Shri Ujjaval Maheshbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 113/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9489 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Valuation report; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.113/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) SHRI UJJAVAL MAHESHBHAI PANDYA 23, SURYANARAYAN SOCIETY, OPP. VISAT PETROL PUMP, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD 380 005 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD: 3(1), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: BVEPP8411G & ITA NO.114/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) SMT. JIGNA MAHESHBHAI PANDYA 23, SURYANARAYAN SOCIETY, OPP. VISAT PETROL PUMP, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD 380 005 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD: 3(1), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AIOPP5799R ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - & ITA NO.115/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) SHRI YAMINI MAHESHBHAI PANDYA 23, SURYANARAYAN SOCIETY, OPP. VISAT PETROL PUMP,SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD 380 005 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD: 3(1), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: BDSPP4715R /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI P. S. CHAUDHARY, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS IN CASE OF AS MANY ASSESSEES FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISE AGAINST CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABADS SEPARA TE ORDERS; ALL DATED 08.05.2015 IN APPEAL NOS. CIT(A)-10/ITO WARD-3(1)28 3/2014-15, CIT(A)- 10/ITO WARD-3(1)284/2014-15 & CIT(A)-10/ITO WARD-3( 1)282/2014-15 , ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. IT IS EVIDENT AT THE OUTSET THAT ALL THESE APPEA LS SUFFER FROM DELAY OF 161 DAYS IN FILING EXCEPT SECOND CASE ITA NO.114/AHD/20 16 INVOLVING DELAY OF 195 DAYS. THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED CONDONATION P ETITIONS AS WELL. FIRST ASSESSEE SHRI UJWAL MAHESHBHAI PANDYA PLEADS THEREI N THAT HE IS EMPLOYED IN IT SECTOR IN MOHALI, PUNJAB. HE IS STATED TO BE VISITING HIS PARENTS ON VERY FEW OCCASIONS IN YEAR. THE SAID APPELLANT ACCORDIN GLY AVERS THAT HIS OLD PARENTS HAD RECEIVED THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN QUESTION WHICH COULD BE HANDED OVER TO HIM ON HIS VISIT TO AHMEDABAD. HIS FURTHER CASE IS THAT AFTER GETTING COPY OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER IN JANUARY 2016, HE INITIATED ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO FILE HIS INSTANT APPEAL AFTER A DELAY OF 1 61 DAYS. LATER TWO ASSESSEES MS. JIGNA MAHESHBHAI PANDYA AND YAMINI MAHESHBHAI P ANDYA ARE HIS SISTERS WHO HAVE GOT MARRIED AND STAYING AWAY FROM THEIR PA RENTS. THEIR CASE ALSO IS IN THE SAME TUNE THAT THEY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE I MPUGNED ORDER MUCH LATER THAT THE STIPULATED PERIOD. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE ALL THESE SOLEMN AVERMENTS. AND ALSO THAT THESE ASSESSEES ADDRESSES HAVE CHANGED THEN THOSE GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE THUS FIND ALL THE ABOVE REASONS TO FORM JUST AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDONING THE ABOVE STATED DELAY IN ALL THREE APPEALS. THE S AME ARE NOW TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. WE FIRST COME TO COMMON ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISI TION OF THE ASSET SOLD AS ON 01.04.1981 IN ALL THREE CASES. THESE ASSESSE ES CO-OWNED THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION I.E. A PLOT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO. 858/1, TPS-44 ADMEASURING 394C SQ.MTRS., CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD ALONG WITH OTH ER CO-OWNERS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IT WAS THEIR ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. THEY SOLD THE ABOVE PLOT ON 10.06.2010 FOR RS.2,56,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEES ADO PTED ITS COST OF ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 4 - ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 @ RS.501/- PER SQ.MTR. AS PER GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUERS REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HO WEVER WENT BY DVOS REPORT IN ANOTHER CO-OWNERS CASE TO REDUCE THE ABO VE COST OF ACQUISITION AS RS.194.34 PER SQ.MTR. QUA THE VERY PROPERTY. HE AC CORDINGLY FRAMED REGULAR ASSESSMENTS IN THESE THREE CASES ON 10.02.2014 MAKI NG LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EACH OF RS.11,03,830/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE SA ME IN THE LOWER APPELLATES ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI DIVETIA AT THE OUTSET FILES BEFORE US A COPY CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 01.05.2015 IN CASE OF YET ANOTHER CO-OWNER SHRI YAGNESH ASHWINKUMAR PANDY A REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN REFERRING VALUATION I SSUE OF THE VERY CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION AS NOT SUSTAINABLE U/S.55A OF THE ACT READING AS UNDER: 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS INCREASED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT BY REDUCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE APPELLAN T AS ON 1.4.1981. IT HAS BEEN, SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH 11 CO-OWNERS H AD SOLD THE LAND ADMEASURING 3946 SQR. MTRS. FOR THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS,2,56,50,000/-. THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1,4,1981 WAS TAKEN AT RS.32,95, 077/- @, R.S.501/- PER SQR. MTR. ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVERNM ENT APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER NAMELY SHRI CHAMPAKLAL D. SHAH. THE AO FOUND IT VER Y HIGH FIND THEREFORE A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE AVO AHMEDABAD BY THE AO V IDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DTD, 7.2.2013, IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AYO SUBMITTE D HIS REPORT DTD. 3,5.2013 AND AFTER NECESSARY CORRIGENDUM VIDE LETTER DTD. 7. 5.2013 HE HAS ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.21,37,500/- CONSI DERING THE RATE OF R.S.325/- PER SQR. MTR. HOWEVER, THIS VALUATION WAS ALSO NOT AC CEPTED, BY THE AO AND HE ONCE AGAIN REFERRED BACK THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFF ICER FOR REVALUATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME' THE VALUATION OFFICER-2, AHMEDABAD VID E HIS REPORT DTD. 13.11.2013 HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AS ON 1,4,1981 AT RS.12,78, 200/- ONLY CONSIDERING THE RATE AT RS.194.34 PER SQR. .MTR. THUS AS AGAINST THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT OF COST OF ACQUISITION @ RS,501/- PER SQR. MTR ON 1.4.1981 BAS ED UPON VALUATION BY REGISTERED VALUER THE VALUATION OFFICER-11 IN THE S ECOND REPORT HAS ESTIMATED THE RATE AT RS.194.34 PER SQR.MTR .WHICH HAS BEEN CHALL ENGED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS DIS CUSSED IN THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE A.O. AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THIS RATE TAKEN FOR COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED WHICH ULTIMATELY INCREASED THE LONG TERRA CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF HIS SHARE IN THE SAID LAND, ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 - 4.4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION, IT IS FO UND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFI CER ON VARIOUS ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE SOME SUBSTANCE. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THA T THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE VALUATION O FFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A WAS ITSELF NOT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE PREVISIONS OF LAW. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A THE REFERENCE COULD ONLY BE MADE WHEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS EXCEEDING TO T HE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE CONTRARY IN THE INSTANT EASE THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS HIGHER THAN, WHAT THE AVO HAS ESTIM ATED. THEREFORE, IN THAT SITUATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A ARE RIOT AP PLICABLE AND THE REFERENCE ITSELF BECOMES VOID-AB-INITIO. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSIT ION, VARIOUS COURT'S HAVE GIVEN THEIR DECISIONS/JUDGMENTS AND SOME OF .THEM ARE DIS CUSSED HEREUNDER.- 4.5. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE DVO STATING NOT LEGAL AND INVALID IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. POOJA PRINTS 98 DTR 177 AND CIT VS. DAUIAL MOHTA HUF 360 ITR 680 AND MENTIONED THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DETE RMINED BY CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, AND IG NORING THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IS NOT LEGAL AND ADDITIONS MA DE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ILLEGAL REPORT NEEDS TO BE DELETED. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.55A ARE NOT FULFILLED AS SUCH REFERENCE TO THE PYO WAS NOT LEGAL AND VALID IN LAW. SO NO COGNIGENCE CAN BE TAKEN ON THE SAID INVALID VALUATI ON REPORT. 'FURTHER IT WAS ALSO OBJECTED THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICE R LIAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS/MISTAKES OR ESTABLISHING THAT THE V ALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS NOT PROPER AND DID NOT SHOW THE FAIR MAR KET VALUE. 4.6. IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HON'BLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE EASE OF CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA HUF 360 ITR 680 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- CAPITAL GAINS - COMPUTATION - COST OF ACQUISITON - FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 - REFERENCE TO DEPARTME NTAL VALUAT10N OFFICER - ONLY VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSET SHO WN BY ASSESSEE LESS THAN ITS FIAR MARKET VALUE - INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 S. 55A. REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION. OFFICER CA N ONLY BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN US FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON APRIL, 1, 1981, 'WHERE T HE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE APP ROVED VALUER'S REPORT WAS MORE THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, REFERENCE UNDE R SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS NOT VALID. 4.7. FURTHER THE HON'BIE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS IN 360 ITR 697 HAS ALSO HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 6 - CAPITAL GAINS - LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS- COMPUTATIO N COST OFACQUISITON - FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1,4. 1981 - REFERENCE TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER - ONLY WHEN VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE IESS THAN PAIR MARK ET VALUE - VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE MUCH MORE THAN FA IR MARKET VALUE - REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER COULD NOT BE MADE - INCOME ATAX ACT, 1961,S.55A(A) 4.8. FURTHER THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. GAURANGINIBEN S. SHODHAN IN TAX- APPEAL, NO. 149 TO 151 OF 20! 3 DID. 21.1.2014 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'AS REGARDS REFERENCE TO DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE F AIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, SUCH REFERENCE WAS ALSO NOT COMPETENT- PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN S. 55A W.E.F, 1 ST JULY, 2012, REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO IF THE AO WAS OF THE , OPINION THAT THE VALUE O F THE ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE : ESTIMATE MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE - IT IS NOT THE EASE OF THE AO THAT THE VALUE OF THE ASSET SHOWN AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE- FOR THE SAME RESON, SUB-CL.(I) OF CL. (B) OF S. 55 A HAS NO BEARING ON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 - AO HAS NOT RESORTED TO SUB-CL.(II) OF CL. (B) - IN ANY CASE, CL. (B) AP PLIES WHERE CL. (A) DOES NOT APPLY AS IT STARTS WITH THE EXPRESSION 'IN ANY OTHE R CASE'- IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON A REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT, AO CA N PROCEED ONLY UNDER CL. (A) AND CL. (B) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE - IN THE IN STANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE REG ISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING ITS VALUATION OF THE ASSET - ANY SUCH SITUATION IS GOVERNED BY CL. (A) OF S. 55A, AND THE AO COULD NOT HAVE RESORTED TO CL. (B) THEREOF,' 4.9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE REFER ENCE TO THE DVO IS NOT FOUND CORRECT AND LEGAL AND SUCH RELIANCE UPON THE AVOS R EPORT AND FURTHER INCREASING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN-IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4.10. IT IS WORTH HERE TO MENTION THAT THE AMENDMEN T IN THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS HAS ONLY BE MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2012 BY THE F INANCE ACT, 2012 WHEREBY THE REFERENCE CAN BE MADE WHEN THERE IS 'VARIANCE' WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. OTHERWISE AS PER THE AMENDMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE LEGAL POSITION WAS DIFFERENT BEFORE PRE-AMENDMENT PERIOD AND THIS AMENDMENT COUL D NOT BE SAID TO BE CLARIFICATORY OR RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 4.11. IN VIEW, OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE AO' S ACTION FOR TAKING THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4,1981 AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT OF- THE DVO IS FOUND NOT CORRECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT AND THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED TO TAKE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS SHOWN IN THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERE D VALUER WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLANT WHILE ARRIVING, AT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT. THUS, THE STAND OF THE AO IS REJECTED AND ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 7 - 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO IND ICATE ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS. HIS ONLY PLEA IS THAT THE SAID CIT(A)S ORDER IS VERY MUCH AGAINST THE LAW BUT THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT FILE APPEAL DU E TO TAX EFFECT INVOLVED OF LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-. THIS PLEA FAILS TO IMPRE SS UPON US AS THE VERY COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION AS ON 01.04.1981 HAS TO BE ADOPTED IN ALL CO-OWNERS CASES INSTEAD OF THE PART ICULAR APPELLANT HEREINABOVE. WE CANT ADOPT DIFFERENT COST OF ACQU ISITION QUA THE VERY CAPITAL ASSET. WE THUS FOLLOW THE SAME REASONING HEREIN AS WELL TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED LONG TERM GAIN ADDITION. ALL THESE ASSESS EES ACCORDINGLY SUCCEED IN THEIR FIRST COMMON SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. FIRST AP PEAL ITA NO.113/AHD/2016 RAISING THE SAID SOLE GRIEVANCE IS ACCEPTED. 6. WE NOW PROCEED TO LATTER TWO APPEALS SEEKING TO CLAIM SECTION 54F DEDUCTION. THE CIT(A) OBSERVES THAT SINCE THE LATT ER TWO ASSESSEES HAVE RE- INVESTED THEIR SALE CONSIDERATION MONEY / LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE NAMES OF THEIR MOTHER AND BROTHER, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION ON THIS SCORE ALONE. THIS REASONING IS ALSO NOT SU STAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE REITERATE THE SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS IN THE N ATURE OF A DEDUCTION PROVISION IN A TAXING STATUTE TO BE LIBERALLY CONST ITUTE. THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULATION THAT THE SAID RE-INVESTMENT OF SALE CON SIDERATION/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN QUESTION IS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE NAMES O F VENDOR ASSESSEES. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE VERY FAIR IN FORMING THE BENCH THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. WE THUS QUOTE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISIONS IN (2013) 30 TAXMANN.C OM 34 (DELHI) CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL AND CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA (2012 ) 342 ITR 38 TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ABOVE DEDUCTION PROVISION NEITHER PROVIDES FOR PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER IN THE CONCERNED ASSES SEES OWN NAME OR EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME. THE LATTER TWO ASSESSEES DEDUCTION CLAIM U/S.54F OF ITA NOS. 113 TO 115/AHD/2016 (SHRI UJJAVAL M. PANDY A & TWO ORS.) A.Y. 2011-12 - 8 - THE ACT IS ACCORDINGLY HELD ALLOWABLE. THEIR CORRE SPONDING SUBSTANTIVE GROUND STANDS ACCEPTED. 7. THESE THREE ASSESSEES SUCCEED IN THEIR RESPECTIV E APPEALS. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 23TH DA Y OF JANUARY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 23/01/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0