Shri Sandeep Subhash Nanavati, Surat V. The ACIT., Circle-5, Surat

CO 146/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1862 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SMRITI SAMANT
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO: 1532AHD/2012 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, SURAT V/S SHRI SANDEEP SUBHASH NANAVATI C-5, KRISHNA NAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. CHOKSIWADI, NEW RENDER ROAD, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SHRI SANDEEP SUBHASH NANAVATI C-5, KRISHNA NAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. CHOKSIWADI, NEW RENDER ROAD, SURAT V/S THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAOPN1000D APPELLANT BY : SMT. SMRITI SAMANT, SR. D. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH UPADHYAY ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 22-12-201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-01-2016 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 2 1. THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE AND C.O OF ASSESSEE ARE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 29.03.2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ON CONTRACT BASIS. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 DATED 29-09-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 80,36,373/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 AN D THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,47,93,760/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2012 GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A), SURAT, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ALLOWED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON FACTS TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE A.O. 2.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT FINDI NG BY THE JT.CIT REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/145(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOW ING GROUND : (I) ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM LABOUR PAYMENT IS MADE ARE NOT COMPLETE; (II) MAJOR PAYMENT IS BY CASH; (III) NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) ARE EITHER RETURN BACK OR NO REPLY RECEIVED OR REPLY RECEIVED AT THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. IN ONE CASE OF SHRI RAMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI, REPLY RECEIVED FROM NAVSARI HOWEVER, HIS ADDRESS PROVIDED IS OF VADODARA FROM WHERE NOTICE U/S. 133( 6) WAS RETURNED WITH POST REMARKS, 'NOT FOUND'. ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 3 (IV) PAYMENT MADE THROUGH SELF MADE VOUCHERS TO SEV ERAL PERSONS IN WHICH COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT MENTIONED ; (V) DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND WAGE REGISTER, AS NOTED IN HIS ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 28.12.2011; (VI) FIGURE OF PURCHASE AND LABOUR EXPENSES ARE NOT MATCHING WITH APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION DATED 20.10.2011 AND WITH THAT OF REPLY RECEIVED BY HIM IN RESPONSE TO HIS NOTICE U/S.133(6). 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,27,037/-MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF LABOUR SUPPLY EXPENSES RS.27,37,037/-, EXCAVATION LABOUR E XPENSES RS. 11,31,164/-, LABOUR WAGES EXPENSES RS.25,77,571/-AND RS.3,40,231/- BEIN G 20% OUT OF FABRICATION LABOUR EXPENSES. 4.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD AT LEAST THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE VIDE C.O HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT(A)- IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE TO TUNE OF RS. 4,00,000/- IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT NP IS BETTER T HAN LAST YEAR AND ESPECIALLY, WHEN HE HOLD REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INVALID AND INCO RRECT IN LAW. HE FURTHER ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL POSITION IN CIVIL CONTRACTOR'S BUSINESS THAT CASH PAYMENT TO LABORERS AND MAINTENANCE SELF MADE VOUCHERS ARE TRA DE PRACTICE LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THE REFORE CAN BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NO TICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF T HE ASSESSEE HAD GONE DOWN AS COMPARED TO THAT OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 4 FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND THE JUSTIFICATI ON FOR FALL IN NET PROFIT RATIO. FURTHER, TO VERIFY THE PURCHASES, A.O ISSUED NOTICE S U/S. 133(6) TO SOME OF THE PARTIES. A.O NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTA L AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF INCOMPLETE ADDRESS NOT FOUND ETC. ON PERUSIN G THE REPLIES RECEIVED FROM SOME OF THE SUPPLIERS, A.O NOTICED THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENCES IN THE BALANCES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT RECEIVED BY THE A.O IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 133(6). IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCIES , A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE BOOK RESUL TS U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHA RGES WAS DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AND OUT OF THE FABRICATION CHARGE S DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENSES AND THUS MADE AN AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 67,77,003/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 4 LACS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O. 7. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT S IMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN 2008-09 BY THE A.O AND L D. CIT(A) IN THAT YEAR ALSO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 4 LACS. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 (IN IT A NO. 2897/A/2011 AND C.O. NO. 270/A/2011) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE C.O AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVEN UE. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 5 UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 08-09 AN D SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL I N A.Y. 08-09, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED AND C.O OF THE ASS ESSEE BE ALLOWED. THE LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A. O AND LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENDITUR E WAS MADE BY A.O IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 08-09 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2897/AHD/2011 ORDER DATED 31.08.2012 BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.GROUND NO.1 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE O F LABOUR AND CASH EXPENSES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O . NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LABOUR SUPPLY EXPENSES OF RS.74,31,319/-AND LABOUR WAGES EXPENSES OF RS. 1,73,04,337/- AGGREGATING TO RS.2,47,35,656/-. THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO CLAIMED FABRICATION OF LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.38,05,673/- AND LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES OF RS.24,92,664/- AGGREGATING TO RS.62,98,337/-. THE A .O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL MUSTER ROLL, JOB CARD, ATTENDANCE REGISTER ETC., BUT THE SAME WAS PRODUCED. THEREUPON THE A.O. ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VOUCHERS AND RECORDS, WHY 25% OF RS. 2,47,35 ,656/- AND 20% OF RS.62,98,337/- NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAU SE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT TO WORKERS ARE MADE IN CASH AS PER THE PREV AILING TRADE PRACTICE AND IS SUPPORTED BY ATTENDANCE REGISTER, WAGE REGISTER, P. F. REGISTER ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED TO PRODUCE THE WORKERS FOR VERIFICATION. WIT H RESPECT TO LABOUR SUPPLY EXPENSES, FABRICATION WORK CHARGES AND LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTING APP ROPRIATE TDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION FROM RECIPIENTS AND ALSO REQUEST ED THE A.O. TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 133(6)7131 IN CASE OF DOUBT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO QUALIFICATION FROM TH E AUDITORS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN REDUCED I N COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS FINANCIAL ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 6 YEAR, G.P. HAS REMAINED STABLE WHEREAS NET PROFIT H AS JUMPED AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE E XPENSES INCURRED BY HIM, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT SUPPORTING FOR THE EXPENSE S CLAIMED AND THEREFORE NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) AND THEREUPON OUT OF TOTAL LAB OUR EXPENSES OF RS. 2,47,35,656/- DISALLOWED 25% (I.E. RS.61,83,914/-) AND OUT OF VAR IOUS CASH EXPENSES OF RS.62,98,337/- DISALLOWED 20% (I.E. .RS. 12,59,667/-). AGGRIEVED B Y THE ACTION OF A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). BASED ON THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER;- 8.I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE RE ASON GIVEN BY THE A. O. FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAD PRO VIDED ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES REGARDING INCURRING OF EXPENSES TO THE A. O, THE A. O. REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING RENDERING OF SERVICE AND CORRELATION OR THE EXPENSES WITH VOLUME OF WORK DONE HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN ASKED TO CARRY OUT SUCH AN E XERCISE AND THEREFORE DRAWING ADVERSE CONCLUSION WAS NOT CORRECT. IN ANY CASE, TH IS ASPECT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE DETAILS OF BILLS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ON HIS PRINCIPALS AND THE BILLS RAISED BY HIS SUPPLIERS. THESE DETAILS ARE NOT MAINTAINED IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE IN MY OPINION REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS WAS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED DETAILED EVIDENCES OF THE EX PENSES INCURRED FOR LABOUR. THE ALLEGATION OF THE A. O. THAT THE ATTENDANCE REG ISTERS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN ONE INSTANCE AND THAT THUMB IMPRESSIONS SEEM TO BE OF A SINGLE PERSON IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE ME. HAVING S AID THAT, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED IN CASH AND THEREFO RE IN MY OPINION THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD THAT SOME PORTION OF EXPENDITURE COULD N OT BE JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE REASONABLE IF A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,00,00 0/- I MADE OF CLAIM OF LABOUR CHARGES. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT TH E DISALLOWANCE IN GROUND 1 AND 2 ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 7 TO RS.4,00,000/- ONLY. THE APPELLANT GETS CONSEQUEN T RELIEF. THESE GROUNDS ARE DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF CIT (A ) OF DELETING THE MAJOR PORTION OF DELETION AND THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR UPHOLDIN G THE PART OF THE DISALLOWANCE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THE INCURRING OF EXPENSES. THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN IN A POSITION TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE. HE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O BE UPHELD. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR. SUBMITTED THAT T HE A.O HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE BY MAKING A GENERAL REMARK WITHOUT PINPOINTING ANY INS TANCE OF WRONG/BOGUS PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO QUALIFICATION OF THE AUDITORS. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE NET PRO FIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE HAS JUMPED FROM 1.95% TO 5.25%, THUS THE LD. A.R. REQUESTED TH AT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS ; 4 LAC OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A) BE DELET ED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD OFFERED EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES AND ALSO P RODUCED THE NECESSARY RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE A.O. TO ISSUE NOTICE U/ S. 133(6)/131 TO THE RECIPIENTS OF THE PAYMENTS IN CASE OF DOUBT. THE A.O. DID NOT ISSUE A NY SUMMONS OR NOTICE. THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND NO ADVERSE REMARK HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCOUNTS. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASKED TO CORRELATE THE RENDERING OF SERVICE AND EXPENSES BY THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED DETAILED EVIDENCES OF THE EXPENSES INCURRE D FOR LABOUR. THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE ATTENDANCE REGISTERS HAVE BEEN WRITTE N IN ONE INSTANCE AND THE THUMB IMPRESSIONS SEEMS TO BE OF A SINGLE PERSON IS NOT B ORNE OUT BY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE CIT (A). CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE ON LY FOR THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CASH AND THEREFORE T HERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF SOME PORTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF CASH EXPENDITURE WHICH IS AN UNJUSTIFIED EXPENSE. IN VIEW OF THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 LAC OF THE LABOUR EXPENSE S IS CALLED FOR. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ITA NO. 1532 & C.O. NO. 146/AHD/12 . A.Y. 2009-2 010 8 DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE. IN THE RESULT, THIS G ROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED AND THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CROSS OBJECT ION IS UPHELD. 9. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGU ISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF A.Y. 08-09 NOR HAS PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT THE ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 08-09 HAS BEEN SET ASI DE BY HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN SUCH A SITUATION RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE SIMILAR REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE A PPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN 08- 09 DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE AND ALLOW THE GRO UND OF ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND C.O OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08- 01 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.K. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD