Shri Hardik Jigarbhai Desai, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3, Surat

ITA 1084/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0344 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI, 1, SEEMA ROW HOUSE, CHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT PAN : AAKPD 1044 M VS DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SURAT / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN JAGIRDAR, AR REVENUE BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/10/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, SU RAT DATED 28.02.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ONE ISSUE IS RAISED BY FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- THE ID C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 40A (IA) IS APPLI CABLE ON YEAR END PROVISIONS OF COMMISSION EXPENSE OF RS. 26 LACS AS TDS IS. NOT DEDUCTED INSPITE OF FOLLOWING REASONS: I) THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE BASIS OF A ACCOUNTING. THEREFORE, HE IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW MATCHING PRINCIPLE I.E. ALL EXPE NDITURES RELEVANT TO ACCOUNTED SALES/INCOME SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED IN SAME YEAR AND VICE VERSA, WHETHER BILLS OF RELEVANT PARTIES ARE RECEIVED OR N OT. WHERE EVER BILLS ARE RECEIVED, IT IS CREDITED TO PARTY'S ACCOUNT AND WHE RE EVER BILLS ARE NOT RECEIVED FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE ENTRY FOR PROVISION O F EXPENDITURE IS PASSED. EXPENDITURE A/C DR TO PROVISION TO EXPENDITURE A/C CR THIS ENTRY IS REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT TRUE AND FAIR F IGURE OF PROFIT FOR THE SAID YEAR AS PER NORMALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES . SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 2 II) ENTRY FOR PROVISION OF EARLIER YEAR IS DULY IS REVERSED ON 1ST DAY OF FOLLOWING YEAR BY CREDITING EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND DEBITING INCOME ACCOUNT. PROVISION FOR EXPENDITURE A/C DR TO EXPENDITURE A/C CR . THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FOLLOWING SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. II) AS AND WHEN BILLS ARE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE, EX PENSE ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND INCOME ACCOUNT IS CREDITED. TDS IS ALSO DULY PAID O N BEHALF OF BILLING PARTY ON THAT DATE. IV)AS BILLS ARE NOT RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE TDS CANN OT BE DEDUCTED IN THE NAME OF UNKNOWN PARTY AND THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING INCOME OF ANY PERSON FOR THAT RELEVANT YEAR 'THEREFORE, PROVISION S OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR SUCH YEAR END PROVISION. V) THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED FULL DETAILS OF COMMIS SION AGENTS TO WHOM SUCH COMMISSION WAS PAID IN FOLLOWING YEARS AFTER DEDUCT ION OF TDS ON THE SALES OF CURRENT YEAR. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO BE FOLL OWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,99,355/- UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION EXPENSES WITHOUT DEDUCTING APPLICABLE TDS FROM THE SAME. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE PROVISION OF COMM ISSION OF RS.26 LACS WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND FOLLOWING THE MERCAN TILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING; THEREFORE THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE. SINC E THE NAMES OF PAYEES WERE NOT KNOWN, THE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED AS THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT KNOW IN WHOSE ACCOUNT THE TDS WAS TO BE CREDITED. 3.2 THE AO DID NOT FIND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE T O BE TENABLE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE COMMISSIO N EXPENSES TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH HAD RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF HIS PROFIT AND HENCE TDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FROM SUCH EXPENSES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 3 PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H, TDS SHOULD BE M ADE FROM THE COMMISSION AMOUNT LIKELY TO BE CREDITED IF THE AM OUNT EXCEEDED RS. 2,500/- AND AS THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT WAS RS.26,00,000/- WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT ST IPULATED IN SECTION 194H, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DONE TDS ON THIS COM MISSION AMOUNT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE OF TH E ASSESSEE OF DEBITING THE AMOUNT OF RS.26,00,000/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND CREDITING THE SAME AMOUNT BACK ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEXT FY BY PASS ING REVERSE ENTRY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DIVERTED HIS INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) FOR DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS.26,00,000/- UNDE R THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF INDUSTR IAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA V/S. ITO (2007) 293 ITR 267 HAS HELD THAT THE IDBI DID NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PRO VISION OF INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE IF THE RECIPIENTS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DECISION WAS GIVEN BY ITAT MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA V/S. DCIT IN ITA NO. 8597/MUM/2010. THE AS SESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE HON'BLE CBDT HAD ALSO DULY CON SIDERED THE ISSUE AND HAD ISSUED A CLARIFICATION TO TATA IRON AND STEEL C O. LTD. 275/126/96-17(6) DT. 05.07.1996 THAT IN CASE OF YEAR END PROVISION W HERE THE PARTY WAS NOT KNOWN, PROVISIONS OF TDS WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 3.4 THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE LD. AO BY DETAILED FINDING AS UNDER:- 5.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON. IT IS A FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CREATED 'PROVISION FOR COMMISSION PAYABLE' ON WHICH NO TDS HAS BEEN DONE. THIS PROVISION FOR COMMISSION PAYABLE THIS YEAR HAS BEEN CREATED ON 31-03- 2009 AND HAS BEEN REVERSED ON THE 1ST DAY OF THE NE XT FINANCIAL YEAR. I.E. ON SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 4 01-04-2009. THIS SHOWS THAT THE LIABILITY HAS NOT C RYSTALLIZED IN THIS YEAR. SUCH CONTINGENT LIABILITY IS INADMISSIBLE AS A DEDU CTION WHATEVER ACCOUNTING METHOD THE APPELLANT FOLLOWS-MERCANTILE OR CASH. TH IS IS SO BECAUSE EVEN IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM UNLESS THE LIABILITY TO PAY CRYST ALLIZES IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION. THE VERY FACT THAT THE APPELLANT RE VERSES THE WHOLE OF THE PROVISION ON THE 1 ST DAY OF THE NEXT F.Y. & THEN DEBITS THE ACTUAL AMOU NT ALONG WITH THE PAYEES NAMES AND OTHER DETAILS DURIN G THE NEXT FY ESTABLISHES THAT THE LIABILITIES FOR WHICH PROVISION WAS MADE O N 31ST MARCH HAD NOT CRYSTALLIZED. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION MAD E WAS A NON DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. IN CASE IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE LIAB ILITY HAD CRYSTALLIZED IN THIS YEAR AS THE SALE AND PURCHASE HAD BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE THE LIABILITY FOR COMMISSION WAS KNOWN, THEN BY THE SAME LOGIC IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM CO MMISSION IS TO BE GIVEN ALONG WITH THE AMOUNTS WOULD BE KNOWN TO THE APPELL ANT AS HE IS THE ONE CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO M ENTION THAT ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, PROVISION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF 'A BOUT' 2% OF SALES WHICH IS STATED AS CUSTOMARY COMMISSION WHICH ONLY SHOWS THA T THE PROVISION AMOUNT IS ITSELF NOT JUSTIFIABLE OR HAS NOT CRYSTAL LIZED. SINCE TDS HAS TO BE MADE ON CREDIT OR PAYMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, TH E LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD ARISE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AT THE TI ME OF MAKING THE PROVISION I.E. ON 31ST OF MARCH ITSELF AND SINCE NO TDS HAS B EEN MADE, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE CAUGHT WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SEC 40 A (IA ). THEREFORE WHICHEVER WAY WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE, THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION W AS NOT AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION DURING THE YEAR. 5.2. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT PROVISION OF SEC. 40A(IA) WAS NOT ATTRACTED IN HIS CASE AS THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM PAYMENTS HAD TO BE MADE WAS NOT KNOWN TO HIM DOES NOT HELP HIS CAUSE. IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APP ELLANT, THE ISSUE PERTAINED TO PROVISIONS MADE FOR INTEREST EXPENSE INCURRED FO R THE YEAR WHICH WAS QUANTIFIABLE BUT ONLY PROVISIONS COULD BE MADE AS T HESE HAD NOT FALLEN DUE FOR PAYMENT AND THEREFORE NEITHER PAID NOR CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIVER. IT WAS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COURTS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX. THE LETTER TO TISCO GIVEN BY CBDT IS ALSO IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS. AS AGAI NST THIS, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE EXPENSE IS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR QU ANTIFIABLE AND HENCE THE PROVISION ITSELF IS INADMISSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION - WH ETHER TDS MADE OR NOT. IF, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS ARGUED THAT TH E AMOUNT IS QUANTIFIABLE AND ACCRUED, THEN THE DETAILS WOULD BE KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CREDITED TO THE COMMISSION AGENT'S ACCOUN T AND TDS MADE. 5.3 DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, A RECO NCILIATION OF CURRENT YEAR SALES/PURCHASES WITH THE PAYMENTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEA RS TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE WERE CALLED FOR AND THIS SHOWS THAT THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RS.26,00,000/- WERE CLAIMED AS EXPENSES SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 5 IN THE AY 2009-10, PAYMENTS WERE ACTUALLY MADE FOR ONLY RS.19,57,030/- (AND THAT TOO THROUGH FY 2010-2011) AND IT IS SHOCK ING TO NOTE THAT THE REMAINDER PROVISION WAS NEVER WRITTEN BACK IN THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. EVEN OUT OF THIS RS.19,57,030/-, ONLY RS.3,01,120/- AND RS.23,175/- HAVE BEEN STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY SU CCEEDING YEAR AND AGAIN A NEW PROVISION OF RS.25,46,524/- HAS BEEN MADE IN FY 09-10 IN THE BOOKS OF PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND CLAIMED AS EXPENSE FOR I MMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TH E PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN FOR AY 2010-11 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS PRO VES THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE MADE ACCORDING TO THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY PROPER BASIS AND LIABILITY TO PAY. THIS IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE A SINGLE PURCHASE/SALE T RANSACTION AFTER OCTOBER 2008 THROUGH THE BROKERS BUT STILL HAS MADE ONLY PR OVISIONS AND NOT QUANTIFIED ACTUAL AMOUNTS. THEREFORE AT BEST THE AP PELLANT CAN BE ALLOWED RS.19,57,030/- AND THAT TOO IN THE YEAR OF ACTUAL P AYMENT PROVIDED THE GENUINENESS IS ESTABLISHED AND TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON THESE PAYMENTS. THE REASON I HAVE MENTIONED THAT GENUINENESS OF EXPENSE S SHOULD ALSO BE VERIFIED IS THAT IN DIFFERENT SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME THE APPE LLANT HAS STATED DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF COMMISSION PAID FOR THE YEAR NONE OF WHI CH MATCH WITH THE PROVISIONS MADE. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS DONE THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS APPEARI NG AT SERIAL NO 11 TO 17 IN THE DETAIL FURNISHED BY IT BEFORE ME WHICH RAISE S SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THESE PAYMENTS. SIMILARLY, THE ACTUA L PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION FOR SALES/PURCHASES IN SUBSEQ UENT PERIODS ARE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT SUBMISSIONS. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THIS Y EAR IS CONCERNED, THE PROVISIONS ARE CONTINGENT IN NATURE, NOT QUANTIFIAB LE OR ACCRUED, AND THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE AS A DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, I N MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION OF RS.26,00,000/- MADE TOWA RDS COMMISSION WAS AN INADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 'PROVISION FOR COMMISSION PAYABLE' OF RS.26,00,000/- MADE BY T HE AO IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE J UDGMENTS OF IDBI (SUPRA), MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA (SUPRA) AND CBDT CLARI FICATION DATED 05.07.1996 AND CONTENDS THAT THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN PAST YEAR; THEREFORE, MAKING A PROVISION ON THE ESTIMATE BASIS ON THE SALES EFFECTED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE COMMISSION BECOME AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND WAS ALLOWABLE A S BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE DEDUCTION OF TDS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AS THE EXACT NAMES, AMOUNT OF COMMISSION AND TDS PAYABLE TO EACH PARTY WAS NOT KN OWN. THEREFORE, THE SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 6 ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY THE TDS. THI S SITUATION OF IMPOSSIBLE CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST ASSESSEE TO DENY THE CLAIM O F EXPENDITURE. ONCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THIS METHODOLOGY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE. 5. THE LD. SR. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY CO NTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE LIABILITY IN QUESTION WAS UNASCERTAINABLE AS THE NAMES, AMOUNT OF COMMISSION AND TDS PAYABLE THEREON WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS THE ASSESSEE ASCERTAINS THESE DETAILS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY HAD C RYSTALLIZED IN EFFECTIVE TERMS AND WAS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. MERELY BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEES PRACTICE WAS ACCEPTED IN PAST DOES NOT APPLY AS RES JUDICATA INASMUCH AS THE PROVISION OF LAW WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER AN UNTENABLE PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, SECTION 40A(IA) PROVIDES THAT A S AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE PAYMENT OF RELEVANT TDS, THE EXPENDITURE WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. BESIDES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDINGS THAT THE PROVISION WAS MADE ON WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASS ESSEE WITHOUT ANY PROPER BASIS AND EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPEND ITURE; THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE. THE FACTS I N THE CASES OF IDBI AND MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA (SUPRA) ARE ON DIFFERENT FOOT INGS AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR IS ALSO IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. IN THIS CASE, THE SIMPLE QUESTION IS NON-CRYSTALLIZATION AND LIABILITY BEING UNASCERTAIN ED ENTRY IN THE BOOKS AT THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CANNOT BE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND HAVING MADE BOOK ENTRIES CLAIMING T HE EXPENDITURE IT WAS LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TDS AND FAILURE THEREOF WILL RENDER THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE IN CLEAR TERMS OF SECTION 40A(IA). THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS RELIED ON. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. I FIND MERIT IN SMC-ITA NO. 1084/AHD/2013 HARDIK JIGISHBHAI DESAI VS. DCIT AY : 2009-10 7 THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. SR. DR. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE VERY ELABORATED AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROVISION OF C OMMISSION PAYMENT CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY UNASCERTAINABLE, U NCRYSTALLIZED AND FANCIFUL. IT DOES NOT ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF ASCERTAINED MER CANTILE LIABILITY. EVEN IN CASE OF MERCANTILE LIABILITY, SECTION 40A(IA) CLEAR LY MANDATES THAT THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF COR RESPONDING TDS PAYMENT IN GOVERNMENT TREASURY. IN VIEW THEREOF, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS UPHELD AND THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/10/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD