Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shri Jaywant S. Pattani, Huf,, ... vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 20 June, 2018
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'lh' अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
सव ी राजपाल यादव या यक सद य एवं olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL;,
lnL; के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2845/Ahd/2016
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14)
Jaywant S. Pattani HUF, बनाम/ CIT(A)-6,
C/o CA Milind K. Mehta, Vs. Ahmedabad.
9, Professors' Colony,
Nr. Vijay Cross Roads,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad - 380 009
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AABHJ 1757 N
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. (!"यथ / Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2846/Ahd/2016
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14)
Shashikant B. Pattani HUF, बनाम/ ACIT,
C/o CA Milind K. Mehta, Vs. Circle - 1,
9, Professors' Colony, Bhavnagar.
Nr. Vijay Cross Roads,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad - 380 009
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AANHS 2103 P
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. (!"यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Surendra Modiani, A.R.
!"यथ क$ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R.
ु वाई क$ तार)ख /
सन Date of Hearing 31/05/2018
घोषणा क$ तार)ख /Date of Pronounce ment 20/06/2018
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year -2013-14
-2-
आदे श / O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.(i) CIT(A)-6/247/15-16, (ii) CIT(A)-6/246/15-16 dated 27/09/2016 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28/09/2015 & 29/09/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
Since the common issue is arising in the appeals filed by both the assessee, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of brevity.
First, we take up ITA 2845/Ahd/2016
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
"1. The ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the disallowance of interest on borrowings to the tune of Rs.46,481/-
2. The ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad also erred in confirming disallowance of professional fees to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-.
3. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter or delete above grounds of appeal."
3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest expenses made by the AO for Rs.46,481/- under the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D.
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -3-
4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is HUF and deriving its income under the head capital gain and interest. The assessee in its balance sheet has shown investment in the mutual fund, equity shares and PPF aggregating to Rs.52,20,853/- only. The assessee simultaneously has claimed interest expenses in its income tax return. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that borrowed fund had been invested in the securities which would generate exempt income. Therefore, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act needs to be made.
However, the assessee on being confronted by the AO submitted that its own funds exceed the amount of investment. Therefore, no disallowance can be made under the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D.
However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that it has failed to prove the source of funds for making the investments as discussed above. Accordingly, the AO worked out the disallowance of interest expenses u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D for Rs.46,481/- and added to the total income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A). The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that its own funds exceed the amount of investments. Therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted given the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of UTI Bank Ltd. reported in 32 Taxman.com 370. However, the learned ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -4- CIT(A) disregarded the submission of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under:
"9. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. It is seen that the AO has worked out the disallowance of expenditure as per the provision of section 14A. The appellant has relied on various case laws and the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of UTI Bank Ltd. 32 Taxman.com 370, however, the facts are different and distinguishable as the assessee could not prove before the AO that he has sufficient interest free fund for making tax free investment. In the case of UTI Bank the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has noted that the assessee had interest free fund of Rs.3404/- crores and tax free investment was only 589 crores thus the interest free fund were far in excess of the investment. However, in the appeal under consideration the appellant could not justify that the interest free fund was given out of excess fund available. Since the AO has disallowed expenditure as per rule 8D therefore the same is upheld. The ground is dismissed."
Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us.
The learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the AO, whereas, the learned AR before us filed a paper book comprising pages from 1 to 34 and reiterated the submissions as made before the learned CIT(A).
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the owned funds of the assessee exceed the amount of investment as on 31st March 2013 as evident from its balance sheet which is placed on Page 12 of the Paper book. The relevant extract of the balance sheet is reproduced as under:
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -5- Liabilities Rs. Rs. Assets Rs. Rs.
Capital Account 6,59,71,110 Fixed Assets
Swift Desire 5,40,962
Unsecured Interest- Investments
free loans: Equity Shares 3,55,652
Jaywant Pattani Family Mutual Fund 30,20,044 33,75,696
Trust 19,50,000 Units
Jaywant S. Pattani 2,60,000
Avni J. Pattani 3,50,000
Maitryi J. Pattani 2,50,000 Fixed Deposits
Rupa J. Pattani 11,50,000 39,60,000 in Bank:
Fixed Deposits
in ICICI Bank 3,00,30,000
From the above, it is clear that the owned funds of the assessee exceed the amount of investment. In such facts and circumstances, a presumption can be drawn that the investment has been made out of the owned funds of the assessee. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 wherein it was held as under:-
"The principle therefore would be that if there are funds available both interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal"
Similarly, we also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:-
"Where assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -6- have to be presumed that investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with Assessee and no disallowance was warranted u/s 14A."
Similarly, we also find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of UTI Bank Ltd. reported in 32 Taxmann.com 370 where the headnote reads as under :
"If there are sufficient interest free funds to meet tax free investments, they are presumed to be made from interest free funds and not loaned funds and no disallowance can be made under section 14A"
In view of above proposition, we hold that no disallowance of interest expense claimed by the assessee can be made under the provision of Section14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of IT Rules. Hence, we reverse the order of authorities below. The AO is directed to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
7. The second issue raised by the assessee that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.3,20,000/- on account of professional fees.
The assessee during the year has shown gross interest income of Rs.63,79,238/- only, which was offered to tax as income from other sources. The assessee against such interest income has claimed an expense of Rs.5,60,000/- under the professional head fees. The assessee claimed to have made the payment of professional fees for availing the services about its investment activities. The services availed by the ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -7- assessee were confirmed by Shri Milind Mehta, CA, Authorities Representative, and service provider to the assessee. The Authorities Representative in its submissions submitted that a lot of efforts are required for getting the better yield out of various options available for the investments.
However, the AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the amount of professional charges paid by the assessee does not commensurate with the market rate. The AO also observed that Shri Mehta is acting as a practicing Charted Accountant and not investment consultant. Therefore, the AO made a disallowance of Rs.3,20,000/- out of a total claim of Rs.5,60,000/- by making an addition to the total income of the assessee.
8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A). The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the fees were not paid to the related party and the AO is not expected to decide the reasonableness of the expenses. The assessee with the help of such professional services has made the investments as detailed under:
Date Nature of investment Amount
Invested
(Rs.)
30-04-2012 Unique Agmart Bill discount 2,00,000
24-05-2012 Fixed Deposit with HDFC Ltd. 50,00,000
26-07-2012 Unique Agmart Bill discount 2,00,000
12-10-2012 Siddarth Canmar Mill discount 2,00,000
17-10-2012 Fixed Deposit with JP Associates Ltd. 1,40,00,000
04-01-2013 Siddharth Canmart Bill discount 5,00,000
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year -2013-14
-8-
The assessee also submitted that the amount of investments was quite huge, therefore, the reasonableness of the expenses cannot be questioned. However, the learned CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under:
"13. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant has paid professional fee of Rs.5,60,000/- against the interest income arising out of various FDs with bank under the income from other sources. The above professional fee was paid to the CA of the appellant Shri Milind Mehta who has represented the case during the appellate proceedings also. The AO noted that Shri Mehta is practicing CA and does not have any experience in investment consultancy and noted that the quantum of investment do not justify the fees paid therefore disallowed Rs.3,20,000/- out of Rs.5,60,000/- shown by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the A.R./CA Shri M.K. Mehta was asked to furnish the detail of services rendered for the professional fee received by him. The A.R. has submitted the details for which he has charged professional fee of Rs.5,60,000/- as under:
Date Nature of investment Amount
Invested (Rs.)
30-4-12 Unique Agmart Bill discounted 2,00,000
24-5-2012 Fixed Deposit with HDFC Ltd 50,00,000
26-7-12 Unique Agmart Bill discounted 2,00,000
12-10-12 Siddharth Conmart Bill discounted 2,00,000
17-10-2012 Fixed Deposit with JP Associates Ltd. 1,40,00,000
04-1-2013 Siddharth Conmart Bill discounted 5,00,000
13.1 Thus it is seen that the appellant got some bill discounted and made FD for which professional charges of Rs.5,60,000/- was paid is not justified and the same cannot be linked with the interest income shown from income from other sources. The provisions of section 57(iii) is very clear that any expenditure laid down or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income is allowable. There should be direct nexus between them.
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14 -9- 13.2 Reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 TAXMAN 169 (SC) where it is held that the payment through account payee cheque is not conclusive / sufficient to decide the genuineness of the transactions -
"We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submission. The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the material available on record and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real one. May be the money came by way of bonk cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence."
13.3 Reliance is also placed in the following decisions and case laws where it is held that substance is more important than the form and the AO is empowered to bring the hidden aspect of the transaction. 13.3.1 In the case of Surnati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 TAXMAN 89 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "There was no dispute that the amounts were received by the appellant from various race clubs on the basis of winning tickets presented by her. What was disputed was that they were really the winnings of the appellant from the races. This raised the question whether the apparent could be considered as real. Apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities."
13.3.2 The issue of lifting of corporate veil was discussed by the various courts and certain guidelines were made. In the case of K. Ramaswamy vs. CIT - 261 ITR 358 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court followed the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 held that in cases where the same persons entered into transactions though by introducing a corporate personality into some of those transactions, the income-tax ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 10 -
authorities are entitled to pierce of veil of corporate personality and look at the reality of the transaction. The Court in that case observed:
"... It is true that from juristic point of view the company is Q legal personality entirely distinct from its members and the company is capable of enjoying rights and being subjected to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members. But in certain exceptional cases the Court is entitled to lift the veil of the corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade... ."(p. 710) 13.3.3 In the case of CIT vs. Indian Express News Papers 238 ITR 70 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under:-
The fact that the money was not paid directly but was shown as having been invested in the subsidiary company was not decisive of the true character of the transaction. The mere fact that the investment company was a distinct legal entity did not by itself establish that the purported investment was a genuine investment which assessee-company had made for securing benefits to itself by way of trading or carrying on business through that subsidiary. The impugned sum was paid to the Bombay company on the same day on which it was paid to the investment company. Though the investment company was purported to charge interest in the first year, subsequently no interest at all was charged to the Bombay company on that sum. It was not the assessee's case that the money was returned by the investment company subsequently with interest or that the assessee received dividends from out of the investments made by it in that company.
It is well-settled that the corporate veil of a company can be lifted for the purpose of ascertaining the real character of a transaction, if that transaction was a fraudulent one or was intended to evade payment of tax. While legitimate tax avoidance is always permissible, the devices adopted to evade payment of tax, however, are not permissible; though the dividing line is not always easy to draw, such a line does exist. The true character of the transaction here clearly was one of an advance of Rs. 10 lakhs by the assessee to the Bombay company for whose benefit ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 11 -
that sum was obviously intended and had only been channeled through the investment company. The Tribunal had failed to notice the facts and had also erred in adopting the wrong approach for the purpose of deciding as to whether the amount disallowed was a sum which could properly fail within the ambit of section 36(1)(iii). The amount disallowed was the amount paid on amounts borrowed, but not used for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. Rs. 10 lakhs "invested' in the investment company, being in substance and reality an amount advanced to the Bombay company for financing the construction undertaken by it at Bombay, could not be said to be an amount which formed port of the capital borrowed for the purpose of the assessee's business.
13.4 Considering the facts and decision mentioned above I am of the view that the AO has rightly disallowed the professional fee payment against interest income therefore addition of Rs.3,20,000/- is confirmed.
The ground is dismissed."
Being aggrieved by order of learned CIT(A) assessee is in the second appeal before us. The assessee before us has submitted as under:
"iv) Appellant's submissions
a) It is submitted that the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not properly appreciated information furnished during assessment and appeal proceedings and the disallowance is based merely on their own personal opinion and judgment exercised in a manner not contemplated under S.58(2) read with S.40A(2).
b) That the appellant has paid professional fees is not in dispute but both authorities have held a biased view about incapability of CAs to act as investment advisor. They have chosen to ignore a submission that due to their professional education, CAs are versatile professionals and there are large firms rendering a wide variety of professional services, not just Auditing and Taxation.
c) Although gross taxable interest of Rs.64.03 lakh from loan, time deposits and bill discounting income was offered under the head ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 12 -
'Income from Other Sources' in computation of income furnished during assessment and appeal, both the AO and Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to see a link' between investments and such income offered to tax. AO ignored entries of interest earned during the year from investments, shown in a copy of ledger account of 'Interest on NCDs & Company FDs' submitted during scrutiny. Even assuming though not admitting, that no taxable income was earned during the year from investments made with professional services, the all-important condition for allowability of expenditure is the purpose of earning taxable income in view of ruling of the Apex court in Rajendra Prasad Moody v. CIT, 115 ITR 519. The judgment says, "S. 57(iii) does not require that this purpose must be fulfilled in order to qualify the expenditure for deduction. It does not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned".
d) Commissioner(Appeals) has completely ignored a list of activities comprising the professional services rendered in connection with investment of funds of appellant, furnished at para 1 to 3 of letter submitted on 22-9-2016 during appellate proceedings.
e) Both the AO and Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to appreciate that whether it is a question of investing Rs.2 crore or Rs.20 crore, the scrutiny and analysis of available investment options involves similar activities. In CIT v. Ashok Wadia (ITA No.4555/Del/2010) / ITAT Bench 'A' Delhi and CIT v. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (Del) 254 ITR 377 a settled principle of law was reiterated that the Assessing Officer cannot step into shoes of the assessee and decide as to how which of the expenditure can be incurred. Once the expenditure has been incurred wholly or exclusively for the purposes of earning income no disallowance can be made.
f) Therefore, having accepted that fees were paid for investment advisory services, to a professional not related to the appellant in any way, they should not have judged whether the fees paid were excessive or unreasonable having regard to its fair market value or the legitimate needs of the appellant. Any disallowance on such a ground is contemplated only u/s.58(2) so far as relates to cases falling u/s.40A(2) of the Act in respect of payments made to related parties.
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 13 -
g) It is further submitted that a part of professional fees to the extent relating investments that generate exempt income would be covered by separate disallowance of Rs.23,948 from expenditure u/s.14A as per Rule 8D computed @ 1/2% of average investments in tax-free income securities.
h) In Bhavin A. Shah v. ACIT, Cir. 14, Ahmedabad, pronounced on 29-3-2017, Hon'ble ITAT, T Bench, Ahmedabad also held that once it is beyond dispute that expenses were incurred for earning income, mere fact that expenses are on higher side cannot be reason enough for disallowance and that even if expenses are on higher side it does not imply that they are fictitious and inadmissible.
i) Appellant submits that the ratio of judicial decisions cited by Commissioner (Appeals) is inappropriate in present case as described hereunder:
a. GIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 161 Taxman 169 (SC) It was ruled that payment through banking channel is not a conclusive evidence to decide genuineness of transactions. But in that case, department had established, through roving inquiries that cash credits appearing in different names in assessee's books were in fact from same person. In this case, though facts are quite different, Commissioner (Appeals) has not established that identity of either the appellant or the professional is doubtful or fake.
b. Sumati Daval v. GIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) The ratio of this decision would require that to find out whether apparent is not real, tax authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances and to apply the test of human probabilities.
The appellant fails to understand what hidden aspect of the transaction is visible to Commissioner (Appeals) that he has not categorically mentioned, when the professional who received the fees has paid 28.6% of the fees to Govt. in the form of Service tax and Income tax whereas average rate of income tax on assessee's total income works out to 26.9%.
c. K. Ramaswamy v. CIT 261 ITR 358 (Mad) and CIT v.
Indian Express Newspapers 238 ITR 70 (Mad):
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 14 -
True, income tax authorities are entitled to pierce corporate veil and look at reality of the transaction, but when the appellant is a HUF and the professional in receipt of his fees is an independent person not related in any way to the appellant, how is it possible to view this as same persons entering into transactions by introducing a corporate personality into those transactions?
In view of above submissions, your appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs.3,20,000 from professional fees paid by the appellant may kindly be deleted."
On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the AO.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee has claimed an expense of Rs.5,60,000/- on account of professional services availed from Chartered Accountant about its investments activities. The AO was of the view that such expenses are unreasonable as per the market rate.
Accordingly, he partly disallowed the expenses to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-. The view taken by the AO was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
Now the issue before us arises for adjudication whether the disallowances made by the lower authorities is correct as per the provisions of law. In this regard, we note that the genuineness of the expenses has not been doubted. The payment was made through banking channel. However, as per the lower authorities, the expenses claimed by the assessee were unreasonable and exceeding market rate. However, ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 15 -
before us, none of the lower authority has brought on record to justify the prevailing market rate for such consultancy fees. Thus, it appears that the disallowance has been made on the estimated basis on the surmises and conjuncture of the AO. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the estimated disallowance is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. In this connection, we also rely on the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Animesh Sadhu Vs. ACIT in ITA 11/Kol/2013 Dated 12.11.2014. The relevant extract is reproduced below: -
"8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has disallowed 20% of the expenses on estimate basis on the ground that no independent verification to be made to find out the authenticity of the expenses. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has reduced the same on the same ground. However, we are of the view that no estimated disallowance scan be made for inability to make independent verification. If any specific expenditure is unverifiable or is un-vouched, then such specific expenditure is disallowable. Her no such specific identification has been done. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the estimated disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is unsustainable. Consequently the same stands deleted. In the result, Grounds No. 2 & 3 of the assessee's appeal stand allowed."
Respectfully, following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), we delete the addition made by the lower authorities. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
9. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016 Asst.Year -2013-14
- 16 -
Now coming to ITA 2846/Ahd/2016
10. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
"1. The ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the disallowance of interest on borrowings to the tune of Rs.65,286/-
2. The ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad also erred in confirming disallowance of professional fees to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-.
3. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter or delete above grounds of appeal."
As stated earlier, the issues in the case under consideration is same as of last year. The only difference is the amount involved. Since the facts are identical, both the parties agreed whatever view was taken in the above appeal (ITA No. 1845/Ahd/2016) may be taken in this appeal of the assessee. We hold accordingly.
11. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
12. In combine result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/06/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
¼jktiky ;kno½
;kno½ ¼olhe vgen½
vgen½
U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk lnL;
(RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 20/06/2018
Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
ITA Nos.2845 & 2846/Ahd/2016
Asst.Year -2013-14
- 17 -
आदे श क त"ल#प अ$े#षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. !"यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबं0धत आयकर आयु2त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु2त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad.
5. 5वभागीय ! त न0ध, आयकर अपील)य अ0धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या5पत ! त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation 08/06/2018 (dictation-pad 4 pages attached at the end of this File)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...11/06/2018
3. Other Member...
4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 19/06/2018
5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......
7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................
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 Despatch of the Order............