The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Bimladevi Subhakaran Agarwal, Ahmedabad

ITA 130/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6119 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 50C; 143(1); 148

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER &SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 130/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD / VS. SMT. BIMLADEVI SUBHANKARAN AGARWAL 7, ADYAPAK MITRAMANDAL SOCIETY, BHD. POLYTECHNIC, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD-06 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ACY PA9 795 N ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR. DR / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR ! /DATE OF HEARING 26/07/2019 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/08/2019 $% /O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2012-13, ARISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD DATED 10.10.2016, IN PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,86,630/- MADE U/S. 50C OF THE ACT THAT THE PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT I S NOT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF IT CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2017 ONLY. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING INCOME OF RS. 33,61,033/- WAS FILED ON 10.07.2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ITA NO. 130/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 2 ACT AT THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. T HEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.11.2014 FOR THE REASON THAT AS SESSEE HAS SOLD BUNGLOW SITUATED AT BOPAL, AHMEDABAD FOR RS. 76,00,000/- ON 06.04.20 11 AND THE VALUE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTH ORITY WAS TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,27,43,877/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 26,74,873/- AFTER TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION AT RS. 76,00,000/- ONLY. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 50C THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY IS DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IF THE CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL BUN GLOW IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010 AT RS. 76,00,000/- AND FIRST PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 20.11.2010 AND COMPLETE PAYMENT OF RS. 76,00,000/- RECEIVED BEFORE 30.03.2010 IN F.Y. 2010-11. THE FINAL PAYMENT OF RS. 63,00,000/- WAS DELAYED DU E TO DELAY IN SANCTIONING OF HOUSING LOAN AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON 31.03.201 1. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAD MADE NOTARISED BANAKHAT ON 23. 03.2011 FOR THE SAID TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, DUE TO DELAY IN PREPARATION OF DOCUMENT, L ARGE VOLUME OF DOCUMENTATION AND SHORTAGE OF STAMP ETC. THE REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT WAS DELAYED FOR FIVE DAYS AND THE SAME WAS REGISTERED ON 06.04.2011. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE DATE OF REGISTRATI ON OF DOCUMENT IN FINANCIAL YEAR TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING GAIN OR LOSS A ND THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS SHOWN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILE D FOR A.Y. 2012-13. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 52,86,630/- ON ACCO UNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT A PROVISO H AS BEEN INSERTED TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SEC. 50C BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WHICH PROVIDES TH AT WHERE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FIXING THE ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED O R ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 130/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 3 COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRAN SFER. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- DECISION: 3.4. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A BUNGALOW FOR RS.76 LAKHS ON 6.4.2011 THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT THE VALUE OF THE AFORESAID PROP ERTY ACCORDING TO THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY COMES TO RS. 1,27,43,877/- WHER EAS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.26,74,873/- TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OAT RS.76 LAKHS ONLY. THE AO HAS APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 50C OF THE ACT AND DEEMED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.52,86,613/-. 3.5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS.76 LAKHS ON 20.11.2010 AND FIRST BANAKHAT PAYMENT WAS RECEIV ED ON 20.11.2010 OF RS.5 LAKHS, SECOND PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 11.12.2010 OF RS.5 L AKHS, THIRD PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 17.1.2011 OF RS.1 LAKH AND FOURTH PAYME NT WAS RECEIVED ON 15.3.2011 OF RS.2 LAKHS. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FINAL PAYMENT OF RS.63 LAKHS WAS DELAYED DUE TO DELAY IN SANCTION OF HOUSING LOAN AND SAME W AS RECEIVED ON 30.3.2011. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAD MADE NOTAR IZED BANAKHAT ON 23.3.2011 FOR SAID TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT FINAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS AS PER JANTRI RATE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF FIRST PAYMENT AND THE LAST PAYMENT OF RS.63 LAKHS. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DUE TO DELAY IN PREPAR ATION OF DOCUMENT AND LARGE VOLUME OF DOCUMENTATION AT THE YEAR END DUE TO REVISION IN JANTRI VALUE FROM 1 ST APRIL ,2011 AND SHORTAGE OF STAMP THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REGIST ERED DOCUMENT AT THE YEAR END AND SAME DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR 5 DAYS. THE APPE LLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT SHE TOOK RS.76 LAKHS AS THE CONSIDERATION AND THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED FOR F.Y. 2010-11 AS PER THE JANTRI RATE PREVAILING ON THAT DATE AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN ON 30.3.2011. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. S. VENKAT REDDY 32 TAXMAN 324 (2013) (HYDERABAD TRIB.) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHERE TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2 (47) BY GIVING POSSESSION OF PROPERTY ON DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT, BUT REGISTRATIO N WAS DELAYED ON BONAFIDE REASONS AND EXECUTION OF SALE DEED WAS ONLY A LEGAL FORMALI TY, STAMP DUTY VALUE ON DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPU TING CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F. 1.4.200 7 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXI NG THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRAN SFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEE N RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFOR E THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER. ITA NO. 130/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 4 3.6. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE CONSIDERED. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION AFTER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE NOTARIZED AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS MADE ON 23.3.2011 A ND TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY 30.3.2011. HOWEVER, SA LE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 6.4.2011 AND THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERAT ION AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON 6.4.2011. IN THE CASE OF VEN KAT REDDY AS CITED SUPRA, THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH HAS HELD THAT STAMP D UTY VALUE ON DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE ACT ALSO A PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED TO SUBSECTION (1) OF SECT ION 50C BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FIX ING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF TH E CAPITAL ASSETS ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF T HE OPINION THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE NOT AS ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DE LETED. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E US THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A BANAKHAT (AGREEMENT OF SALE) ON 20.11.2010 FOR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN QUESTI ON AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 76,00,000/- AND SUCH BANAKHAT WAS NOTARIZED ON 23.03.2011. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID BANAKHAT CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UE AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY 31.03.2011. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 50C IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 201 6 WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. ACIT VIDE I TA NO. 1237/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BANAKHAR ( AGREEMENT OF SALE) FOR THE SALE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ENTERED ON 20.11.2010 AND ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ON 30.03.2011. HOWEVER, THE F INAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 06.04.2011. THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AS PER ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS ON ITA NO. 130/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 5 06.04.2011 ON THE GROUND THAT SALE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS HIGHER THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION REFERRED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,86,630/- MADE BY THE AO U/S. 50C OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT PROVISO TO SUB SECTI ON (1) TO SEC. 50C OF THE ACT AND REFERRING THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD ITAT IN THE CAS E OF DCIT VS. S. VENKAT REDDY 32 TAXMAN 324 (2013) (HYDERABAD TRIB.). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PRO VISO TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SEC. 50C OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04 .2007 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXI NG THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPU TING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELE CTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMEN T FOR TRANSFER. FURTHER WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI WHERE IT IS HELD THAT INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SEC. 50C BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WITH E FFECT FROM 01.04.2017 HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DEC ISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 9. SO FAR AS THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 50C BEING RE TROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION. I HOLD THE PROVISOS TO SECTION 50C BEING EFFECTIVE FROM 1ST APRIL 2003. THIS IS PRECISELY WH AT THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS PRAYED FOR. IN HIS DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HE HAS MA DE OUT OF A STRONG CASE FOR THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 50C BEING TREATED AS RETROSPEC TIVE AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2003. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS INDEED WELL TAKEN AND DESERVES ACCEPTANCE. WHAT FOLLOWS IS THIS. THE MATTER WILL NOW GO BACK T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN CASE HE FINDS THAT A REGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL, AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED ON 29.6.2005 AND THE PARTIAL SALE CONSIDER ATION WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SO FAR AS COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IS CONCERNED, WILL ADOPT STAMP DUTY VALUATION, AS ON 2 9.6.2005, OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AS IT ITA NO. 130/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 6 EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTENT WITH THIS VALUE BEING ADOPTED UNDER SECTION 50C HE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO SEEK THE MATTER BEING REFERRED TO THE DVO FOR VALUATION, AGAIN AS ON 29.6.2005. OF TH E SAID PROPERTY. AS A COROLLARY THERETO, THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD (E.G. THE CONVERSION OF USE OF LAND) ARE TO BE IGNORED. IT IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS WILL BE RECOMPUTED. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE MATT ER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO, AFTER G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. I ORDE R SO. IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE B ANAKHAT (AGREEMENT TO SALE) WAS MADE ON 20.11.2010 WHICH WAS DULY NOTARISED ON 20.0 3.2011 AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 76,00,000/- AND ENTIRE PAYMEN T HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BY 31.03.2011 AND SALE CONSIDERATION A S ON DATE OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS HIGHER THAN THE TRANSFER VALU ATION. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID MATERIAL FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEFORE 31.03.2011 AND THERE WA S DELAY OF FIVE DAYS IN THE REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT DUE TO SHORTAGE OF STA MP ETC. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. S. VENKAT REDDY 32 TAXAMN 324 (2013) (HYDE RABAD TRIB.) AS REFERRED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. ACIT 161 ITD 627 (AHMEDABAD TRIB.), THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07/08/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. $ / ASSESSEE 3. &' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( - / CIT (A) 5. )*+ ' , ! ' , ,-$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. +. / / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $% , 0 / , ! ' , ,-$&$ 1 THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 0 7/08/2019