Accelaris Technologies Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

CO 47/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5553 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P HEMANI
• Assessee Lawyers: G C DAXINI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Capital receipt; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 36 (1) (iii); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 176/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD. VS. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 405, MAURYA ATRIA, JUDGES BUNGLOW, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD 380 015 CROSS OBJECTION NO.47/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO.176/AHD/2016) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD VS. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD [PAN NO. AADCA 1940 M] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. C. DAXINI, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. P. HEMANI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING 28.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.01.2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND A CROS S OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2014 PASSED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DAT ED 27.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT - 2 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 YEAR 2011-12 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD - 1(1), AHMEDA BAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO T HE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.03.2013 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME NIL. UPON SCRUTINY A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12.08.2013 FOLLOWED BY A NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 04.09.2013 DU E TO CHANGE OF INCUMBENT IN OFFICE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 10.09.2013 CALLING FOR DETAILS WAS ALSO SERVED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING, UPON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.2,56,86,457/- AS WRITTEN OFF AND RS. 38,001/- AS INTEREST OTHERS. AFTER DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES NET LOSS WAS SHOWN OF RS.5,27,86,067/-, WH ILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED RS.2,56,86,457/- BEING LOAN W RITTEN OFF STATING THAT INCOME CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE ASSES SEE, HOWEVER, HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS RECEIPT SEPARATELY AND OFFERED FOR TAX. A SHOW-CAUS E NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 10.09.2013 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME OF RS.2,56,86,457/- AS CAPITAL RECEIPT WAS OFFERED TO TAX OR NOT, IF NOT THEN TO EXPLAIN THE R EASON THEREOF. IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 ,56,86,457/- WAS THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IN PRECEDING YEA RS FROM METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. AND NOW NO LONGER PAYABLE AND HENCE WRITTEN OFF IN YEAR UNDER REVIEW. THUS, THE SAID CAPITAL RECEIPT IS NOT TAXABLE. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED FROM ONE METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. IS NO LONGER PAYABLE S INCE METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. WAS WOUND UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 195 6 BY AND UNDER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THUS THE SAME WA S WRITTEN OFF AS DEPOSIT RECEIVED NO LONGER PAYABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT NO INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE ITS RECEIPT IN EARLIER YEAR. SUCH CONTENTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REITERATED BY A FURTHER REPL Y DATED 16.01.2014 WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE WINDING UP PROCEEDING OF METRIX LOGISTIC C O. LTD. WERE AT THE ADVANCE STAGE AND THE LOAN WAS WRITTEN OFF ON 31.03.2011. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR FINANCING THE - 3 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 COST OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO SOUGHT TO BE E STABLISHED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THOUGH THE SAID FACT WAS ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED AO HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED SUCH AMOUNT BEING LOAN WRITTEN OFF STATING THAT INCOME CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AS CAPITAL RECEIPT BUT THE SA ID RECEIPT WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AO IF THE SAID INCOME IS T REATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT THEN THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS CAPITAL GA IN. OTHERWISE IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE INCOME AS GATHERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AO THAT WHEN THE SAID LOAN WAS O BTAINED FROM METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. IT WAS RIGHTLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BALANCE SH EET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS UNSECURED LOAN BUT AS AND WHEN THE SAME WAS WRITTEN OFF, THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE SAME. THUS THE AMOUNT CHANG ED ITS CHARACTER INTO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR OF SUCH WRITE OFF SINCE TH E RECEIPT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT BECO MES ASSESSEES OWN MONEY AND WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME OUGHT HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR U NDER SECTION 28(I) OF THE ACT. WITH SUCH OBSERVATION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME WAS REJECTED BY THE LEARNED AO AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED SUCH ADDITION. HENCE, TH E INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNE D COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT SO W RITTEN OFF WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND WAS UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THUS SUCH AMOUNT IS PURELY CAPITAL RECEIPTS. THE LOAN WHICH HAS BEEN WR ITTEN OFF HAD AT ALL POINT OF TIME REMAINS TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME WAS NE VER REVENUE IN NATURE AND THUS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT HE HAS R ELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS-CHE TAN CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. [2004] 267 - 4 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 ITR 771 (GUJ) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE BENEFIT AR ISING AS A RESULT OF REMISSION OF UNSECURED LOANS WAS NOT TAXABLE U/S 41(1) AS ADMITT EDLY THERE HAD BEEN NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION OF THE LOANS IN ANY OF PRECEDING YEARS. F URTHER THAT, IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE COMPANY IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF OBTAINING AND GIV ING LOANS, REMISSION OF LOANS BY THE CREDITOR OF THE COMPANY IS NOT TAXABLE U/S 28(IV) O F THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO MADE UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN THE MATTER OF MAHINDRA & MAH INDRA LTD.-VS-CIT (261 ITR 501) PASSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLDING THA T THE LOAN TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS WHEN WAIVED BY THE LENDER, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAIVED CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SEMBLANCE OF REVENUE NATURE. HE THUS PRAYED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVEN UE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN FROM METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. IN THE F.Y. 2004-05 AND TH ERE WERE TRANSACTIONS OF FRESH LOANS AND ALSO REPAYMENT OF ABOVE DURING THE PERIOD OF F. Y. 2004-05 TO F.Y. 2010-11. SUCH LOAN WAS INTEREST FREE AND WAS UNSECURED WHICH WAS OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING FIXED ASSETS BY THE COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING OF LOAN AMOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,56,86,457/- DURING THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING UNSECURED LOAN TA KEN FROM METRIX LOGISTIC CO. LTD. FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND CORRESPONDING ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WERE PASSED. SUCH WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT CREDIT ED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY IS CAPITAL IN NATURE THE SAME WAS NOT I NCLUDED AS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BUT THE SAME WAS A DDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE NOT OFFERED TO TAX THOUGH CHARACTERI ZED AS CAPITAL INCOME AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED AO. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELYI NG UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE - 5 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. (SUPRA) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE LAW IS FAIRLY SETTLED THAT IF THE LOAN OBTAINED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES WAS WRITTEN OFF, IT IS NOT TAXABLE EITHER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41(1) OR UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 28. HOWEVER, IF THE LOAN OBTAINED WAS FOR TRADING OR REVENUE PURPOS ES, WRITE OFF OF SUCH LOAN WOULD BE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 28(IV), [THOUGH IT IS NOT ASSESSABLE U/S 41(1)]. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LOANS WERE OBTAINED FROM F.Y. 2005- 06 TO F.Y. 2010-11. THOUGH THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE LOANS WERE UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING FIXED ASSETS, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ASPECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIF Y THIS CONTENTION. IF IT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, IMPUGNED ADDITION SHALL BE DELETED T O THE EXTENT OF THE LOANS UTILIZED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES. THUS, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS AS FOL LOWS: 15. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID PROVISION, IT IS EVIDENT T HAT IT IS A SINE QUA NON THAT THERE SHOULD BE A:: ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDI TURE OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING ANY PRE VIOUS YEAR, IF THE CREDITOR REMITS OR WAIVES ANY SUCH LIABILITY, THEN THE ASSES SEE IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE IT ACT. THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THIS SECTION IS SIMPLE. IT IS MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET AWAY WITH A D OUBLE BENEFIT ONCE BY WAY OF DEDUCTION AND ANOTHER BY NOT BEING TAXED ON THE BEN EFIT RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE LATER YEAR WITH REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION ALLOWED EARL IER IN CASE OF REMISSION OF SUCH LIABILITY. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE RESPONDEN T HAD BEEN PAYING INTEREST AT 6 % PER ANNUM TO THE KJC AS PER THE CONTRACT BUT THE AS SESSEE NEVER CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36 (1) (III) OF THE IT ACT. IN THE CASE AT HAND, LEARNED CIT (A) RELIED UPON SECTION 4 1 (1) OF THE IT ACT AND HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD RECEIVED AMORTIZATION BENEF IT. AMORTIZATION IS AN ACCOUNTING TERM THAT REFERS TO THE PROCESS OF ALLOC ATING THE COST OF AN ASSET OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, HENCE, IT IS NOTHING ELSE THAN DEPR ECIATION. DEPRECIATION IS A REDUCTION IN THE VALUE OF AN ASSET OVER TIME, IN PA RTICULAR, TO WEAR AND TEAR. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT IN PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS DUE TO THE DEPRECATION OF THE MACHINE AND NOT O N THE INTEREST PAID BY IT. 16. MOREOVER, THE PURCHASE EFFECTED FROM THE KAISER JEE P CORPORATION IS. IN RESPECT OF PLANT, MACHINERY AND TOOLING EQUIPMENTS WHICH ARE CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE - 6 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 RESPONDENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID P URCHASE AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT OR TO THE PROFIT OR LOSS ACCOUNT IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HERE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO MENTIO N THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'TRADING LIABILITY' AND 'OTHER LIABILITY'. SECTION 41 (1) OF THE IT ACT PARTICULARLY DEALS WITH THE REMISSION OF TRADING LI ABILITY. WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, WAIVER OF LOAN AMOUNTS TO CESSATION OF LIABIL ITY OTHER THAN TRADING LIABILITY. HENCE, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVE NUE THAT THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT WOULD FALL UNDER SECTION 41 (1) OF THE I T ACT. 17. TO SUM UP, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN' VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) SECTION 28(IV) OF THE IT ACT DOES NOT APPLY O N THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF RS 57,74,064/- ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAS H OR MONEY. (B) SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT DOES NOT APPLY S INCE WAIVER OF LOAN DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY. IT IS A M ATTER OF RECORD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 36 (1) (III) OF THE IT ACT QUA THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. 18. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THESE APPEALS ARE DEVOID OF MERITS AND DESERVE TO BE DISM ISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ALL THE OTHER CONNECTED APPE ALS ARE DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY, LEAVING PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COST . 6. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGMENT AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH WAIVER OF LOAN FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS CANNOT BE TAXED AS PERQUISITE U/S 28(IV) AS RECEIPT IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CASH ON MONEY NEITHER CAN BE TAXED AS A REMISSIO N OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 41(1) SINCE SUCH WAIVER OF LOAN WAS NOT ACCOUNT OF LIABIL ITY OTHER THAN TRADING LIABILITY AS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, WH ETHER SUCH LOAN WERE UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING FIXED ASSETS OR NOT NO SUCH DISCUSSION WA S NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE L EARNED AO TO VERIFY THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER BY THE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE U S WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THUS IN THE EVENT IT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON TO BE DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF LOANS UTILIZED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES. - 7 - ITA NO.176/AHD/2015 & CO NO.47/AHD/20 15 M/S. ACCELARIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SO AS TO WARRANT I NTERFERENCE. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATION I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. NOW CAMING TO CROSS OBJECTION NO. 47/AHD/2015 FOR A SST. YEAR 2011-12: 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL LEARNED COU NSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PROCEE D WITH THE MATTER. HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON MERIT AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/01/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD