The ITO, Ward-5(2), Ahmedabad V. Unipon India Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1240/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1256 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1240 /AHD/201 2 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (2), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. UNIPON INDIA LTD, 13/14, RADHA KUNJ SOCIETY, B/H. KAMLA KAMDHENU HALL, DRIVE - IN ROAD, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD - 380052 PAN : AAACU 1997 K / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, SR DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 01 / 0 6 /201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 / 06 /201 6 / O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI , JUDICIAL MEMBER: - THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 29 . 03 .201 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER : - THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE LOSS OF RS.2,41,25,719/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS LOSS, AS AGAINST SPECULATION LOSS AS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 3 . THE FACTS CONCERNING THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. AO RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE DEPICTED IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 4.3 & 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 4.3 A PERUSAL OF THE B/S AND THE P&L A/C OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING MAINLY IN THE TRADING OF SHARES. ALSO PARTS OF ITS SHARES ARE ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 2 SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AND ARE ACCORDINGLY CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SHARES WO RTH RS. 45.16 CRORES. THE SAID SHARES WERE THEN SOLD OFF FOR RS. 41.97 CRORES, THEREBY INCURRING NET LOSS UPON THE TRADING OF SHARES. THIS LOSS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS A BUSINESS LOSS. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER OF SHARES AND ITS INCOME/ LOSS FROM THE TRADING OF SHARES IS A BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS. ITS OTHER INCOME INCLUDES INCOME FROM DIVIDEND, MUTUAL FUNDS AND INTEREST INCOME. AS HAS BEEN HELD IN A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS INCOME INCLUDES LOSS. LOSS ONLY CONNOTES A NEGATIVE INCOME. THER EFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS INCOME IS ONLY UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAIN IS WITHOUT MERIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED NEGATIVE INCOME UPON THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THERE IS ALSO NO DOUBT THAT THE PRINCIPLE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE TRADING OF SHARES. ALL ITS FOCUS AND ENERGY ALONG WITH THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN WHOLLY DEVOTED TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARE S IS TH ER EFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE. ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A NEGATIVE INCOME UPON THE SALE OF SHARES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WITHIN T HE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73. 4.4 THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROVISION IS ONLY TO TAKE CARE WHERE A COMPANY IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DIFFERENT COMMODITIES OF MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLES OR THINGS AND THEN DOES THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND INCURS LOSSES, THEN ONLY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SEC 73 WOULD BE APPLICABLE. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PERUSED AND HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE EXPLANATION STARTS WITH THE WORDS 'WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMP ANY'. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE WHOLE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO TRADE IN SHARES. THE WORDS 'ANY PART' HAS BEEN WRONGLY AND MISCHIEVOUSLY BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE WHOLE INCLUDES ANY PART IS A PART OF INTRODUCTORY LOGIC. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE WHOLE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TRADING IN SHARES THE PROVISION WOULD NOT APPLY IS THEREFORE WRONG. ANY PART WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE THE WHOLE PART. IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN INSE RTED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975, W.E.F. 1 - 4 - 1977.HERE IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS VERY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY ANALYZED. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARVIND IN VESTMENTS LTD. [1991] 192 ITR 365 (CAL.) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT NOWHERE HAS ANY INDICATION BEEN GIVEN IN THE CIRCULAR THAT WHERE THE ONLY BUSINESS OF ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 3 A COMPANY CONSISTS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WOULD NOT APPLY. 4. THER EAFTER, THE LD. AO, RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS, DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES LOSS IN SHARES BY INVOKING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE ENTIRE BUSINESS LOSS OF THE COMPANY IS TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SET OFF THIS SPECULATION LOSS AGAINST ANY BUSINESS INCOME IN THE LATER YEARS. ALSO AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO AVAIL THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES ONLY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL, WHERE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AS INVOKED BY THE LD. AO WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AS THE MAIN BUSINESS BEING OF A SHARE TRADER, IT FE LL UNDER THE EX C E PTIONS PROVIDED IN S ECTION 73 , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE BUSINESS LOSS OF THE COMPANY AS PECULATION LOSS BY APPLYING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS DEALING MAINLY IN TRADING OF SHARES WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS ALSO RECORDED THIS FACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND S ECURITIES AND HAD INCURRED LOSS IN THAT AND, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 COULD NOT BE APPLIED. THE TRADING IN S HARES WERE THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE APPE LLANT COMPANY. BESIDES THIS, THE APPELLANT HAD INCOME OF RS.54.78 LACS IN THE FORM OF FIXED DEPOSI TS AND, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPTION TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE. IN ORD ER TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE INVOLVED EXPLANATION TO SUB - SECTION 4 OF SECTION 73 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 4 'WHERE ANY PAR T OF T HE BUS I NESS OF A COMPANY (OTHER T HAN A COMPANY WHOSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME WHICH I S CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEADS 'INTEREST ON SECURITIES', 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', 'CAPITAL GAIN' AND 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES') OR ( A COMPANY T HE PRINCIPLE BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR THE GRANTING OF LOANS AND AD VANCES) CONSISTS IN THE PURCHASE AND S ALE OF SHARES OF OTHER CO M PANIES, SUCH AMOUNT SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEME D TO BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATIVE BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SUCH SHARES.' A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE EXP LANATION REVEALS THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO TWO CATEGORIES OF COMPANIES. IN FIRST CATEGORY, AN EXCEPTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANIES WHOSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON SECURITIES, INTEREST FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN SECOND CATEGORY, THE COMPANIES WHICH ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMING TO BE CARRYING ON THE SPECULATION BUSINESS. THE USE OF WORD 'OR' BETWEEN THE COMAS CLEARLY CHANGES THE CATEGORIES WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE EXPLANATION. THE COMPANIES MENTIONED BEFORE THE WORD 'OR ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE DEEMING FICTION AS THAT CATEGORY STARTS WITH THE WORDS 'OTHER THAN THE COMPANY'. THE COM PANIES MENTIONED AFTER THE WORD 'OR' ARE COVERED BY THE DEEMING FICTION AS IT DOES NOT BEGIN WITH THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT TO TREAT THE LOSS AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THE A. O. IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE LOSS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. LD. DR RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I. R. P. G. INDUS LTD. V. ACIT ; 85 ITD 105 (CAL) TM II. MELVILLE FINVEST LTD. V. JCIT; 89 ITD 528 (HYD) ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 5 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE MAIN BUSINESS BEING OF A SHARE TRADER, IT DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 73 . 8 . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRED TO VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. AO, WHERE IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES MAIN BUSINESS IS OF DEALING IN SHARES . I T IS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THIS FACT NOT BEING IN DISPUTE THE E XPLAN ATION AS INVOKED BY LD. AO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE L EGISLATURE IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP FLOWING FROM INTERPRETATIONS , BROUGHT SPECIFIC AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ( NO. 2) ACT OF 2014 , WHEREBY THE EXPLANATION TO SEC 73 HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AMENDED TO BRING SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS IN EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 THAT I N CASES O F SHARE TRADING BEING MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN SEC. 73 WILL NOT APPLY . THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE ITAT, INCL UDING MUMBAI BENCHES TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE HENCE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVE LY APPLICABLE. 8 .1 SIMILAR CONTROVERSY AROSE IN MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FIDUCIARY SHARES & STOCK P. LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.321/MUM/2013, WHEREIN THE ITAT , BY APPLYING THE RULE S OF I NTERPRETATION AND CONSIDERING THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PRASAD AGENTS (P) LTD, REPORTED IN 333 ITR 275 (BOM), IT WAS HELD THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 5.6.10 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRASAD AGENTS (P) LTD. IN 333 ITR 275 (BOM) AND ARE OF THE HUMBLE OPINION THAT THE DECISION/FINDING RENDERED THEREIN WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE ON H AND SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE LOSS DUE TO VALUATION OF STOCK IS COVERED BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD IN 2009 AND NOT IN RESPECT TO THE EFFE CT OF THE AMENDMENT BY WAY OF THE INSERTION OF EXCEPTION IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 WHICH ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 6 IS BEFORE US. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CITED CASE (SUPRA) HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE DIFFERENCE IN THE TREATMENT BETWEEN LOSSES SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF TRADING IN SHARES AND LOSSES IN TERMS OF BOOK VALUE OF STOCK - IN - TRADE, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO TRADING IN THE COURSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR AS THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT WOULD COVER BOTH SHARES WHICH ARE STOCK - IN - TRADE AND SHARES WHICH ARE TRADED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE PROFIT AND LOSS FOR THE YEAR. 5. 6.11 IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW, DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED AT PARAS 5.6.3 TO 5.6.9 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION AND HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT INSERTED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND WOULD THEREFORE OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 01.04.1977 FROM WHICH DATE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTI ON 73 WAS PLACED ON THE STATUTE SINCE THIS AMENDMENT TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT '.... OR A COMPANY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES .....' BRINGS IN THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PRI NCIPAL BUSINESS IS TRADING OF SHARES. THEREFORE, THE LOSS INCURRED IN SHARE TRADING BUSINESS BY SUCH COMPANIES, I.E. LIKE THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS BUT NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS, AND HENCE THE SAME LOSS CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINS T OTHER BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR SETTING OFF THE LOSS FROM 'SHARE TRADING BUSINESS' AGAINST 'OTHER BUSINESS INCOME' AND INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S PRIMARY CONTENTION/GROUND, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ALTERNATIVE CON TENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 .2 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CONTROVERSY IN QUESTION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUST AND PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH WAS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP S OF THE ASSESSEES. THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AL SO IN A RECENT JUDGMENT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT IN TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND HENCE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT LTD, REPORTED IN (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) . ITA NO. 1240/AHD/ 2012 ITO VS. M/S UNIPON INDIA LTD AY : 2008 - 09 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE MOOT POINT IN QUESTION IS PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI, ITAT HAS ANALYZED THE AMENDMENT, IT S EFFECT AND THE MEMORANDUM ATTACHED THERETO WHILE INTRODUCING FINANCE BILL ; AND AFTER HARMONIZING ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS , THE AMENDMENT IS HELD TO BE CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, WHICH WILL COVER ASSESSEES CASE AS WELL. THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. DR ARE PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT. IN VIEW THEREOF WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO IN ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSS TO THE ASSESSE E. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 2 N D JUNE , 201 6 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.P. TOLANI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 2 2 / 0 6 /201 6 *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