ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad v. Jasmin Jayendrabhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad

ITA 2492/AHD/2018 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 249220514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ADYPT9076C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2492/AHD/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad
Respondent Jasmin Jayendrabhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 03-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 13-04-2020
First Hearing Date 13-04-2020
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 28-12-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2492/AHD/2018 WITH C.O. 142 /AHD/2019 / ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 2010 I . T .O WARD - 2(2 ) (2) AHMEDABAD. VS. SHRI JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR 4/94 SUDERNAGAR FLATS NR. MANISH HALL NARANPURA AHMEDABAD . PAN: ADYPT9076C (APPLICANT) (RESPON D ENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.R.MAKWANA SR. D.R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSHI WITH SHRI BIREN SHAH A.R S / DATE OF HEARING : 08 / 01 / 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 / 03 /2021 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED A PPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CO IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 11 AHMEDABAD [ LD. CIT (A) IN SHORT] DATED 29/10 / 2018 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S . 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 16 / 10/2015 . THE A SSESS E E HAS FILED ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 2 CROSS OBJECTION IN THE REV E NUE S APPEAL S BEARING ITA NO . 2492 /AHD /2 018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 . 2. T HE R EVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S.68 OF IT ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. T HE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESS EE ALONG WITH KANJIBHAI DESAI WAS ENGAGED BY M/S RADHE GROUP OF DEVELOPERS FOR CARRY OUT THE WORK OF LAND AGGREGATION/ACQUISITION FOR IT (M/S RADHE GROUP OF DEVELOPERS) . M/S RADHE GROUP USED TO MAKES PAYMENT TO THE THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY OR THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATES THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE USED TO WITHDRAW MONEY FROM THE B ANK FOR MAKING THE ADVANCE PAYMENT TO ACQUIRE THE LANDS FROM THE AGRICULTURIST. HOWEVER WHEREVER THE DEAL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FROM THE AGRICULTURIST HAS NOT BEEN MATURED/MATERIALIZED DUE TO ANY REASON THE N T HE ASSESSEE USED TO DEPOSIT THE CASH IN BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH USED TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE RADHE GROUP OR ADJUSTED WITH FURTHER DEALING. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION REPRESENTS THE MONEY WHI CH HE EARLIER WITHDRAWN OUT OF THE FUND PROVIDED BY M/S RADHE GROUP. ACCORDINGLY THE QUESTION OF TREATING THE SUM DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE AS HE EXPLAINED THE SOU RCE OF MONEY. ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 3 4.1 HOWEVER THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT NO BUSINESS ME N WOULD LOCK THEIR /ITS MONEY IN A TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT CERTAIN. AS SUCH IN LAND DEALING PAYMENT ARE ONLY MADE AFTER CONFIRMATION OF DEAL S . HENCE T HERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE PAYMENT TO LANDLORD WITHOUT HAVING FINAL DEALING AND SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVING BACK CASH FOR NON FULFILMENT OF DEAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT OR DETAIL OF LAND OR FARMER FROM WHOM THE LAND WA S TO BE PURCH ASED. FURTHER IF SUCH DEALS HAPPEN STILL THERE WAS NO NEED TO GIVE FUND TO ACQUIRER OR AGGREGATOR INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY PAYING TO FARMERS ITSELF. FURTHER IF HE ACTUALLY WORKED AS LAND AGGREGATOR THEN HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN CASH TO FARMER S DIRECTLY INSTEAD OF D EPOSITING IN HIS OWN BANK AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF SHRI ASHISH PATEL DIRECTOR OF RADHE DEVELOPERS . 4.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS REPRESENTING THE UN ACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 32 40 410/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) . 6. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) FILED THE FUND MOVEMENT DETAILS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01 - 04 - 2008 TO 31 - 03 - 2009 AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK REPRESENT S AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL ON EARLIER OCCASION OUT OF THE FUND RECEIVED FROM M/S RADHE GROUP. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FURNISHED COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM M/S RADHE GROUP BALANCE SHEET CASH BOOK AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF M/S RADHE CONSULTANCY AND THEI R ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ALL THE ENTRIES OF FUND PROVIDED TO HIM ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S RADHE CONSULTANCY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED SOURCES OF FUND IN THE HAND OF M/S RADHE CONSULTANCY . THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY BASED ON ABOVE SUBMISSION AND AFTER ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 4 RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAW CONTENDED THAT ADDITION MADE IN HIS CASE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE A CT I S UNWARRANTED AND REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT IN TOTALITY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.8 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM ABOVE FACTS THAT RADHE CONSULTANCY FROM WHOM APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CASH TOWARDS LAND DEAL A ; S EXP LAINED BY APPELLANT IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND EVEN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN ITS CASE ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER 2011 FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT ORDERS PASSED CLEARLY PROVE THAT IDENTITY OF DEPOSITOR IS ESTABLISHED.! THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF RADHE CONSULTANCY AS WELL AS IN ITS RETURN OF ' INCOME AND CASH BOOK OF SUCH CONCERN CLEARLY PROVE THAT IT HAS EXPLAINED SOURCES FOR GIVING FUIR: - S TO APPELLANT. FURTHER THESE TRANSACTIONS ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CF SUCH CONCERN ALSO PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM RADHE CONSULTANCY. IT JS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EVEN MR. ASHISH PATEL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131(1 A) READ WITH SECTIO N 131 ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2014 HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT ALONG WITH KANJI DESAI WAS WORKING AS LANE AGGREGATORS FOR RADHE GROUP. THIS FACT IS ALSO FURTHER CONFIRMED BY MR. KANJI DESAI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131(1 A) ON 17 TH APRIL 2015 WHEREIN IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. EHIEJIAS STATED THAT HE ALONG WITH APPELLANT WAS WORKING AS LAND AGGREGATORS FOR RADHEGROUP. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN SUCH STATEMENT IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 10 MR. KANII DESAI HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT FOR CARRYING OUT LAND DEAL HE HAS RECEIVED_ FUNDS THROUGH RADHE DEVELOPERS (INDIA) LIMITED AND SUCH FUNDS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND GIVEN TO FARMER. HOWEVER IF LAND DEAL GOT CANCELLED HE USED TO DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. TH IS STATEMENT OF KANJI DESAI ALSO SUPPORTS'THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT HE WAS WORKING AS LAND AGGREGATOR FOR RADHE GROUPI - CONSIDERING THESE FACTS IT IS OBSERVED THAI'APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE YEAR OUT OF FUNDS REC EIVED FROM RADHE CONSULTANCY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES AS DISCUSSED HEISIN ABOVE AND SAME WERE NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE EITHER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF APPELLANT IN CURRENT ASSESSMENT YESROR THAT OF ASHISH PATEL FOR AY 2009 - 10 AND IFF SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEARS. WHEN'APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCES CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED O ; N PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES.: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I S ALSO OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SIMILAR FUNDS *ROM RADHE CONSULTANCY IN AY 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF RADHE CONSULTANCY WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT:YEARS WHEREIN ALSO ABOVE TRANSACTIONS WERE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE'SUBSTANTIAL REPAYMENT OF SUCH FUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 TO ABOVE CONCERN. THESE FACTS ALONG WITH EVIDENCES AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT HENCE ADDITION MADE BY AO TO THE EXTENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM RADHE CONSULTANCY CANNOT BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 5.9 SO FAR AS CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT CERTAIN CASH 'DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM T HE BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED IT IS FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED SUCH CASH FLOW TO AO AND CASH DEPOSITS AND''CASH WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT ARE APPARENT IN BANK STATEMENT OF BMCB. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT CASH WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT WERE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSE AND SANE IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT FOR SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS AND AS THE RE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL TIME GAP BETWEEN CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN OPENING CASH BALANCE O; : RS. 11 61 310 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE IN ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 5 EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR FUNDS RECEIVED FROM RADHE CONSULTANCY IN AY 2008 - 09 AND SAME HAS - PREEN ACCEPTED WHILE PASSING APPELLATE ORDER OR SAID ASSESSMEN YEAR HENCE CASH DEPOSITS OUT OF OPENING BALAN CE OR CASH WITHDRAWN DURING YEAR CANNOT BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. 8. BEIN G AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH CASH DOES NOT REPRESENT HI S UNDISCLOSED INCOME . 10. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ALL THE TRANSACTION BY FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM M/S R ADHE GROUP FOR THE WORK ASSIGNED TO HIM WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN ON EARLIER OCCASION AND ALSO DISCHARGED PRIMARY ONUS CAST UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 11. BOTH LEARNED D R AND A R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW TO THE EXTENT FAVORABLE TO THEM. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE CASE ON HAND CASH FOR RS. 4 32 40 410/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY THE AO. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 12.1 FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSI ON WE FIND THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH SHRI KANJIBHAI DESAI W AS WORKING AS LAND AGGREGATOR/ACQUIRER. SIMILAR CASH DEPOSIT S WERE ALSO MADE IN THE BANK OF KANJI BHAI WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ASHISH PATEL AND M/S RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD IN THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 6 CONSIDERATION . T HE REVENUE IN CASE OF SHRI KANJIBHAI DESAI TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK AS MONEY BELONG ING TO M/S RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD AND SHRI ASHISH PATEL. HOWEVER IN THE CASE ON HAND THE AO HAS MAD E THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT STAND WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT PARTIES FOR THE IDENTICAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH IS UNWARRANTED. IN OTH ER WORDS THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD. FOR THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK OF KANJIBHAI DESAI IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THOUGH THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TREATE D THE SAME AS EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY US IN ITA NO. 1226/AHD/2018 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THUS I N SUCH FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT TREAT SIMILAR TRANSACTION IN DIFFERENT MANNER WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE . 12.2 BESIDES THE ABOVE WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT NAMELY THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. FOR THE IDE NTITY THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE PAN/ADDRESS/BANK DETAILS/CONFIRMATION OF M/S RAD H E CONSULTANCY. 12.3 SIMILARLY FOR THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEE FILED CASH BOOK BANK BOOK BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF M/S RADHE CONSULTANCY AND GROUP W HICH IS SHOWING THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. 12.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 WITH CO NO.142 /AHD/2019 ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 7 COMING TO THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE IN 142/AHD/2019. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS CROSS OBJECTION : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT NOTI CE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD AS INVALID NOTICE AND UPHOLDING THE CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS VALID. 2. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES TO ADD ALTER AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 15. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON MERIT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO.2492/AHD/2018 VIDE PARAGRAPH NUMBER 12 OF THIS ORDER THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AS SUCH THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. FURTHERMORE THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT HE HA S BEEN INSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CO IN THE EVENT IT SUCCEEDS BEFORE THE ITAT ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO AS INFRUCTUOUS. 16. IN THE RESULT THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED AS INF RUCTUOUS . 17. IN THE COMBINED RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS IN F RUCTUOUS. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 /03 / 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - (MADHUMITA ROY ) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) A HMEDABAD; DATED 03 /03 /2021 MANISH