The ITO, Ward-5(1), Surat V. Shri Gulam M.Jarullah, Surat

ITA 1262/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8573 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, *MH* *MH**MH* *MH* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1262/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1) SURAT / VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH 27/4, OPP. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MAIN ROAD, MUGLISARA, SURAT - 395003 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AJRPJ 5856 B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. N. VEPARI, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 30/06/2017 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/09/2017 $% / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT, DATED 28/02/2013, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,14,58,150/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNKNOWN SO URCES. ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT F OUND BY THE AO AND IGNORED EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY THE AO FOR MA KING ADDITION OF RS.1,14,58,150/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME F ROM UNKNOWN SOURCES. III. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A), SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), SURAT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER MR. GULAM MOHYUDDIN S M JAHA RULLAH, AND SISTER MS. SAMSUNNISSA S M JAHARULLAH WERE 50% OWNERSHIP O F THE SAID PROPERTY. THE REMAINING 50% OWNERSHIP WAS WITH ANOT HER GROUP OF SEVEN PERSONS. THE APPELLANT SOLD THE 50% SHARE TO M/S. O M APOLLO MEDICARE PVT. LTD. VIDE ITS DEED REGISTERED ON 08.04.2008. T HE DATE OF TRANSFER IS CLAIMED TO BE ON 07.03.2008. I.E DURING THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE TEN CO-OWNERS ENTE RED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH OM DHANVANTRY CENTERS PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT LTD) ON 28.09.1995 AND AN ADVAN CE OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY ALL THE CO-OWNERS . THE REMAINING PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE BUYER AND THE MATTER WE NT INTO LITIGATION. THE APPELLANT, HIS BROTHER AND SISTER SOLD THEIR 50 % SHARE IN THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 3 CRORES VIDE ABOVE REFERRED 'CONVEYANCE DE ED REGISTERED ON 08.04.2008 TO M/S OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT. LTD. ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 2.2 THE SAID CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS DIV IDED INTO THREE CO- OWNERS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES AND CORRESPONDING CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THEM INC LUDING THE APPELLANT, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THE MEANT IME, THE ANOTHER GROUP OF REMAINING CO-OWNERS SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO AN OTHER PARTY I.E M/S. SUMER CORPORATION FOR RS.5.5 CRORES. THIS SALE WAS MADE BY AN AGREEMENT DATED 19.03.2008 REGISTERED ON THE SAME D ATE. IN THIS DEED, ONE MR. MOHMMED ALTAF MOHAMMEDAZAM JAHARULLAH SIGNE D ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT, HIS BROTHER AND SISTER ON THE STRENGT H OF AN IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2008. THE APPELLANT, HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER HAVE DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF SAID P OWER OF ATTORNEY' AND CLAIMED THAT THE SAID POWER OF ATTORNEY IS FORGED . THEY ALSO CLAIMED THAT THEY NEVER GAVE SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY AND N EVER SOLD THE PROPERTY TO M/S SUMER CORPORATION. THEY ALSO CLAIME D THAT THE DEMAND DRAFTS IN RESPECT OF THAT SALE WERE DEPOSITED IN TH E APPELLANTS ACCOUNT BY SOMEONE ELSE AND IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE AP PELLANT WROTE TO THE BANK AUTHORITIES THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. 2.3 IN THE MEANTIME, VARIOUS CASES HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES WHICH ARE PENDING IN DIFFERENT COURTS OF LAW. A CRI MINAL COMPLAINT NO.3800111/MISC/8 OF 2008 HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE MET ROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE 38 TH COURT MUMBAI BY MR. ABDUL RAHIM MOHMMED AMIN JAHARULLAH, THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE APPELLANT (AND HI S SON) AGAINST SEVEN CO- OWNERS OF THE OTHER GROUP, M/S. SUMER CORPORATION, THE NOTARIES BEFORE WHOM THE DISPUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - AND THE PARTNERS OF M/S. SUMER CORPORATION REGARDIN G, THE CLAIM OF FORGING THE SIGNATURE OF THE APPELLANT HIS BROTHER AND SISTER ON THE SAID POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CONSEQUENT SALE OF PROPERTY TO M/S. SUMER CORPORATION. 2.4 APART FROM THIS CRIMINAL CASE, A CIVIL SUIT NO. 713 OF 2009 HAS ALSO BEEN FILED ON 07.01.2008 BY THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER AND SISTER AGAINST THE REMAINING SEVEN CO-OWNERS, PARTNERS OF M/S. SUMER CORPORATION, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE NOTA RIES BEFORE WHOM THE 'POWER OF ATTORNEY ' WAS EXECUTED, ETC FOR CIVIL RI GHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THIS SUIT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. BOTH THESE CASES ARE CLAIMED TO BE PENDING. 2.5 IN THE MEANTIME, THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD ALSO FILED CIVIL SUIT IN 2010 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, SURA T AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT, THE APPELLANTS SON AND APPELLANTS BROTHER IN RESPECT OF NOTICE U/S.226(3) ISSUED BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER. 2.6 IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT BY 31.03.2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD THE PROPERTY AS THE REGIS TRATION OF THE AGREEMENT OF RS3 CRORES TOOK PLACE ON 08.04.2008. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT APPELLANTS SHARE WAS SOLD TWICE. IN VIEW OF PENDING LITIGATIONS, RS. 1,14,58,700/- DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT BUT DISOWNED BY APPELLANT WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEE INCOME FROM UNKNOWN SOURCE ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RESP ECT OF THE SAID ADDITION. 2.7 THE MATTER WAS ALSO REMANDED TO THE AO VIDE LET TER DATED 12/08/2010. THE REPORT DATED 30/10/2010 WAS RECEIVE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH REPEATED CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND STATED THAT ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND NOTHING NEW HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE APPE LLATE STAGE. 2.8 THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS APPEAL WAS EXAMINED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). AS PER APPELLANTS SUBMISSION FILED ON 23/02/2013, (ANNEXURE-A), THE APPELLANT, HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER RECEIVED AN AMOU NT OF RS.3 CRORES AS UNDER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT ADVANCE MONEY 1995 RS.10,00,000 1. SHAMSHUNNISHA S. JARULLAH DATE AMOUNT 21/04/2008 RS.9,00,000 21/04/2008 RS.1,00,000 RS.10,00,000 2. ESROW ACCOUNT WITH ADVOCATE VINOD MISTRY & CO. DEPOSIT RS.35,00,000 3. M AMIN S JARULLA 09/04/2008 CHEQUE NO. RS.45,00,000 10/04/2008 856069 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856070 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856071 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856048 RS. 3,00,000 25/04/2008 RS.50,00,000 RS.1,25,00,000 4. GULAM MOHIYUDDIN S. JARULLAH DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - 09/04/2008 RS.45,00,000 10/04/2008 856056 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856057 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856058 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856059 RS. 9,00,000 10/04/2008 856060 RS. 9,00,000 11/04/2008 856049 RS. 5,00,000 11/04/2008 856050 RS. 7,00,000 11/04/2008 856061 RS. 9,00,000 12/04/2008 856062 RS. 9,00,000 RS.1,20,00,000 TOTAL RS.3,00,00,000 2.9 IT IS NOTICED THAT M/S OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT. LTD. HAD FILED A SUIT NO.807 OF 2008 IN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T, AGAINST ALL THE TEN CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FOR NON EXECUTION OF CONVEYANCE DEED PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE OF 1995 FOR WHICH RS. 20,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THE BUYER. CONSEQUENT TO THE SAME, THE APPELLANT , HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER STATED IN THE CONSENT TERMS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT NOS. 7,8 AND 9 IN THE SUIT, (I.E. APPELLA NT, HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER) AGREED TO SELL THEIR UNDIVIDED 50 % SHARE O F RS.3 CRORES TO M/S OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT. LTD. PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 8 OF THE SAID CONSENT TERMS DATED 04.04.2008 ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER :- '7. AGREED, DECLARED AND CONFIRMED THAT AS PER THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NOS. 7, 8, AND 9, DEFENDANT NO.7, 8 AND 9 HAVE AGREED TO SELL THEIR R ESPECTIVE UNDIVIDED SHARE, RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST AS STATED ABOVE FO R RS.3,00,00,000/- ( RUPEES THREE CRORES ONLY) IN FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT TOWARDS THEIR RESPECTIVE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF DEFENDANT NOS.7, 8 AN D 9. 8. AGREED, DECLARED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PLAINTIF F THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE HAVE SENT DEMAND DRAFTS AS SET OUT IN THE PLAINTIFFS ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - ADVOCATE'S LETTER DATED 19.03.2008 ADDRESSED TO M/S . VINOD MISTRY & CO, THE PRESENT ADVOCATES FOR DEFENDANT NOS.7, 8 AN D 9 AND THE SAID DEMAND DRAFTS SHALL REMAIN IN ESCROW WITH M/S. VINO D MISTRY & CO TILL FILING OF THESE CONSENT TERMS AND EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE AND REGISTRATION THEREOF, WHICHEVER, IS LATER. FOR THE REFERENCE OF NUMBER OF DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE FIGURES THEREIN, TH E SAID LETTER IS ALSO ANNEXED TO THESE CONSENT TERMS.' 2.10 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CONSENT TERMS WERE FILED ON 04/04/2008 I.E. AFTER T HE DISPUTED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF M/S. SUMER CORPORATION WAS REGISTERED. AS FAR AS SALE DEED OF 50 % SHARES DATED 07/03/2008, IT WAS SINGED BY M/S OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT LTD ON 17/03/2008 AND WAS REGISTERED O N 08/04/2008. THIS MEANS THAT HON'BLE COURT WAS NOT I NFORMED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ALREADY SIGNED ON 07/03/2008/17.03.20 08. 2.11 SINCE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN MARCH, 2008 ITSELF, THIS GIVES SOME WEIGHTAGE TO THE A.O'S ARGUMENT THAT DEED WAS ANTEDATED. HOWEVER , PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE CONSENT TERMS MENTIONS RECEIPT OF DEMAND DRAFTS ON 19/03/2008 WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED ON 19/03/2008 EVEN IF, THE DEED WAS NOT EXECUTED AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 2.12 SINCE THE STAMP DUTY RATES WERE INCREASED FROM 01.04.2008, IF ANTEDATING IS ESTABLISHED, SECTION 50C MAY GET INVO KED. HOWEVER, THE WORDS ASSESSABLE IN SECTION 50C HAVE BEEN INTRODU CED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/10/2009. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO IN VOKE SECTION 50C, ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - UNLESS STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES/COURTS HOLD IT TO BE A CASE OF ANTE DATING AND ENHANCED STAMP DUTY IS CHARGED. 2.12 LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT THIS APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES INVOLVED. 1. WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN A.Y. 2008-09 OR IN A.Y. 2009-10? 2. WHAT IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION? 2.13 AS FAR AS THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2 008-09 IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S.1, 25,00,000/- IN THE RETURN FILED, WHICH IS HIS SHARE IN THE 50 % PROPER TY. THE ANOTHER GROUP SOLD THE SAME PROPERLY FOR RS. 5.5 CRORES, IN WHICH THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT , HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER IS 50%. 2.14 THE OUTCOME OF THESE PENDING LITIGATIONS MAY E ITHER BE IN FAVOUR OF OM APOLLO MEDICARE PVT LTD OR IN FAVOUR OF M/S S UMER CORPORATION. IF IT IS IN FAVOUR OF OM APOLLO MEDICA RE PVT. LTD. THE APPELLANT, HIS BROTHER, AND SISTER WILL BE ASSE SSED FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 3.00,00,000 /-. 2.14 IF IT IS IN FAVOUR OF M/S SUMER CORPORATION, S ALE CONSIDERATION WILL BE 50 % OF RS. 5.5 CRORES. BOTH THESE SALES CAN BE HELD TO BE VALID, I.E SALE CONSIDERATION CAN NEVER BE 11.5 CRORES (6 + 5. 5) FOR ALL THE TEN CO- OWNERS. IT CAN EITHER BE RS.6 CRORES OR RS 5.5 CROR ES FOR ALL THE CO- ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - OWNERS. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THAT AMOUNTS A CCEPTING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.11.5 CRORES AND TREATING BOTH T HE SALES AS VALID. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2.15 IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THIS APPELLANT O RDER IS NOT A FINDING ON ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITIES OR RIGHTS OF ANY PARTY TO ANY OF THE PENDING LITIGATIONS IN VARIOUS COURTS. IT IS ALSO N OT A FINDING AS TO WHETHER IN WHICH YEAR, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE ASSESSABL E. 3 ASSESSEE PREFERRED STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER HELD WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THIS APPELLATE ORDER IS A FINDING ONLY ON THE ISSU E THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TWICE BY DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS, FINALLY , ONLY ONE SALE WILL BE HELD AS VALID SALE AND IN THAT CASE. CAPITAL GAIN W ILL BE ONLY IN RESPECT ON ONE SIDE. THE APPELLANT CAN BE TAXED FOR CONSIDE RATION OF BOTH THE SALE CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE PROPERTY WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TWICE AND REGISTERED TWICE. AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,14,58,700/- WAS STATED TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND LATER ON SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO BANKS SUNDRY ACCOUNT. BUT TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL NO OTHER CLAIMANT CAME FORWARD FOR THE SAME AND BOT H THE SALE TRANSACTIONS ARE UNDER LITIGATIONS AND THE ENTIRE I SSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, MUMBAI. THE DISPUTE POWER O F ATTORNEY IN THE ITA NO.1262/AHD /2013 ITO VS. SHRI GULAM M. JARULLAH. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - NAME MR. MOHAMMED ALTAF MOHAMMEDAZAM JAHARULLAH AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN OUR OPINION, AN AMOUNT, WHICH IS TO BE CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE TO BE TAXED. THEREFORE, WHATEVER AMOUNT IS CLAIMED OR TO BE CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TAXED AS PER LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15/09/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZLKN IZLKN IZLKN IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/09/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COP