The ITO, Ward-8(2), Surat V. Shri Jignesh V.Sheta, Surat

ITA 1143/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76853 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK N PAREKH
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 69; 56

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$0 00 0! !! !0 00 0 %$ %$ %$ %$, , , , &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( & & & & BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2), SURAT. VS SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA 362, LALITA PARK SOCIETY OPP. KANTARESSHWAR TEMPLE KATARGAM, SURAT. PAN: AVWPS6992A )*/ APPELLANT ,-)* / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI RONAK N. PAREKH, AR $'. / 0'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 09/06/2014 123 / 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/06/2014 &4 &4 &4 &4/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 14.12.2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 16,20,1857-EARNED FROM F & O TRADING ACTIVITY DESPI TE THE FACT THAT ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - NEITHER WAS SUCH TRADING ACTIVITY SHOWN NOR LOSS CL AIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 16,20,1857-EARNED FROM F & O TRADING DESPITE THE FA CT THAT F & O TRADING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT THROUGH UNDISCLOSE D BANK ACCOUNT, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING SET OFF OF BUS INESS LOSS OF RS. 16,20,185/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT ADDITION TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 10,78,209 MADE UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOHAMAD HAJI HASAN V/S CIT 247 ITR 290 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 051104000113823 IN IDB I BANK, GHODHOD ROAD BRANCH, SURAT WHEREIN HE DEPOSITED RS 25,84,51 4/- BY WAY OF CASH AND CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH AND CHEQUE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS DONE TRADING OF SHARES (FUTURES & OPTION) BUT THROUGH OVERSIGHT PROFIT AND LOSS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALARY INCOME OF RS 52,480/- THROUGH CHEQUES AND SA ID CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN IDBI BANK ACCOUNT. DALALI INCOME OF R S 72,893/- WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN IDBI BANK ACCOUNT. THE SUMMARY OF CAS H AND CHEQUE DEPOSITS IN IDBI BANK ACCOUNT IS AS FOLLOWS: RS 25,84,514 TOTAL CASH, CHEQUES DEPOSITED LESS: SALARY INCOME RS 52,480 ALREADY DEPOSITED IN BANK RS 25,32,034 LESS: DALALI INCOME RS 72,893 ALREADY DEPOSITED IN BANK RS 24,59,141 ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - LESS: CHEQUES DEPOSITED ON 26.10.2006 FROM FUTURES & OPTION RS 6,90,572 SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN & AGAIN REDEPOSITED ON 26.10.2006 DALALI INCOME NOT SHOWN IN RETURN OF INCOME RS 17,68,569 BUSINESS LOSS FROM FUTURES & OPTION-SHARES NOT SHOWN IN RETURN OF INCOME RS 16,20,185 NET BUSINESS INCOME NOT SHOWN IN RETURN OF INCOME RS 1,48,384 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NET BUSINESS INCOME OF RS 1,48,384/- FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT DISCLOSE D HIS TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES WHILE FILING THE RETURN, HE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY LOSS FROM SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN. HE NCE, CLAIM OF LOSS FROM SHARE TRANSACTION AT THIS POINT OF TIME CANNOT BE A CCEDED TO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT G IVEN ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE AS SESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF TOTAL CASH DEPOS IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS 14,40,399/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS 6,90,000/- ON 26.10.2006 AND THE SAME WAS RE-DEPOSITED ON FOLLOWING DATES: 17.1..2007 RS 10,000/- 21.2.2007 RS 3,50,000/- 26.2.2007 RS 50,000/- 1.3.2007 RS 90,000/- 5.3.2007 RS1,00,000/- 29.3.2007 RS 1,50,000/- ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE, SALARY INCOME OF RS 52,480/- WAS DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED DALALI INCOME OF RS 72893/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED T HAT CHEQUE OF RS 6,90,572/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 25. 10.2006 AND ON 26.10.2006, THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW RS 6,90,000/- WHI CH WAS RE-DEPOSITED IN THE SAME ACCOUNT AFTERWARDS. CONSIDERING THESE SUB MISSIONS AND FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS 1 0,78,209/-. THEREFORE, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69/69A OF THE ACT, ADDITI ON OF RS 10,78,209/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REMAND REPORT AND THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. IN MY OPINION THE FRESH EV IDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT FIT TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK A/C IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SO FAR AS SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO ALLOWA NCE OF LOSS ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS IS CONCERNED, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE A.O.S VIEW DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. ONCE THE UNACCOUNTED BANK A/C IS OPEN TO SCRUTIN Y, IT IS OPEN IN RESPECT OF ALL INCOMES, CLAIMS AND LOSSES. THE A.O. IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAI LABLE WITH HIM BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE CANNOT IGNORE IF ANY LO SS/CLAIM COMES TO HIS KNOWLEDGE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME DOC UMENT. II. THIS WAS PUT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE A.O. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF BY THE APPELLANT. THI S HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. III. ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT A FRESH CLAIM BEFORE ME, TH IS IS BEING CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION GIVEN BY HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN CASE OF DY. CIT VS. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO. 5164/M/2007. IV. THE A.O., IN HIS REMAND REPORT, HAS NOT COMME NTED ANYTHING ADVERSE ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - V. THIS LOSS IS VERY MUCH REGULAR BUSINESS LOSS ALL OWABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO (D) OF SEC.43(5). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION OF FACTS AND LAW, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SET OFF OF THE LOSS AGAINST THE INCOME AS PER LAW. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS 1,41,880/- IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. ON ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS 10,78,20 9/- TO THE INCOME BEING DEEMED INCOME U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 051104000113823 IN IDBI BA NK, GHODHOD ROAD BRANCH, SURAT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SUFFERED BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 16,20, 185/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEALING IN FUTURES & OPTIONS SHARE TRANSACTIONS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF SUCH LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH LOSS WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF SAID BUSINESS LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 12. WE FIND THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE BUSINESS L OSS OF RS 16,20,185/- SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF ITS DEALING IN FUTURES & OPTIONS SHARE T RANSACTIONS IS NOT IN ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 6 - DISPUTE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DETAIL S AND EVIDENCES OF SUCH LOSS HAVING BEEN SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN AN ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS TO COMPUTE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IF ANY LOSS ACTUALLY SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY DEDUC TION WHICH IS LEGALLY ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RELATION TO WHICH ALL THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF THE ASS ESSMENT, THEN SUCH LOSS OR DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND IT CANNOT BE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF LOSS OR DEDUCTION TO THE A SSESSEE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAME I N THE RETURN OF INCOME. 13. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM AN OLD CIRCU LAR OF CBDT BEARING NO. NO. 14(XL-35) OF 1955, DATED 11-4-1955 WHEREIN IT WAS OPINED THAT OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IGNORANCE OF AN ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHTS. IT IS ONE OF THEIR DUTIE S TO ASSIST A TAXPAYER IN EVERY REASONABLE WAY, PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMING AND SECURING RELIEFS AND IN THIS REGARD THE OFFICERS SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN GUIDING A TAXPAYER WHERE PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER PARTICULARS BEF ORE THEM INDICATE THAT SOME REFUND OR RELIEF IS DUE TO HIM. THIS ATTITUDE WOULD, IN THE LONG RUN, BENEFIT THE DEPARTMENT, FOR IT WOULD INSPIRE CONFID ENCE IN HIM THAT HE MAY BE SURE OF GETTING A SQUARE DEAL FROM THE DEPARTMEN T. ALTHOUGH, THEREFORE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMING REFUNDS AND RELIEFS RESTS WITH THE ASSESSEES ON WHOM IT IS IMPOSED BY LAW, OFFICERS SHOULD (A) DRAW THEIR ATTENTION TO ANY REFUNDS OR RELIEFS TO WHICH THEY APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY ENTITLED BUT WHICH THEY HAVE OMITTED TO CLA IM FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER; (B) FREELY ADVISE THEM WHEN APPROACHED BY THEM AS TO THEIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AND AS TO THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED F OR CLAIMING REFUNDS AND RELIEFS. ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 7 - THIS CIRCULAR WAS EXPLAINED IN CIT V. AHMEDABAD KAI SER-E-HIND MILLS CO. LTD. [1981] 128 ITR 486 (GUJ.), WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: THIS IS CIRCULAR NO. 14(XI-35) OF 1955 AND IS DATE D APRIL 11, 1955. IN VIEW OF THIS CIRCULAR IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CIRCULAR, WHAT SHOULD BE THE GUIDING FACTOR IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER PARTICULARS BEFORE THE ITO AT THE STAGE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT DISCLOSED ANY GROUNDS FOR RELIE F UNDER SEC- TION 2(5)(A)(III) OF THE FINANCE ACT OF 1964 OR OF THE FINANCE ACT OF 1965, EVEN THOUGH NO CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THAT REL IEF BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE STAGE OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE H IM. IT IS POSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CIRCULAR OF 1955 SPEAKS OF PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER PARTICULARS BEF ORE THE ITO AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RETURN AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE SPOKEN OF BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROYS CASE [1967] 66 ITR 443, THERE IS A DEVI ATION FROM THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION. BUT IT IS NOW WELL-SETT LED AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ELLERMANS CASE [1 971] 82 ITR 913, THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A DEVIATION ON A POINT O F LAW, SO FAR AS THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD IS CONCERNED, THAT CIRCUL AR WILL BE BINDING ON ALL OFFICERS CONCERNED WITH THE EXECUTIO N OF THE ACT AND THEY MUST CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES IN THE LIGHT O F THE CIRCULAR. IN VIEW OF THIS CLEAR POSITION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF THE CIRCULAR, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE IT WAS INCUM BENT ON THE ITO TO ADVISE THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US TO CLAIM RELIEF UN DER SECTION 2(5)(A)(III) IF THE PROCEEDING OR ANY OTHER PARTICU LARS BEFORE HIM AT THE STAGE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT INDICATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH RELIEF UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE RELEVANT FINANCE ACT, 1965, SO FAR AS THE ORDER UND ER REFERENCE IS CONCERNED. THIS QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS CI RCULAR OF 1955 HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHAT APPLIES TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE ITO WOULD ALSO APPLY TO ALL OFFIC ERS OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT. 14. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD. (2005) 27 3 ITR 1 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 14 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME SIMILARLY PROVIDED THAT ALL INCOME S HALL FOR THE ITA NO. 1143/AHD/2011 SHRI JIGNESH V. SHETA, SURAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 8 - PURPOSES OF CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME BE CLASSIFIED UNDER SIX HEADS OF INCOME, NA MELY:- (A) SALARIES; (B) INTEREST ON SECURITIES; (C) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY; (D) PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION; (E) CAPITAL GAINS; (F) INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNLESS OTHERWISE, PROVIDE D IN THE ACT. SECTION 56 PROVIDES FOR THE CHARGEABILITY OF INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH HAS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, ONLY IF IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UND ER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14, ITEMS A TO E. 15. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED AS INCOME U /S. 69 IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND BECAUSE OF THE SAM E, IT FORMS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT GENUINE BUSINESS LOS S CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS CONFIR MED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 20 TH OF JUNE, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/06/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S.