Shri Dr.Jaykumar Chhaganlal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 1224/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1397 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH, 35, PRATHNA VIHAR, NR. SHREYAS, AHMEDABAD PAN : ACAPS 7041 P VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH POPHARE, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/06/2016 / O R D E R PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.01.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE FOR AY 2006-07 AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1. ASSESSEE IS A CONSULTING PHYSICIAN WHO FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 ON 28/03/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,67,540/- THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY ORDER DATED 12/12/2008 AND THE INC OME ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 2 - WAS DETERMINED AT RS.15,67,540/- INTER ALIA BY CONSIDERING PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 18 TH JANUARY-2010 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XV/DCIT(OSD)/CIRCLE-9/215/08-09 GRANTED PARTIAL R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ASSE SSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE A.O. WHO HELD THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE UP OF 1] SALE OF SHARES ON OWN 2] ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUND S ON OWN AND BY PMS (PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME) AND 3] ON SALE/PURC HASE OF SHARES THROUGH PMS IN ALL AMOUNTING TO RS.11,45,160/- AS INCOME FROM BUS INESS OF SHARES TRADING. 2) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N MAKING OBSERVATIONS UNDER PARA 2, 3 AND 4 IN THE APPEAL ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ESTABLISHED AND REMAINED UNDISPUTED. 3) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING OBSERVATION AND RELYING ON AN INAPPLICABLE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD, WITHOUT REALISING THE FACT THAT USE OF BORROWED FUNDS AND P AYMENT OF INTEREST WAS AN OBSERVATION MADE BY A.O. BUT NOT ESTABL ISHED AS AGAINST THE CORRECT FACT SUBMITTED THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT UTIL ISED IN BUY/SALE OF SHARES BUT EARNING INTEREST INCOME WHICH REMAINED UNDISPUTED. 4) THE ID. CIT(A) COMPLETING FAILED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THUS FAILED TO CONTROVERT FACTS ESTABLISHED ON RECOR DS AND IN STATEMENT OF FACTS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THUS ARRIVED AT THE ERRONEOUS DEC ISION. 5) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS MADE RELYING DIFFERENT DECISIONS, THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE SET-ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS REQUESTED TO BE ALLOWED. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IS ABOUT TRE ATMENT OF PROFITS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 3 - NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG) OF RS.11,45,160/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.3,37,983/-. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, HE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE 372 TRANSACTIONS OF PUR CHASE AND SALE OF SHARES FROM WHICH HE HAD EARNED STCG. THE AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED IN FREQUENT SELLING OF SHARE S THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WITH THE MOTIVE OF EARNING PROFITS AND ASSESSEE HAS ALS O INDULGED IN TRADING IN FUTURE AND OPTIONS FROM WHICH HE SUFFERED A LOSS O F RS.1,92,301/-. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS THROUG H PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME (PMS) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINES S TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO AO BECAUSE ACCORDING TO AO THE ASS ESSEE HAS PLACED THE FUNDS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE PMS FOR THE PURPOSE AND PURCHASE OF SALE OF SHARES ON HIS BEHALF WITH THE SOLE INTENTION ON EARNIN G QUICK PROFIT BY UTILISING THE SKILLS ON THE PMS MANAGERS. HE, THEREFOR E, CONSIDERED THE STCG OF RS.11,45,160/- AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING POINTS EMERGE: 1 IN THE RETURN AS PER COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY RECEIPTS FROM HIS PROFESSION . THE COMPUTATION FILED WITH THE RETURN IS AS UNDER: SALARY NIL HOUSE PROPERTY NIL BUSINESS PROFESSION PROFITS NIL PROFIT/LOSS FROM SPECULATION NIL STCG RS.11,45,160 CY BUSINESS LOSS SET OFF RS. 20,098 ---------------- RS.11,25,062 ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 4 - LTCG RS. 3,37,983 OTHER SOURCES (INTEREST) RS. 2,12,038 GTI RS.16,75,083 LESS : DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTERVIA RS. 1,07,539 TOTAL INCOME RS.15,67,540 2 TO CONFOUND THE DEPARTMENT THE APPELLANT HAS BROKEN STCG INTO DIFFERENT PARTS AS UNDER: STCG ON SALE OF SHARES AND MFS ON OWN RS. 83,982 STCG ON SALE OF SHARES ON OWN RS. 45,465 ON MUTUAL FUNDS THROUGH FRANKLIN TEMPLETON ASSET MANAGEMENT RS. 6,382 ON MUTUAL FUNDS THROUGH ASK RAYMOND JAMES RS. 6,6 50 ON SALE OF SHARES THROUGH FRANKLIN TEMPLETON RS.2,18,73 1 ON SALE OF SHARES THROUGH ASK RAYMOND JAMES RS. 7,83,950 RS.11,45,160 THIS BREAKING UP OF SHARES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELL ANT WAS HOLDING THE SHARES FOR A LONG TIME OR WAS INVESTING JUST FOR INVESTMENT AND LONG TERM GAIN. THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES FOR STCG IS NOT 20 OR 100 BUT MORE THAN 300. RATHER STILL MORE- BECAUSE THE NAMES OF COMPANIES DEALT INTO THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGERS HAVE NO T BEEN INFORMED. 3 THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT DEALT IN 372 SCRIPS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE TABLE FILED WITH PAPER BOOK (P AGE NO.4 TO 14) SHOWED THAT THE SHARES HAD AT TIMES BEING HELD JUST FOR TWO DAYS LIKE THOSE OF AVG SHIPYARD WERE PURCHASED ON 13.12.2005 AND SOLD ON 15.12.2005. 4 THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED SHARES WORTH RS.89,10,282 AND SOLD SHARES APPROXIMATELY TO RS.1 CRORE. THE MAGNITUDE OF TRAN SACTIONS DOES NOT SHOW INTENTION OF SIMPLE INVESTMENT. THE APPELLANT ENGAGED SERVICES OF NOT ONE BUT TWO PORTFOLIO MANAGERS - ASK RAY MOND JAMES SECURITIES INDIA PVT.LTD. AND FRANKLIN TEMPLETON ASSET MA NAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD. - FOR DEALING FULL TIME AND IN A BI G WAY IN SHARES. THE TABLE FROM PAGE 4 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT T HESE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS AT TIMES DID NOT HOLD SHARES FOR MORE THAN A F EW DAYS. THE NAMES OF THE SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN IN THE TABLE ONL Y THE NAME OF THE RESPECTIVE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT COMPANY HAS BEEN WRIT TEN, WHICH MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF TRADING IN SHAR ES WAS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT MEETS THE EYE. DATES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR PORTFOLIO MANAGERS BUT NOT THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WHICH SHOW HOLDING AT TIMES JUST FOR TWO DAYS, WHICH IS AMA ZING. ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 5 - SEVERAL SHARES (WITHOUT INFORMING THE NAMES OF COMPANIES) SHOWN UNDER TEMPLETON TREASURY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN HE LD JUST FOR A FEW DAYS NOT EVEN FOR A MONTH LIKE ACQUISITION DATE S HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS 21.10.2005 OR 24.10.2005 OR 28.10.2005 OR 31 .10.2005 BUT ALL HAVE BEEN SOLD ON 7.11.2005. SEVERAL SHARES HAVE BEEN INF ORMED PURCHASED AND SOLD ON 7.11.2005 I.E. SINGLE DAY. BANK OF BARODA SHARES WERE PURCHASED ON 8.2.2006 AND SOLD ALSO ON THE SAME DAT E. ALLAHABAD BANK SHARES WERE PURCHASED ON 26.4.2005 AND SOLD ON THE SA ME DATE. 5 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY BUSINESS INCOME AND THE AO HAS OBSERVED ON PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPEL LANT PAID INTEREST OF RS.2,06,089. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR BUYING SHARES HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED, AND TH EREFORE IN MY VIEW HON'BLE IT AT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PURNIMA K. SHAH BY HON'BLE IT AT C BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.3154 /AHD /2002 IN THE CASE OF ITO.WARD-7(2.) IS APPLICABLE. 6 THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN VARIOUS POINTS OF PARA 5 ABOVE PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT FAILS THE TESTS LAID DOWN - THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTION, FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION, QUANTITY OF SHARES TRANSACTED, VALU E OF TRANSACTIONS - BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RE WASHANKER A KOTHARI 283 ITR 338 FOR JUDGING AN INCOME FROM SHARE S TO BE CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS. THE TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS INCOME BY THE AO OF RS.11,45,160 AS BUSINESS INCOME IS UPHELD. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE THE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN REASON OF LD.CIT(A) FOR UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF AO AND FOR CONSIDERING THE INC OME ON SALE OF SHARES TO BE BUSINESS INCOME WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGE D THE SERVICES OF PMS MANAGERS FOR INVESTING IN SHARES. SHE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO EARNED PROFITS ON SALE OF SHARES IN E ARLIER YEARS AND ALSO IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND FOR WHICH SHE POINTED OUT TO CHART PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 50 TO 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT IN EARLIER YEARS AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE PROFIT EARNED WAS OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AS ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 6 - CAPITAL GAINS AND WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE THROUGH PMS FOR MAXI MIZING PROFITS CANNOT BE TERMED AS BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR W HICH SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT-BANGALORE VS. KAPUR INVESTMENTS(P) LTD. REPORTED AT (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 91 (KARNATAKA). SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMEN T OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADIALS INTERNATIONAL VS . ACIT REPORTED AT (2014) 367 ITR 01 (DELHI). FURTHER, SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN THE CASE O F UDAYAN FINSTOCK PVT.LTD. ACIT IN ITA NO.849/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2008-09, D ATED 08/04/2016. SHE PLACED ON RECORD THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS/ DECISION. SHE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) N EEDS TO BE SET ASIDE IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS/DECISION OF THE HIG H COURT/COORDINATE BENCH. LD.SR.DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENTS/DECISION RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PART IES. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF PROFITS EARNED O N SALES OF SHARES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT ON SAL E OF SHARES AND IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE SERVICES OF PORT FOLIO MANAGERS FOR PURCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES AND THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE O F ENGAGING THE PMS AND THE PROFITS EARNED THEREFROM HAS BEEN CONSIDER ED TO BE A PART OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD.CIT(A). WE FIND T HAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-BANGALORE VS. KAPUR INVE STMENTS (P) LTD.(SUPRA) AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 7 - CASE OF RADIALS INTERNATIONAL VS. ACIT[SUPRA] HAS HELD TH AT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PMS) CANNOT BE TERMED AS BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I S AS UNDER:- 10. AS REGARDS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT MERELY BECAUSE O F EMPLOYMENT OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICE FOR INVE STMENT IN SHARES, THE SAME WOULD BECOME BUSINESS INCOME, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AT LENGTH BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADIALS INTERNATION AL (SUPRA), WHEREIN, IN SIMILAR FACTS, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN AN SWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. DET AILED REASONS FOR THE SAME HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE SAID JU DGMENT WITH WHICH WE CONCUR. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS ADMITTEDLY N OT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED ITS OWN PERSONS OR H AD A SEPARATE BUSINESS INFRASTRUCTURE TO CARRY OUT ITS S HARE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS MER ELY A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED FUNDS THROUGH THE P ORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICE. 11. IN OUR OPINION, INVESTMENT THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGE MENT SERVICE, WHICH MAY DEAL WITH THE SHARES OF THE ASSE SSEE SO AS TO DERIVE MAXIMUM PROFITS CANNOT BE TERMED AS BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WOULD ONLY BE A CASE OF A MORE CAREFUL AND PRUDENT MODE OF INVESTMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSE SSEE. FUNDS WHICH LIE WITH THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS BE INVESTED (FOR EARNING HIGHER RETURNS) IN THE SHARES EITHER DIRECTLY OR TH ROUGH PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME AND BY DOING SO, IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CA RRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. PROFITS FROM SUCH INVESTMENT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED F IRM, WOULD STILL REMAIN AS PROFITS TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAIN S AS THE SAME WILL NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT, WHICH IS IN SHARES, AND THE LAW PERMITS IT TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. 6.1. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THA T THE PROFITS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES IN PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE ITA NO. 1224/AHD/2011 DR. JAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL SHAH VS. DCIT FOR AY 2006-07 - 8 - REVENUE. THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. BEFORE US ALSO, NO CONT RARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT HAS BEEN PLACED BY REVENUE. FURTHER RE VENUE HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAPUR INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAPUR INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.[SUPRA], WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROFIT EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 THE JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/06/2016 .. ,. ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $% & / CONCERNED CIT 4. & ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5 . )*+' % , % , $ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. +/0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD