M/s. Fine Line Circuts Company, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circel-3, Baroda

ITA 1059/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8837 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MEENA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Deemed export; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 133A; 10B; 32; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFO R E SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ) ITA . NO: 786 & 1059 / AHD/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 ) M/S. F INE LINE CIRCUITS COMPANY PLOT NO. E - 8, GIDC, MANJUSAR,SAVLI DIST.. BARODA - 390005 V/S ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, VADODARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDE NT) PAN: AA AFF6253A APPELLANT BY : SHRI MILIN MEHTA , AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. L. MEENA, CIT/DR ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 03 - 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 03 - 2017 PE R MANISH BORAD , A CCOUNTANT M EMBER 1. THESE TWO APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 OUT OF WHICH ONE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, BARODA VIDE APPEAL NO.CAB/11 - 296/10 - 11 DATED 05.12.2012, ARISING OUT OF ORDER UNDER SECTION ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 2 1 43(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 24.12.2010 PASSED BY ACIT, CI R CLE - 3, BARODA AND ANOTHER APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FRAMED ON 28.03.2013 BY CIT(A) - I, BARODA . 2. WE WILL FI RST TAKE UP ITA NO. 786/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04. 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER ADJUSTING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS. 3. THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF CCGL AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT OF THE SAME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B TO RS. 60,67,720/ - INSTEAD OF RS. 1,28,96,287/ - . 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED O UT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.11.2003 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AT RS. 1, 28,96, 287/ - A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A (1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 25.03.2010 FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2010 FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. MAIN FOCUS OF LD. ASSESSING ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 3 OFF ICER WAS ON TWO ISSUES, F IRSTLY O F ALLOWING EXEMPT ION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AFTER ADJUSTING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS AND SECONDLY, WHETHER ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING C OPPER CLADED GLASS EPOXY LAMINATE (CCGL). AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT NIL INCOME , CALCULATING EXEMPTIONS U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AT RS. 60,67,720/ - AS AGAINST RS. 1,28,96,287/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT EXPORT OF CCGL IN FORM 56G AND, T HEREFORE, I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT FOR EXPORT OF CCGL. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS ALL THE GROUNDS WERE DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAI SING VARIOUS GROUNDS . 7. GROUND NO. 1, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED REQUES TE D FOR NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT . A S THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT P RESSED THIS GROUND WE DISMISS THIS GROUND NO. 1 AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 4 9. GROUND NO. 2, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRE D IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER ADJUSTING UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS. 10. AS REGARDS THIS GROUND, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8498/AHD/2013 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT WOULD BE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT AND NOT AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF VALU EPROCESS TECHNOLOGIES (I) (P.) LTD. VS. ITO 31 TAXMANN.COM 152 (2013) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EXEMPTION U/S. 10A IS TO BE ALLOWED WITHOUT SET OF CARRY FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THROUGH THIS GROUND, THE APPELLANT IS AGGR IEVED WITH THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 5 DEPRECIATION. WE NOTICE THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DE DUCTED BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT RS. 87,46,089/ - IN ORDER TO CALCULATE EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS HE CON FIRMED THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF APPELLATE ORDER FRAMED BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05. IN APPEAL BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL, LET US GO THROUGH THE SPECIFIC FINDING OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THIS REGARD AS OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2000 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2001; THE AMENDED SECTION 10A THEREAFTER AND ALSO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINA NCE ACT, 2003 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2001. 13. THE RETENTION OF SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 WOULD BE MERELY SUGGESTIVE AND NOT DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT IS PROVIDED BY THE SECTION AS AME NDED, IN CONTRAST TO WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE UN - AMENDED SECTION. THE TRUE AND CORRECT PURPORT AND EFFECT OF THE AMENDED SECTION WILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED FROM THE LANGUAGE USED AND NOT MERELY FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN RETAINED IN CHAPTER III. THE INT RODUCTION OF THE WORD 'DEDUCTION' IN SECTION 10A BY THE AMENDMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, AND IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 10A AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SECTION EMBODIES A CLE AR ENUNCIATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION TO ALTER ITS NATURE FROM ONE PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION TO ONE PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTIONS. 14. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO EXPRESSIONS 'EXEMPTION' AND 'DEDUCTION', THOUGH BROADLY MAY APPEAR TO BE THE SAME I.E. IM MUNITY FROM TAXATION, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DIFFERENT ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 6 PARTS OF THE ACT WOULD BE WHOLLY DIFFERENT. THE ABOVE IMPLICATIONS CANNOT BE MORE OBVIOUS THAN FROM THE CASE OF CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8563/2013, 856 4/2013 AND CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 18157/2015, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY LOSS MAKING ELIGIBLE UNITS AND/OR BY NON - ELIGIBLE ASSESSEES SEEKING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT, OF LOSSES AGAINST PROFITS MADE BY ELIGIBLE UNITS. 15. SUB - SECTION 4 OF SECTION 10A WHICH PROVIDES FOR PRO RATA EXEMPTION, NECESSARILY INVOLVING DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF DOMESTIC SALES, IS ONE INSTANCE OF DEDUCTION PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENT. PROFITS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNIT PERTAINING TO DOMESTIC SALES WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS' IN CHAPTER IV AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION 6 OF SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2003, GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOS SES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ETC. COMMENCING FROM THE YEAR 2001 - 02 ON COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY ALSO VIRTUALLY WORKS AS A DEDUCTION WHICH HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AT A FUTURE POINT OF TIME, NAMELY, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY. TH E ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT CAN BE UNDERSTAND BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY SUCH REFERENCE OR MENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN A REPETITION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN SECTION 10A. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO NS 80HHC AND 80HHE OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS WOULD BE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND REDUNDANT IF DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A WERE TO BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF OPERATION OF CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. THE RETENTION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 80HHC AND 80HHE, DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10A, IN OUR VIEW, INDICATES THAT SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE SECTION 10A UNITS, NOT CONTEMPLATED BY SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE, WAS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SUCH A BENEFIT CAN O NLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAGES FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A AND 80HHC AND 80HHE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THIS IS THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE CASE WHICH WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO TURN TO. 16. FROM A READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A IT IS MORE THAN CLEAR TO US THAT THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN IS QUA THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING OF AN ASSESSEE STANDING ON ITS OWN AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER ELIGIBLE OR NON - ELIGIBLE UNITS OR UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS GIVEN BY THE ACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING AND RESULTAIITLY FLOWS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO MORE THAN CLEAR FROM THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR NO. 794 DATED 9.8.2000 WHICH STATES IN PARAGRAPH 15.6 THAT, ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 7 'THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 10A AND 10B SHALL BE OF THE UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN SPECIFIED ZONES OR 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THIS SHALL NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL RELATIONS HIP WITH THE OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THESE ZONES OR UNITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION.' 17. IF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDE [FIRST PROVISO TO SECTIONS 10A(1); 10A (1A) AND 10A (4)] THAT THE UNIT THAT IS CONTEMPLATED FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING AND THAT IS ALSO HOW THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR OF THE DEPARTMENT (NO.794 DATED 09.08.2000) UNDERSTOOD THE SITUATION, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE MADE INDEPENDENTLY AND, THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STAGE OF DETERMINATION OF ITS PROFITS AND GAINS. AT THAT STAGE THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR SET OF F AND CARRY FORWARD CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 70, 72 AND 74 OF THE ACT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR APPLICATION. THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A THEREFORE WOULD BE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXERCISE TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT FOR ARRIVING A T THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE SOMEWHAT DISCORDANT USE OF THE EXPRESSION 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE' IN SECTION 10A HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER AND IN THE OVERALL SCENARIO UNFOLDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 10A THE AFORESAID DISCORD CAN BE RECONCILED BY UNDERSTANDING THE EXPRESSION 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE' IN SECTION 10A AS 'TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING'. 18. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE ANSWER THE APPEALS AND THE QUESTIONS ARISING THEREIN, AS FO RMULATED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT THOUGH SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED, IS A PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION, THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION WOULD BE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT AND NOT AT TH E STAGE OF COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VI. ALL THE APPEALS SHALL STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 13. FROM PERUSAL OF ABOVE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT, WE UNDERSTAND THAT FOR CALCULATING THE EXEMPTION U/S.10A/10B OF THE ACT, THE STAGE OF DEDUCTIO N WOULD BE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING UNDER CHAPTER IV. FURTHER GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS HEADS COVERED UNDER CHAPTER IV, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE INCOME WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED AFTER FOLLOWING THE P ROVISIONS UNDER SUB HEAD (D) ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 8 OF CHAPTER IV I.E. PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRING TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND WHICH RELATES TO UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, WE FIND NECESSARY TO GO THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH CONTEMPLATES THAT, WHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FULL EFFECT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO ALLOWANCE UNDER SUB - SECTION(1) IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, OWING TO THERE BEING NO PROFITS OR GAINS CHARGEABLE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR OR OWING TO THE PROVISIONS OR LOSS CHARGEABLE BEING LESS THAN THE ALLOWANCE, THEN, SUBJECT TO THE SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 72 AND SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 73, THE ALLOWANCE OR THE PART OF THE ALLOWANCE TO WHICH EFFECT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN, AS THE CASE MAY BE SHALL BE ADDED TO THE AMOUNT ALL THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUS YEAR AND DEEMED TO BE PART OF THAT ALLOWANCE, OR IF THERE IS NO SUCH ALLOWANCE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR WE DEEM TO BE THE ALLOWANCE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND SO O N FOR THE SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEARS. APPLYING THIS PROVISION, ON THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS WITH REGARD TO UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION CLAIMING FOR NOT SETTING OFF IS AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. HOWE VER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TAKES ON THE COLOUR OF CURRENT YEAR DEPRECIA TION, WHICH NEEDS TO BE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING AS ENVISAGED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE FI NDINGS REFERRED ABOVE. 14. HOWEVER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOT EVIDENT THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 87,46,089/ - PERTAINS TO THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING COVERED U/S. 10B OF THE ACT OR OF OTHER UNITS WHICH ARE NOT COVERED U/S. 10B OF THE ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 9 AC T. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. YOKOGAWA IN DIA LTD., WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT IN ORDER TO CALCULATE EX EMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING U/S. 10B OF THE ACT NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED/ ADJUSTED SO AS TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO MENT ION THAT A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BE PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 16. GROUND NO. 3, T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF CCGL AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT OF THE SAME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. 17. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR GROUNDS H AS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY CO - ORDINATE BENCH, AHMEDABAD VIDE ITA NO. 2273/AHD/2012 AND OTHERS PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09 PRONOUNCED IN ON 25.06.2013 WHEREIN CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AS TO HOW OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS HAVE TREATED THE SALE OF CCGL. LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS GROUND NO. 3 MAY ALSO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. FOR EXAMINING AFRESH. ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 10 18. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. FOR EXAMINING AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR OTHER YEARS AS HELD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. APPELLANT HAS CHALLENG ED CIT(A)S ORDER CONFIRMING LD. A.O.S ACTION O F NOT TREATING THE ASSESSEE TO BE T HE MANUFACTURE OF CCGL. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS MERELY SELLING CCGL O F TRADING BASIS BUT NOT CARRYING ON MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. LD. A.O. ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT ON EXPORT OF CCGL SHEET WITHOUT DOING MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT REPACKING OF RAW MATERIAL DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE A CT. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RAW MATERIALS THAT IS CCGL IS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH UNDERGO CHANGE AND A DIFFERENT COMMODITY COMES INTO EXISTENCE. THE RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE FORM OF LONG SHEETS WHEREAS THE FINISHED GOODS ARE IN THE FORM OF REQUIRED SIZES AFTER REDUCING THE OXIDIZATION CONTENT IN THE RAW MATERIAL. 20. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. A.O. AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES GROUND BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS. 4.1. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 11 BY MY PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2004 - 04 IN APPEAL NO. CAB/II - 644/06 - 07. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT AT LENGTH IN THAT ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE APPELLANT'S DEEMED EXPORT WAS RECEIVED IN INDIAN RUPEE AND NOT IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF SECTION 10B(3) CLEARLY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF PROCEEDS I N CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. RBI HAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED ANY EXCEPTION THEREBY THE RUPEE RECEIPT COULD BE TREATED AS CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTI ON U/S. 10B IN RESPECT OF DEEMED EXPORT, THE PROCEEDS WHICH WERE NOT RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THIS GROUND OF APPELLANT IS THEREFORE REJECTED AND ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED.' 21. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. COUNSEL HAS RE QUESTED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS GROUND TO THE FILES OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING AFRESH BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09 PRONOUNCED ON 25.06.2013 WHERE A SIMILAR GR OUND WAS RAISED AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF CCGL. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AFRESH AND ALSO TO CHECK , T HE EXACT POSITION OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF CCGL EXPORT BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: - 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH T HE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ACCORDING TO US, THESE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY CANNOT BE DECIDED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION. TO APPRECIATE THE CORRECT FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS ALWAYS ADVISABLE TO PERSONALLY WATCH THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING, IF POSSIBLE. DUE TO CERTAIN PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES AS ALS O PAUCITY OF TIME, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A REVENUE OFFICER TO PERSONALLY VISIT AND ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 12 INSPECT THE MANUFACTURING UNIT SO AS TO UNDERSTAND THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THIS TYPE OF ISSUE REMAINS A MATTER OF CONTROVERSY, HOWEVER, WHILE LOOKING AT THE SECOND STAGE OF APPEAL WE HAVE TO DEPEND UPON THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AS ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON ANALYZING ALL THESE MATERIALS, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT CCGL HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, STATED TO BE IN LONG SHEETS. THE CCGL SHEETS WERE CLEANED BY REMOVING THE OXIDIZATION EFFECT. UPTO THIS STAGE MERE CLEANING PROCESS THUS CANNOT BE TERMED AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, WE ARE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DR THAT THE REMOVING OF THE OXIDIZ ATION EFFECT WAS NOTHING BUT 'PROCESSING'. THEREAFTER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, THOSE CCGL SHEETS HAVE BEEN CUT INTO VARIOUS SMALL SIZES. THAT FACT HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED EVEN THROUGH DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON OF AMBIGUIT Y IS THE DESCRIPTION MENTIONED IN THE SALES INVOICES. THE SALE INVOICES HAVE MENTIONED THE PRODUCT SOLD AS 'COPPER CLADDED GLASS EPOXY LAMINATES'. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE FINDING OF THE AO ON INQUIRY WAS THAT THE RAW MATERIAL WAS ALSO THE SAME I.E. 'COPPER CLA DDED GLASS EPOXY LAMINATES'. THE AO HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FOUND THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM ISOLA LAMINATE SYSTEM CO. LTD., CHINA AND NANYA PLASTIC CO., TAIWAN. THE CCGL WAS, T HEREFORE, IMPORTED AND AS PER THE DESCRIPTION, AS ALSO, AS PER THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE PRODUCT PURCHASED AND THEREAFTER SOLD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT AFTER THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS THE SAI D PRODUCT WAS SUBJECTED TO EXCISE DUTY. IN RESPECT OF THIS CONTENTION NOW BEFORE US FORM A.R.E. - 1 IS PLACED. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF EXCISABLE GOODS FOR EXPORT. THE AR HAS THEREFORE CONTESTED THAT BECAUSE OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY THE EXC ISE WAS LEVIED ON THE GOODS EXPORTED. HOWEVER, THE BASIS ON WHICH THE EXCISE WAS LEVIED ON THE PRODUCT EXPORTED HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO CLEARLY SPECIFY THE SPECIFICATION OF THE CCGL SHEETS PURCHASED. THE SPECIFICATION S UCH AS SIZE OF THE SHEETS, SURFACE OF THE SHEETS AND ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 13 THICKNESS OF THE SHEETS ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SCRUTINY. IN THIS REGARD, AN INSPECTION REPORT CAN ALSO BE PROCURED FROM A SPECIALIZED PERSON. THE INSPECTION REPORT WHICH IS NOW PART OF THE PAPER BOOK ONLY MENTIONED THAT OXIDIZATION WAS DONE ON THE SHEETS. MEANING THEREBY THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION HAS ONLY PASSED THE TEST OF CLEANLINESS. AS WE HAVE OPINED, THE PROCESS OF OXIDIZATION CAN ONLY BE HELD AS 'PROCESSING' AND NOT 'MANUFACTURING . AN ANOTHER ARGU MENT HAS BEEN RAISED THAT A CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT A CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY KANDLA SPECIAL ZONE, GANDHINAGAR. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DE NIAL OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AS A WHOLE IS A MANUFACTURING - UNIT BECAUSE A DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED OF RS.1,67,47,045/ - . BUT THE DISPUTE IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE SALES WHICH HAVE NOT UNDERGONE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. EV EN THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT VERY CONVINCING THAT THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION WAS AN INTERMEDIARY PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) HAS EXAMINED THE PROCESS OF TYRE MANUFACTURING AND THEN ARRIVED AT THE FIND ING OF FACT THAT THE SAID INTERMEDIARY WAS MANUFACTURED FROM WHICH THE TYRES WERE MANUFACTURED. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT FACTUAL POSITION IS CONCERNED, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE SUCH A FINDING UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CORRECT FACTUAL POSITION IN RESPECT OF THE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, IS PLACED ON RECORD. EVEN IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL LAMINATE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). THE RESPECTED THIRD MEMBER HAS IDENTIFIED THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY AND THE COMMODITY FOUND TO BE MANUFACTURED B Y THE SAID APPELLANT. A CLEAR CUT FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFORMATION INTO A NEW COMMODITY WHICH WAS COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE COMMODITY HAVING ITS OWN CHARACTER, USE AND NAME. RATHER, THE RESPECTED THIRD MEMBER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY HAD CEASED TO EXIST. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE COMMODITY WHICH WAS MANUFACTURED AND CAME INTO EXISTENCE HAD MEANT FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE. AS PER THE SAID JUDGMENT; IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCEDURE, CERTAIN CHANGES TAKE PLACE ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 14 AND THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY THUS NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS A MANUFACTURED COMMODITY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MAIN CASE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS THAT ALLEGEDLY NO SUCH CHANGE HAD TAKEN PLACE, THEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY REMAIN UNCH ANGED. HOWEVER, A QUESTION HAS YET TO BE ANSWERED THAT HOW ANOTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT HAD TREATED THE SALE OF CCGL? FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, WE DEEM IT PROPER, AS ALSO JUSTIFIABLE, TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF AO TO EXAMINE AFRESH THE EXA CT POSITION OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF CCGL EXPORT. IN THE RESULT, BECAUSE OF THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ONLY. 5.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED THAT TOO FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 22. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND A SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES ADJUDICATED BY CO - ORDINATE BENCH AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RE STORE THE ISSUES IN THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER CCGL EXPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURED COMMODITY. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BE PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, A LLOW THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B TO RS. 60,67, 720/ - INSTEAD OF 1,28, 96,287/ - . ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 15 23. IT WOULD BE JUST ACADEMIC TO DEAL WITH THIS GROUND AS WE HAVE ALLOWED ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 2 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ITA NO. 1059/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04. 25. THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT . 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, BARODA ('THE CIT') ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING POWERS U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'), WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY WAY OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, BARODA ('T HE AO') DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR INVOKING SUCH EXTRA - ORDINARY JURISDICTION WERE NOT SATISFIED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 1,08,52,310/ - IS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF FROM PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN WRONGLY COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B (4) OF THE ACT BY REDUCING THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION & BUSINESS LOSS FROM THE P ROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING. 4. THE LEARNED CIT OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B BEFORE SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 10B TO RS. 29,84,208/ - INSTEAD OF RS. 60,67,720/ - ALLOWED BY THE AO . ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 16 26. WE OBSERVE THAT THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT U/S. 263 WHEREIN LD. CIT HAS RAISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE ACT DATED 24.12.2010. ON PERUSAL OF THIS ORDER U/S. 263, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES RELATES TO DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, AND ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS. 27. WE FIND THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING AS SESSEES APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 786/AHD/2013 AGAINST CITS ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT , W E HAVE ALLOWED BOTH THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHICH RELATES TO CALCULATION OF EXEMPTION U/ S. 10B AS WELL AS ELIGIBILITY OF ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 10B FOR EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED GOODS NAMELY CCGL. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THESE ISSUES AND PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER, I T WOULD BE JUST AC ADEMIC TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE CHALLENGING LD. CITS ORDER U/S. 263 WHICH ALSO INTENDS TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 03 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - (S. S. GODARA ) (MANISH BORAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDAB AD: DATED 31 /03 /2 017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. ITA NOS. 786 & 1059/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2003 - 04 17 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD