (COMPLETE) WHEN THE POSSESSION OF MONEY AND GOODS A RE HANDED OVER BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS. HERE NOT THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID BOOKING AMOUNT ETC. TO THE BUILDER BUT NEITHER POSS ESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE NOR SALE DEED WAS MADE. GLEANING ALL T HESE FACTS THE PURCHASE COULD NOT BE SAID WITHIN TWO YEARS (EVEN THREE YEAR S IN THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTION THOUGH NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE) AS PER AMBIT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 6 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO REVERSED THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND O BSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT FOR RS.15 00 000/- FOR PURCHASE OF TWO FLATS NO. 302 AND 303 FROM KALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LIMITED A ND SUCH DEDUCTION WAS DENIED TO APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE INQUI RY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT THE SAID BUILDER HAS CONFIRMED T HAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN POSSESSION AS NO AGREEMENT/SALE DEED WAS MADE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT EVEN AFTER A LAPSE OF THREE YEARS FROM SALE OF LAND APPELLANT HAS NOT OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THE FLATS HENCE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 54F CANNOT BE GIVEN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ONLY SOLITARY PROPERTY SHOULD BE GIVEN AS DEDUCTION. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSER VED THAT IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF FLATS PRESCRIBED INVESTMENT IS REQUIRE D TO BE CONSIDERED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM SALE OF LAND. ON THE OTHER HAND APPE LLANT HAS ARGUED THAT WITH THE INTENTION OF PURCHASING THE FLATS IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN THE SCHEME STATED HEREIN ABOVE AND INTENTION OF APPELLANT IS T O FULLY COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F. HOWEVER THE SAID BUILDER HAS NOT GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS D ECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54F IS AVAILABLE FOR MORE THAN ONE HOUSE-PROPERTY PURCHASED BY IT AND WH EN PURCHASE OF FLAT IS THROUGH BUILDER PERIOD OF INVESTMENT MENTIONED IN S ECTION 54F IS FOR THREE YEARS AND NOT FOR TWO YEARS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE FACTS AND PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN CASE OF PURCHASE IS CONCERNED THE HON'BLE MUMBAI I TAT IN CASE OF KISHORE H. GALAIYA V/S ITO 137 ITD 227 HAS HELD THAT BOOKIN G OF FLAT WITH A BUILDER WAS A CASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOT PURCHASE OF RESI DENTIAL FLAT AND THEREFORE TIME PERIOD APPLICABLE WOULD BE 3 YEARS. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE WHETHER APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR TWO FLATS OR SINGULAR FLAT IS CONCERNED IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HA S MADE BOOKING FOR TWO ADJOINING FLATS AND AS PER UNIT PLAN SUBMITTED IT IS PROVED THAT BOTH THE FLATS ARE COMBINED INTO ONE UNIT AND ONE COMMON WALL ENTR ANCE HENCE IN ANY CASE ONLY ONE FLAT IS PURCHASED. EVEN HYDERABAD I.T.A.T. IN CASE OF VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM V/S ITO [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 542 HAS H ELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 54F READ WITH SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS -EXEMPTION OF IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE [NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 - WHETHER EXPRESSION 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' APPEARING IN SECTI ONS 54 AND 54F HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN A SENSE THAT BUILDING SHOULD BE OF A RESIDENTIAL NATURE AND WORD 'A' SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO IND ICATE A SINGULAR NUMBER - HELD YES - ASSESSEE OWNER OF A RESIDENTI AL PROPERTY ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTI ON OF FLATS WITH A ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 6 DEVELOPER - UNDER AGREEMENT ASSESSEE RECEIVED SEVE N FLATS TOWARDS HIS SHARE - HE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN - WHETHER ASSESSEE COULD BE ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F IN RESPECT OF ALL SEVEN FLATS - HELD Y ES [PARAS 8 AND 9] [LN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SMT. V.R. KARPAGAM V/S ITO I T APPEAL NO. 1082 (MDS.) OF 2010 THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. CHENNAI B ENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - EXEMPTION OF IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE [MEA NING OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 - WHETHER IN CONTE XT OF SECTION 54F 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A SINGUL AR AND MOREOVER IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS SHOULD HAVE A SINGLE DOOR NUMBER ALLOTTED TO IT - HELD YES - ASSESSEE HAD ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE 'H1 LTD. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A P IECE OF LAND OWNED BY HER - AS PER AGREEMENT ASSESSEE WAS TO RECEIVE 43 75 PER CENT OF BUILT UP AREA AFTER DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS TRANSLATE D TO FIVE FLATS - ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON VALUE OF FIVE FLATS - REVENUE AUTHORITIES HOWEVER RESTRICTED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO ONE FLAT ONLY - WHETHER IN V IEW OF AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCT ION IN RESPECT OF ALL FIVE FLATS RECEIVED BY HER IN LIEU OF LAND SHE HAD PARTED WITH - HELD YES [PARA 8] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]' THUS THE HON'BLE ITATS REFERRED SUPRA HAVE OBSERVE D THAT INVESTMENT IN 54F IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SINGLE INVESTMENT AS OB SERVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER 5.3 SO FAR AS ISSUE OF POSSESSION IS CONCERNED IT OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS BOOKED TWO FLATS IN SCHEME OF SHRI LAKSHMI BALAJI S TATUS WHICH IS NOT DENIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER OR BUILDER IN REPLY DATED 23RD FEBRUARY 2012 FILED IN RESPONSE TO INFORMATION-UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IT IS NOT THE OBSERVATION THAT BOOKING MADE BY APPELLANT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE REPLY OF THE BUILDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 13 AND 14 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY STATES THE PAYMENT DETAILS MADE BY APPELLAN T AGAINST BOOKING OF THE FLAT AND FROM SUCH DETAILS IT IS EMERGING THAT APPE LLANT HAS SOLD LAND ON 28TH JANUARY 2010 AND BOOKING OF THE FLAT AND ITS INITI AL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. EVEN FURTHER INSTALMEN TS ARE PAID IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2010 APRIL 2010 AND FEBRUARY 2011. THE BU ILDER HAS NOT STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT PAID INSTALMENTS AS CALLED BY THE M. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE BOOKING OF THE FLATS FOR ACQUIRING THEM AND NOT JUST TO GAIN UNDUE ADVANTAGE UNDER SECTION 54F OF T HE ACT. SOME OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS (NEWS PAPER CUTTINGS) DEMONSTRATING LITIGATION AND THE COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST BUILDER ARE ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF APPELLANT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F O F THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID SECTION AND POSSES SION OF SUCH PROPERTY HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THE BUILDER WHICH IS BEYOND THE CON TROL OF APPELLANT. ON ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 6 THESE FACTS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F CANNOT BE D ENIED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF NARASIMHA RAJU RUDRA RAJU V/S AC IT [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 90 (HYDERABAD - TRIB.) WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - EXEMPTION OF IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE [CON DITIONS PRECEDENT] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - WHETHER CONDITION PRECEDE NT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F IS ONLY THAT CAPITAL GAIN S REALIZED FROM SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTED BY ASSESSEE A ND INVESTED EITHER IN PURCHASING OR IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUS E - HELD YES - WHETHER ONCE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES THAT CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED ON TRANSFER HAS BEEN INVESTED EITHER IN PURCHASING A R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EVEN THOUGH TR ANSACTIONS ARE NOT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AND AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW THAT WOULD NOT DISENTITLE ASSESSEE FROM AVAILING BENEFIT UNDER SEC TION 54F - HELD YES [PARA 11] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]' THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.V.A THARABAI V/S DY. CIT ITA NO. 1894/MDS/2011 RELIED U PON BY APPELLANT SQUARELY APPLIES ON FACTS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT W HEN THE ASSESSEE MAKES INVESTMENT BY INVESTING IN LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE FACT ABOUT BONAFIDE TRANSACTION TO CLAIM EXEMPT ION BUT DUE TO CIVIL LITIGATION IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE BEYOND C ONTROL OF ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT SPENT TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HO USE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT S TATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL THE ASSESSEE TO DO IMPOSSIBLE THING NOT IN HIS HAND S AND THE PART OF THE SECTION REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS IS NOT RELEVANT WHEN THE UTILISED AMOUNT IS TOWARDS SUCH EXEMPTION. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY APPELLANT AND DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 9. WE SEE NO REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE WELL REASO NED CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) NOR COULD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITIES IN THE SAME. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE BONAFIDE INVESTED WELL WITHIN TIME THE AMOUNTS IN THE FLATS WHICH ARE USE D AS ONE UNIT AND THE DELAY IN POSSESSION WAS DUE TO FACTORS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE FAULTED MERELY BECAUSE THE POSSESSION COULD NOT BE OBTAINED. HOWEVER SO FAR ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION IN TWO FLATS IS CONCERNED LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT HE WISHES TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F. TO THIS E XTENT HE CONCEDES THE APPEAL BUT SO FAR AS DELAY IN POSSESSION IS CONCERNED LEARNED CIT(A)S RELIEF IS QUITE JUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 135/AHD/2014 ITO VS. DILIPBHAI AMBALAL PATEL A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 6 THE LAW APPEARS TO BE WELL SETTLED IN THIS REGARD AND AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER AS WELL NO SPECIFIC INFIRMITIES WERE POINTED OUT BY T HE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIR ETY OF THE CASE WE APPROVE THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFE RE IN THE MATTER. 10. GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 **BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ......6 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ATTCHED.30.11.2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 30.11.2017........ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 30.11.2017... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . 30.11.2017..... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: