Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Ramkrupa Medicare Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs Assessee on 8 August, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD '' C " BENCH - AHMEDABAD
Before Shri S. S. Godara, JM, & Shri Manish Borad, AM.
ITA No.2189/Ahd/2011
Asst. Year:2008-09
M/s Shri Ramkrupa kedicare Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda.
Pvt. Ltd., 44, Haribhakti
Colony, Old Padra Road,
Vadodara
Appellant Respondent
PAN AAECS 3818F
Appellant by Shri Milin Mehta, AR
Respondent by Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
Date of hearing: 14/7/2016
Date of pronouncement: 08/8/2016
ORDER
PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member.
Assessee is in appeal for Asst. Year 2008-09 against the order of ld. CIT(A)-III, Baroda dated 20.07.2011 vide appeal No.CAB-III- 166/10-11. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) was framed on 20.12.2010 by ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of running Heart Institute, Critical Care Centre and Diagnostic Centre. Return of income was filed on 29.9.2009 declaring total income at ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 2 Asst. Year 2008-09 Rs.86,48,170/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment and after making certain additions of Rs.70,71,345/- income was assessed at Rs.1,55,19,515/-.
3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) and got part relief.
4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(A) and assessee raised two grounds of appeal - (i) relating to confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,97,314/- considering it as non-business expenditure being gifts given to Doctors & (ii) relating to confirmation of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.53,41,049/- (payments made to doctors as allowable without deducting TDS u/s 194J of the Act).
5. We take up first ground of appeal relating to confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,97,314/-. During the course of assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer came across the expenditure of Rs.6,44,699/- towards gift expenses. On further perusal it revealed that there were two ledger accounts out of which one related to gifts to employees during the festival occasion at Rs.47,385/- and the other account relating to gifts given to doctors in total Rs.5,97,314/-. The assessee was unable to provide the details of names, addresses of the doctors to whom gifts of Rs.5,97,314/- were given. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of gifts given to employees at Rs.47,385/- but confirmed the addition for Rs.5,97,314/- by observing as under :-
ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 3Asst. Year 2008-09 "5.4 I have considered the contentions of the A.O. and the submissions made by the appellant. I have also gone through the ledger copy of gift expenditures submitted by the appellant. The ledger accounts show that appellant has maintained two ledger accounts for gift expenditures. One ledger account is for gift given to the employees of the appellant. In this account, small sums mostly amounting to Rs. 500/-have been paid to employees as Diwali gift. The total of such expenditure comes to Rs. 47,385/-, Since these are payments made to the employees on the occasion of Diwali, birthday etc., hence, the same are allowable as expenditure for the purpose of business of the appellant as they are also covered by the provisions of FBT. , 5.5 So far as balance expenditures of Rs. 5,97,314/-, is concerned, these have been incurred for making gifts mostly to doctors and outsiders. In most of the cases, the names of the recipients of the expenditure have not been recorded.
Thus, these expenditures are not verifiable. In order to prove that the expenditures were incurred for having cordial relationship with doctors, the appellant was bound to keep the names of such doctors in the ledger account. Just writing a narration as 'purchases of gifts for doctors', 'amount paid to doctors for gift expenses', 'purchases of Nokia mobile phones for doctors' etc. will not make these expenditures having been incurred for the purpose of ;business. Hence, these are not allowable on account of being non-verifiable. Moreover, if these gifts have been given to doctors, then as per provisions of section 28(iv), the value of these gifts will become income of these doctors arising from the profession being carried on by them. Thus, the gifts are in the nature of professional fee paid by the appellant to the doctors. A perusal of the audit report submitted by the appellant shows that as per annexure (6) giving the details of late deduction of TDS of the payments made by the appellant to doctors have been treated as payments of fee for professional services and TDS has been deducted u/s 194J. In such circumstances, the appellant was bound to deduct TDS on these payments also which has not been done. Thus, these gift expenditures are disallowable as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) also.
5.6 Accordingly, it is held that the disallowance of expenditures of Rs. 5,97,314/- by the A.O. is correct and accordingly this ground of appeal relating to this amount is dismissed."
6. Ld. AR submitted that -
The Assessee has incurred the expenditure of Rs. 5,97,314/- on gifts to doctors for maintaining cordial business relationships with the doctors.
ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 4Asst. Year 2008-09 The Assessee runs a hospital named "Baroda Heart Institute & Research Centre". The hospital is a leading hospital in Vadodara providing services in medical field related to Heart diseases. The Assessee has all major facilities for treating the heart patients.
People from Baroda and all surrounding areas visit the hospital for taking treatment. Generally a patient with heart problem reaches the hospital in his critical hours. In order to provide uninterrupted and timely services to the patients, the Assessee maintains cordial business relationships with all leading doctors in the cardiac field. The Assessee has given gifts to various doctors on the occasion of birthday or Oivvali to maintain business relationship. The expenses are in the nature of business promotion expenses and therefore the same are allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The expense incurred are directly related to the business of the Assessee.
In the case of ACIT v. Liva Healthcare Ltd. ITA No. 847/Mum/2012 for AY 2008- 09 similar addition was deleted. The AO had disallowed the foreign tour expenses of the doctors on the ground that sponsorship of overseas tour was not related to the business of the assesse. The addition was deleted on the ground that the expenses were related to the business of the Assessee- Refer para 5 to 7 of the decision on page 188 to 190 of Index - II.
The Assessee being a corporate entity cannot have any expenditure of personal nature. Paying small sum by way of gift at the diwali. birthday and marriage ceremony etc is business related expenditure and allowable as deduction. [Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO.(2009) 122 TTJ (Del) 949] We rely on decision of the ITAT. Ahd in case of Surat Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2010) 128 TTJ (Ahd) 696J]where it was held that if the expenditure has been incurred by the assessee voluntarily, even without necessity, hut it is for promotion of business, the deduction would be permissible u/s. 37(1).
We also rely on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836 (Kar). Duncans Tea Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 127 (Calcutta)
7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.
ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 5Asst. Year 2008-09
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Through this ground assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowance of Rs.5,97,314/- towards gifts to doctors. We observe that assessee has duly accepted to have given the gifts on various items including mobile phone, jewellery, dinner set etc. to various doctors or maintaining cordial business relationship. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that all these doctors are earning professional income in the course of providing professional services and they have received these gifts. We agree with this view that looking to the materiality of the amount which is Rs.5,97,314/- it was necessary on the part of the assessee to provide complete details containing names, addresses of the doctors who have accepted these gifts so that it could have facilitated the Revenue to recover the due taxes from them. We find that assessee is unable to provide these details. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition. We uphold the same and dismiss the ground of assessee.
9. Ground no.2 relates to confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 53,41,049/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer came across the expenditure in the name of laboratory charges of Rs. 53,41,049/-. Prima facie ld. Assessing Officer was of the belief that this amount being expenditure in the nature of professional fees paid to Dr. Dhiren Shah and others, was required to be subjected to tax u/s 194J of the Act. However, when the same was enquired from assessee it came up ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 6 Asst. Year 2008-09 that no such TDS has been deducted. As per assessee reason for non-deduction of TDS was that services were provided by Dr. Dhiren Shah directly to the patients and liability of deduction of TDS is on the person who makes the payment which in this case were the patients and not the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer was not convinced with this reply and on examining the issue on sample basis from going through some of the reports issued by the Institute run by the assessee it was clear that the same were signed by Dr. Dhiren S. Shah and the bills were raised by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 53,41,049/- for non- deduction of TDS u/s 194J of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee when came in appeal before ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing as under :-
6.6 I have considered the contentions of the A.O. and the agreement between the appellant and Dr. Dhiren Shah. From the Agreement clause (c), it is evident that the hospital has agreed to provide. facilities to Dr. Dhiren Shah for running the pathological laboratory in the allowed space in the hospital with a view to providing added services to the patients visiting or admitted in the hospital. It has been stated in clause (d) that the agreement is not for lease or give license to the Doctor, but is an arrangement for mutual benefit and accordingly the present agreement will not create any right of tenancy, licensees, lessee or other similar rights in favour of the Doctor. These two clauses clearly show that the appellant's claim that Dr. Dhiren Shah is not providing any professional services to the hospital is not correct. The appellant is running a Heart Care Institute and it is well known that for smooth running of such type of hospital, laboratory services are a must. Without such services, the hospital simply cannot run. To say that the laboratory is only serving the interest of the patients and not the hospital is incorrect statement.
The laboratory is serving the patients only through the hospital and not independent of it. It is very clear from the fact that the laboratory is occupying the floor in the hospital itself, the charges of the laboratory are being collected by the hospital staff and not by the laboratory staff. This is evident from the ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 7 Asst. Year 2008-09 sub clauses b & c of clause 2 of the agreement. Clause (b) states that the doctors should keep the laboratory equipment for conducting all the types of the tests ordinarily required to be carried out for the patients of the company. Clause (c) says that the doctors shall keep informed the company and staff about the charges to be levied for different types of tests and also educate the staff of the company for raising the bills and making collection for the charges for different tests and services rendered through the laboratory. Clause (e), similarly, states that in spite of patient admitted to the hospital and test covered by the package offered by the hospital, the Doctor shall not directly raise any bill or recover charges from the patients or the persons who visit for getting the tests / investigations carried out and the said billing and collection shall be made exclusively by the Company. This clearly shows that hospital is offering different types of packages for cardiac care and includes number of tests which are to be carried on by 'the laboratory run by Dr. Dhiren Shah. Thus, for fulfilling the obligations of the hospital towards persons availing such packages, the laboratory is providing its professional services to the ital. The persons availing these packages are visiting the hospital knowing only about the hospital and they are not concerned as to where these tests are carried out. The location of the laboratory in the premises of the hospital and also similarity in the names shows that for all practical purposes, this laboratory is being declared to public as part and parcel of the hospital. Hence, it is evident that the laboratory is making professional services to the hospital and not directly to the patients.
6.7 This is also evident from clause (j), which makes it mandatory on the doctor to maintain complete record of the expenses incurred by him for providing services in the laboratory and also to give access to such record to the company or any of its authorized agents/ consultants, officers, directors or staff for verifying the correctness and completeness of the records so maintained. Such clause can be included only on account of the fact that the hospital wants to keep a control on the doctor in order to see that he is not over charging them. Thus, these also shows that the doctor is providing professional services to the hospital only.
6.8 Similarly, clause (k) makes it obligatory on the doctor and his staff to follow the rules and regulations of the hospital and also abide by the directions given by the person in charge of the hospital from time to time for proper administration of the hospital. Similarly, clause (d) of section 3 makes it obligatory on part of the company to maintain complete records of the bills raised and amount collected for the services rendered by the doctor and also allow access to the doctor for verifying the records from time to time. The most important part is clause (g) of section 3 which makes it obligatory on part of the company to take out insurance for professional indemnity in the name of the company and also the doctor for the services rendered by the doctor of a reasonable sum, at the costs to be ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 8 Asst. Year 2008-09 borne by the doctor and keep the said policy in force from time to time. If the appellant's contentions are true and the laboratory was not rendering any professional services to the company, then there would have been no need for the company to take insurance for professional indemnity for the services rendered by the laboratory. The very fact that the company proposed to take insurance for professional indemnity for services rendered by the doctor shows that the company is availing the professional services from the laboratory and anticipates that if anything goes wrong, the patient will sue the company for misconduct of the laboratory. This, itself shows that the patients recognize only the company and not the laboratory separately.
6,9 Hence, the contentions of the appellant that Dr. Dhiren Shah is not providing any professional services to the company is not acceptable. This is also evident from the copies of the bills of this laboratory submitted by the appellant. The name of the laboratory has been mentioned as 'Baroda Heart Institute Clinical Laboratory'. But, watermark on the bill is read as 'BHIRC' which is abbreviated form of 'Baroda Heart Institute & Research Centre' - the name of the hospital being run by the appellant company. It is the contention of the appellant that it provides cardiac care. The presence of this watermark also shows that it is the hospital is representing to the patients that the laboratory services are being rendered by the hospital itself ant then hospital is collecting the payments from them which are reimbursed to the laboratory for the professional services rendered by the laboratory to the hospital.
6.10 The appellant has placed reliance on the decision of ACIT vs. Indraprashtha Medical Corporation Ltd. (128 TTD 261), wherein, it has held that provisions of section 194J apply to the service recipient and not to any other person. In case of Doctors, the service recipients are the patients and not the hospital. In view of the same provisions of section 1943 cannot be made applicable. But the facts of this decision are different from the case in hand. From the discussions made above, it is clear that the recipient of services rendered by Dr. Dhiren Shah and Dr Sudhir Rao is hospital run by the appellant company and not the patients. Hence, this decision is not applicable to the present case.
6.11 Without prejudice to the other submission made by the appellant in this regard, the appellant has also submitted that as per the decisions in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [123 TTJ 888 (JP)] and Teja Construction [129 TTJ 57 (Hyderabad)] only the amounts •which have remained payable by the appellant at the end of the year to these laboratories can be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). The balance amounts which have already been paid during the relevant year cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). It may be mentioned here that the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. came for consideration before ITAT, Kolkata 'B' Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Brokings Ltd. 44 SOT 556 (Kol.) vide order dated 19.11.2010, the Bench has refused to follow the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 9 Asst. Year 2008-09 Nigam Ltd. (supra) and has held that even if the sum has already been paid to the contractors or the sub-contractors on which tax is deductible at source as per the provisions of the Act, section 40(a)(ia) be attracted. It may be mentioned here that the decision in the case of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. is the latest decision in this regard, being later than the decision in the case of Teja Construction also. Hence, the .ratio laid down by decision in the case of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. is followed and this alternative submission of the appellant is dismissed.
6.12 Hence, it is held that the TDS was required to be made by the hospital on the payments made to Dr. Dhiren Shah u/s 194J. Since this has not been done hence, the A.O.'s action of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), of professional fees paid to him is upheld. So far as payments made to Dr. Sudhir Rao is concerned, the appellant has not made any submissions or submitted copies of bills etc. of this doctor either before the A.O. or before the undersigned. In the absence of any details, the payments made to Dr. Sudhir Rao of Rs. 6,20,679/- is not allowable in itself. Moreover, in view of the discussions made in the case of Dr. Dhiren Shah and it has been claimed by the appellant that Dr. Sudhir Rao is rendering the similar services to the hospital, it is held that TDS was also deductible u/s 194J on the payments made to Dr. Sudhir Rao and hence A.O. has rightly disallowed the payments made to him u/s 40(a)(ia). Accordingly, this ground of the appellant is dismissed.
10. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
11. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that -
The AO has disallowed the payment of laboratory charges to Dr. Dhiren Shah and others u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS. The AO has treated it as payment of professional fees us. 194J and thereby disallowed the entire payment.
Before the AO as well as the CIT(A) it was contended that payment for laboratory charges is not in the nature of professional fees and therefore section 194J is not applicable.
However, without admitting and without going into the issue of applicability of section 194J we submit that after insertion of second proviso in section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 1-4-2013 disallowance cannot be made in case the Assessee proves that the recipient of the sum has included the income in his return of income and has paid due taxes.
ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 10Asst. Year 2008-09 In the following cases it has been held that second proviso inserted w.c.f 1-4-2013 in section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and should be given retrospective effect w.e.f 1-4-2005 being the date from which section 40(a)(ia) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004.
Frohberg Reaity Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 2066/Ahd/2014 AY 2010-
11. Refer para 6 to 8.1 on page 194 to 196 of Index-II.
Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. v. CIT ITA 160/2015 Delhi High Court. Refer para 5 to 14 on page 200 to 207 of Index - II.
Selprint v. CITlA) - 33. Mumbai ITA No. 3688/Mum/2012 for AY 2008-
09. Refer para 3 to 6 on page 210 to 212 of Index - II.
Santosh Kumar Kedia v. ITO ITA No. 1905/Kol/2014 AY 2007-08. Refer para 10 on page 226 of Index- II.
Ballabh Das Agarwal v. ITO ITA NO. 1278/Kol/2011 AY 2008- 09. Refer para 5 to 7 on page 233 to 236 of Index - II.
Shri G Shanker v. ACIT ITA No. 1832/Bang/2013 AY 2005-06. Refer para 5 to 5.4.2 at page nos. 246 to 250 of Index - II.
12. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities.
13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Through this ground assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.53,41,049/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payment of laboratory. We observe that during the course of hearing ld. AR has submitted that without going into applicability of section 194J of the Act for the payment ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 11 Asst. Year 2008-09 kindly refer to the second proviso in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2013 as per which disallowance cannot be made in case the assessee proves that the recipient of the sum has included the income in his return of income and has paid due taxes. We further observe that in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.160/2015 similar issue came up before Hon. Delhi High Court wherein reliance was placed by the respondent on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, Agra in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.337/Agra/2013 wherein it was held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. Hon. Delhi High Court adopted the decision of the Tribunal, Agra Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (supra) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by observing as under :-
13. Turning to the decision of the Agra Bench of ITAT in Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v.
ACIT (supra ) , the Court finds that it has undertaken a thorough analysis of the second proviso to Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act and also sought to explain the rationale behind its insertion. In particular, the Court would like to refer to para 9 of the said order which reads as under:
"On a conceptual note, primary justification for such a disallowance is that such a denial of deduction is to compensate for the loss of revenue by corresponding income not being taken into account in computation of taxable income in the hands of the recipients of the payments. Such a policy motivated deduction restrictions should, therefore, not come into play when an assessee is able to establish that there is no actual loss of revenue. This disallowance does deincentivize not deducting tax at source, when such tax deductions are due, but, so far as the legal framework is concerned, this provision is not for the purpose of penalizing for the tax deduction at source lapses. There are separate penal provisions to that effect. Deincentivizing a lapse and punishing a lapse are two different things and have distinctly different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, connotations. When we appreciate the object of scheme of section 40(a)(ia), as on the statute, and to examine whether or not, on a "fair, just and equitable"
interpretation of law- as is the guidance from Hon'ble Delhi High Court on interpretation of this legal provision, in our humble understanding, it could not be ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 12 Asst. Year 2008-09 an "intended consequence" to disallow the expenditure, due to non deduction of tax at source, even in a situation in which corresponding income is brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of Section 40(a)(ia), as we see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee in a situation in which income embedded in such expenditure has remained untaxed due to tax withholding lapses by the assessee. It is not, in our considered view, a penalty for tax withholding lapse but it is a sort of compensatory deduction restriction for an income going untaxed due to tax withholding lapse. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer. Now that the legislature has been compassionate enough to cure these shortcomings of provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, such an amendment in law, in view of the well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced. In view of these discussions, as also for the detailed reasons set out earlier, we cannot subscribe to the view that it could have been an "intended consequence" to punish the assessees for non deduction of tax at source by declining the deduction in respect of related payments, even when the corresponding income is duly brought to tax. That will be going much beyond the obvious intention of the section. Accordingly, we hold that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004."
14. The Court is of the view that the above reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT as regards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance.
15. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the ITAT in adopting the ratio of the decision of the Agra Bench, ITAT in (Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT).
16. No substantial question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appeal is dismissed.
14. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. (supra) and ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 13 Asst. Year 2008-09 the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, Agra, in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (supra), we restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that assessee shall provide before him all the details with regard to the recipients of the income of having received Rs.53,41,049/- and taxes paid by them. We further direct the Assessing Officer to carryout necessary verification in respect of the payments and taxes of such income and also filing of income-tax return by the recipients. Needless to mention that adequate opportunity will be provided to the assessee for filing necessary details to show that the said recipients have reflected the receipts in their books of account and offered the same to tax in the period under consideration. In case the Assessing Officer finds that the recipients have duly paid the taxes on the income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer shall stand deleted. This ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
15. Other ground is of general nature, which needs no adjudication.
16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th August, 2016 Sd/- sd/-
(S. S. Godara) (Manish Borad)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated 8/8/2016
Mahata/-
ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2011 14
Asst. Year 2008-09
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File
BY ORDER
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation: 05/08/2016
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the
Dictating Member: 08/08/2016 other Member:
3. Date on which approved draft comes to the Sr. P. S./P.S.:
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: __________
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 8/8/16
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk:
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order:
9. Date of Despatch of the Order: