The ITO, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Gomtiben G. Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 1303/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5557 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 143(2); 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI,JM AND SHRI A.N. PAHU JA,AM ITA NO.1303/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(2), 1 ST FLOOR, C.U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD,AHMEDABAD. VS SMT. GOMTIBEN G. PATEL, 25-B GULAB PARK SOCIETY, OPP.GULAB TOWER, SOLA ROAD, AHMEDABAD. [ PAN: ABCPP 5239 R] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ( )/ ORDER A.N. PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 15-12- 2006 OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A)-XII, AHMEDABAD, RAISES TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE O F RS.59,854/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CLAIMED AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. 2.. THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE O F RS.3,70,250/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XII, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING THE ADDITION MADE U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS FROM RS.4,25,955/- TO RS.54,125/-. 4. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII, AHMEDA BAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE O F RS.1,63,848/- WHICH WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED TO THE CASH BOOK AFTER 31- 03-2001 BY TREATING IT AS HAVING BEEN ALLOWED CAPITALIZATION BY THE HONBL E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. REVENUE BY : SHRI K. M. MAHESH, D.R. ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA,AR IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 2 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII,AHMEDABAD OUGHT T O HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET ASIDE AND T HAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL, F ACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,37, 690/- FILED ON 22.5.2002 BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTEDLY DISCONTINUED HER MONEY LENDING BUSINESS SINCE 1999 AFTER THE SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED THE INTEREST I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DISALLOWED THE CLAI M FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BEING ABNORMAL AND BOGUS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INTERES T HAS BEEN RECEIVED NOT ONLY FROM THE BANK BUT FROM OTHER PARTIES TO WHOM T HE FUNDS HAD BEEN ADVANCED. EVEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION LOAN HAD B EEN ADVANCED TO M/S PRERNA COLOUR CRAFT PVT. LTD. AND THUS, INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED FROM HER MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOUR CES. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT REVEAL THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCONT INUE HER MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCT ED IN THE APPELLANTS PREMISES. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF FRE SH LOANS GIVEN TO PARTIES. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVID ENCE TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT DISCONTINUED HER BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A.O. MERELY PRESUMED THAT AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE THE APPELLANT HAD DISCONTI NUED HER BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWIN G THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.59,854/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 3 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NOTHING I N THE ORDER OF THE AO TO SUGGEST AS TO HOW THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE E XPENSES WAS ABNORMAL AND BOGUS NOR EVEN THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES IS EVI DENT. THE LD. DR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS, WE ARE NOT INC LINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 I N THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITI ON OF RS.3,70,250/- WHILE GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,25,955/- U/S 68 O F THE ACT . ON PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THE FOLLOWING SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR:- S.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT DATE OF RECEIPT DATE OF PAYMENT 1. MAHENDRABHAI B. PATEL. & BHAKHUBHAI B.PATEL. 80000 2-4-2001 27-11-01 28-11-01 40000 40000 2. KEHAS S. PATEL. 70000 2-4-2001 12-11-01 12-11-01 35000 35000 3. NEETABEN BALDEVBHAI 45000 2-4-2001 15-10-01 45000 4. JYOTSNABEN B. PATEL. 40000 2-4-2001 17-10-01 40000 5. MANGALBHAI & SAILESHBHAI 39500 2-4-2001 05-12-01 39500 6. LALDAS B. PATEL. 23600 2-4-2001 13-11-01 2360 0 7. GEETABEN LALDAS 22150 2-4-2001 01-02-02 22150 8. ARVINDBHAI B. PATEL & BHOLABHAI 50000 2-4-2001 29-11-01 50000 IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 4 TOTAL. 370250 370250 THE AO FOUND THAT ALL THE ABOVE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN RE CEIVED BY WAY OF CASH WHILE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND C REDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS, THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,70,250/- IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6.1 REGARDING GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL, THE AO NOTICED FOLLOWING CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE:- 1. PRABHUDAS VITHALDAS PATEL. RS. 3,24,160/- 2. BALDEVBHAI M. PATEL. RS. 1,00,000/- 3. DIMPLE SANJAY MEHTA. RS. 50,000/- 4. JASMINKUMARI PATEL. RS. 23,370/- -------------------- TOTAL. RS. 4,97,530/- ============ 6.11. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CASH CRE DITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBMISSIONS DATED 11-03-2005. SINCE MS. DIMPLE SAN JAY MEHTA DID NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME NOR THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED H ER CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 1.5.2001, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF R S.50,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST OF RS.4,125/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 6.12 LIKEWISE THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,370/- RECEIVED ON 23.7.2001 THROUGH A CHEQUE FROM MS. JASMINKUMARI PATEL, A US CITIZEN WA S ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH HER CREDITW ORTHINESS . 6.13. THE AO ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAC RECEIVED IN CASH ON 3.4.2001 FROM SHRI BALDEVBH AI M PATEL & RS.1,74,160 RECEIVED IN CASH ON 3.4.2001 & RS.45,000/- THROUGH A CHEQUE ON 21.1.2002 FROM SHRI PRABHUDAS VITHALDAS PATEL WAS ALREADY DISCLOSE D BEFORE SETTLEMENT IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 5 COMMISSION. SINCE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE TWO DEP OSITORS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED NOR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AO ADDED THESE AMOUNTS ALONG WITH INTEREST OF RS. 29,300/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN NUTS HELL, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,25,955/- 7. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AFO RESAID DEPOSITS OF RS. 3,70,950/- WERE ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE 18 .8.1999 AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE THE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF ORDER OF THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION AND CONTENDED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN TO REGULAR BOOK S ON 1.4.2001 AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDIT ION. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMIS SION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. ON SCRUTINY, IT REVEALS THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN A.Y. 1997-98 AND NOT RE CEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THE SAME WER E DECLARED BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ORDER DATED 30-0 3-2006, WHEREIN THEY HAVE HELD AS UNDER :- 9. CAPITALISATION . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS ALSO STATED TH AT WHILE WRITING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO T HE SEARCH, THE POSITION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS ON 18-08-99 ON THE BAS IS OF AOUIS, HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE FOUR APPLICANTS FOR THE F.Y. ENDED 2001-02. THE RELEVAN T ENTRIES IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS ON 01.0 4.2001 WITH ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR CAPITA LIZATION TO THE EXTENT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE REGULA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH IS IN ORDER. THE APPLICANT S ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO CAPITALIZE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION B EFORE THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CAPITALIZED. IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 6 7.1 IN THE LIGHT OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, DEPOSITS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND DECLARED AS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 7.2 SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.4,25, 955/-, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,74,160/- ATTRIBUTED TO SHRI PRABHU DAS V PATEL & RS. 1 LAC TO SHRI BALDEVBHAI M. PATEL, BEING OLD BALANCES RECEIVED EARLIER AND HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE THE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THESE TWO AMOUNTS WERE DELETED.. FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OF SHRI PRABHUDAS V. PATEL, THE LD. CIT(A) CON CLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR BY FILING NECESSARY CONFIRMATION LETTER AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RET URN OF INCOME, ADDITION HAS TO BE DELETED. 7.21. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.54,125/- OF DIMPLE S. MEHTA, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION, THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF DEPOS ITOR HAVING NOT BEEN EXPLAINED WITH EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL. 7.22. FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.23,370/- IN THE NAME OF JASMINKUMARI PATEL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND XEROX CO PY OF CHEQUE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM JASMINKUMARI PATEL, DAUGHTE R OF THE ASSESSEE RESIDING IN USA, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION . 8. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN GROUND NOS. 2 &3 IN THE APPEAL. T HE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,70,95 0/- HAD BEEN BORROWED IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE 18.8.1999 WHILE AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,74,160/- ATTRIBUTED TO IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 7 SHRI PRABHUDAS V PATEL & RS. 1 LAC TO SHRI BALDEVB HAI M. PATEL WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE OLD BALANCES RECEIVED EARLIER AND DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THESE AMOUNTS WERE REFLECTED IN ACCOUNTS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION . THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION. AS REGARDS REMAINING AMOUNT FROM SHRI PRABHUDAS V PATEL AND A N AMOUNT OF RS.23,370(500 US DOLLARS), RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER DAUG HTER IN USA , THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND DE LETED THE ADDITION. THE LD. DR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY B ASIS SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 2 &3 IN THE A PPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.1,63, 848/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH TRANSFERRED TO THE CASH BOOK AFTER 31.3.2001. THOU GH THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 25,02,297/- HAVING BEEN DISCLOSED BEF ORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, CAN NOT BE ADDED AGAIN. HOW EVER , THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,02,297/-,INCLUDING RS. 1,63,848/- DISPUTED BEFORE US SINCE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD NOT PASSED ANY ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.25,02,297/- , SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HAD PAID TA X THEREON. MOREOVER, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD NOT TREATED THE THREE FIR MS M/S PARI DHAWALKUMAR GANDALAL, M/S DHAWAL CORPORATION AND M/S JASMINE FI NANCE A S BENAMI OF SHRI GM PATEL. 12. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT.1303/AHD/07 A.Y.2002-03 8 13.. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 25,02,297 ,INCLUDING RS. 1,63,848/- HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLE MENT COMMISSION. THESE AMOUNTS WERE REFLECTED IN ACCOUNTS OF UNDISCLOSED I NCOME SHOWN BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. NO REASONS HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BY THE LD. DR AS TO WHY ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,63,848/- IS DISPUTED IN THE APPEAL WHILE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT HAVE BEEN A CCEPTED . THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTR OVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS SO AS T O ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFER E WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THEREFORE, GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED 14. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED . 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23- 7 -2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 23 -07-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. GOMTIBEN G. PATEL,25-B GULAB PARK SOCIETY,O PP.GULAB TOWER, SOLA ROAD,AHMEDABAD 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(2),1 ST FLOOR, C.U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD,AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XII, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT,C BENCH, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD