Mr. Jayesh Kalidas Patel, Daman V. The Addl.CIT.,Valsad Range, Valsad

ITA 1326/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9516 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH SR D R
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 80IB; 32

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL, PATEL FALIA, BHIMPORE, DAMAN-396210 .. APPELLANT PAN : ACCPP 2948 L VS THE ACIT, VALSAD RANGE, VALSAD .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI PARIMAL SINGH PARMAR WITH TUSHAR P HEMANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR-DR / DATE OF HEARING 21/01/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/02/2016 / O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSA D DATED 25.02.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . VALSAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'C.I.T.(A)'], HA S ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DEPRECIATION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'A.O.') AT RS. 7,32,371/- AS AGAINST DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF RS.7,76,000/-. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS FAILED TO FULLY APPRECIAT E THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATIO N FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 TO 2001-02 AND HAD ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 2 CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 AND SUBSEQUENTLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ACTI ON OF THE A.O. APPLYING RATIO OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LI MITED VS. C.I.T. 261 ITR 98 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE RAT IO OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS LIMITED TO PECULIAR FACTS OF THAT CASE AND IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED AND FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF THE BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LTD. I.T.A. NO. 4542/MUM/99 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND KABRA EXTRUSION TECHNIK LTD. I.T.A. NO. 1517/MUM/99 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WHEREIN BOMBAY TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE SCOPE AN D APPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LI MITED VS. C.I.T. 261 ITR 98. 5. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHILST UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, IN NOT APPRECIATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION FIRST TIME IN A.Y. 2002-03 AND THAT APPELLANT HAD N OT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-0 1 AND 2001-02 [BASED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MAHENDRA MILLS 243 ITR 56(S.C.)] AND NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED U/S. 32 OF THE ACT, IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE YEARS. 6. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UP HOLDING THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY TH E A.O. BY STATING THAT RATIO OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LI MITED VS. C.I.T., 261 ITR 98 WAS APPLICABLE EVEN TO PRIOR YEAR; AND IN COMPUTING DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED THE SAME AND NO DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN ALLOW ED U/S. 32 OF THE ACT. TO THE APPELLANT IN THOSE YEARS ON ASSESSMENT. ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 3 7. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MAHENDRA MI LLS (S.C) 243 ITR 56 HAS HELD THAT: 'ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS CALCULATED ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS, WHICH WRITTEN DOW N VALUE WOULD BE THE ACTUAL COST OF ACQUISITION LESS THE AGGREGATE OF ALL THE DEPRECIATION 'ACTUALLY ALLOWED ' TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAST YEARS 'ACTUALLY ALLOWED' DOES NOT MEAN 'NATIONALLY ALLOWED'. 8. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE INCOME TAX ACT BY INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32. TO OVERCOME RATIO OF T HE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MAHENDRA MILLS (S.C.) 243 ITR 56; CAME IN TO EFFECT ONLY FROM 01.04.2002. 9. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AS COMPUTED BY T HE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER, OR AMEN D ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN , WHICH IS A BACKWARD UNION TERRITORY AS SPECIFIED IN VIIITH SCH EDULE OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS, THUS, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT FOR THE INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS MANUFACTURI NG UNIT. THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB FOR A PERIOD OF FIRST FIVE YEARS AND DEDUCTION AT 25% IS ALLOWED FROM 6TH TO 10TH YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE FULFILLING ALL THE CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN U/S. 801B OF THE ACT. IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT, BEING 7TH YEAR OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE ASSES SEE WAS ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 4 ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 25% U/S. 80IB IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS FOUND BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS DEPREC IATION ON FIXED ASSETS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS A GAINST THE LEGITIMATE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.7,32,371/- CALC ULATED AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION OF RS.7,76,000/-. THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS TI LL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICE D THAT CERTAIN ASSESSEES ARE NOT CLAIMING DEPRECIATION THO UGH THEY HAVE NOT FORGONE THEIR RIGHT TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THEY STARTED CLAIMING DEPRECIATION FROM THE SIXTH YEAR ON THE OR IGINAL COST OF THE ASSETS. FROM SIXTH YEAR, THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB IS LIMITED TO 25% OF THE ELIGIBLE INCOME OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKINGS. BY ADOPTING THIS MODUS OPERANDI, THEY TRIED TO REDU CE THE TAX LIABILITY FROM THE SIXTH YEAR. CONSIDERING THE ABOV E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE-CALCULATED THE INCOME OF T HE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB BY ALLOWING CORRECT DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION AND THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED OF RS.43,629/- WAS WITHDRAWN AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECALCULATED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0IB AFTER ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME DUE TO PORTION OF DISALLOWANC E FROM DEPRECIATION CLAIM. 3. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 5 3.1 BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF KANDL A PORT TRUST VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN [2007] 104 ITD 1 (RAJKOT). IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISION OF ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH, THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.43,629/- IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED E XCESS DEPRECIATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS W HETHER THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON WRITTEN DOWN VALUE (W DV IN SHORT) WORKED OUT AFTER DEDUCTING, FROM ACTUAL COST , DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED OR DEPRECIATION WOR KED OUT ARTIFICIALLY, I.E., NOTIONAL DEPRECIATION IN RESP ECT OF ALL THE YEARS EVEN THOUGH NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED OR ALL OWED. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KANDLA PORT TRUST VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN [2007] 104 ITD 1 (RAJKOT), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON WDV DERIVED AFTER REDU CING DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED FROM ACTUAL COST AN D IT CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO MEAN DEPRECIATION NOTIONALLY ALLOW ED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. JALARAM PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC BAGS. ASSESSEE STARTED MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND START ED CLAIMING DEPRECIATION FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IT IS UN DISPUTED FACT THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURING ACT IVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80I B FOR A ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 6 PERIOD OF FIRST FIVE YEARS AND DEDUCTION AT 25% IS ALLOWED FROM 6 TH TO 10 TH YEAR. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,76,000/- AND THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADJUSTED NOTIONAL DEPRECIATION RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I.E. AY 2000-01, EVEN THOUGH NO DEPRECIATION WAS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH INITIAL YEARS, AND DISALLOWED THE DIFFERENTIAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.43,629/- (RS.7,26,0 00 RS.7,32,371). IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE DEC ISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF KANDLA PORT TRUST (SUPRA) IS SQUAREL Y APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- SUB-CL. (B) OF S. 43(6) STATES THAT THE WDV OF ANY ASSET ACQUIRED BEFORE THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE THE ACTU AL COST OF THE ASSET LESS DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THAT ASSET UNDER THE 1961 ACT OR UNDER INDIAN IT AC T, 1922 OR ANY OTHER LAW PREVAILING BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF THAT ACT WHERE THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED SHALL NO T INCLUDE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT OF 1922 WHICH WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN DETERMINING THE WDV. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE CL. (B) OF S. 43(6) CLEARLY SPEAKS O F DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED AND NOT THE DEPRECIAT ION ALLOWABLE. THE KEY WORD IN CL. (B) OF S. 43(6) IS ' ACTUALLY'. IT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT WHICH IS MERELY SPECULATI VE, THEORETICAL OR IMAGINARY. THE CONNOTATION OF THE PH RASE 'ACTUALLY ALLOWED' IS THUS LIMITED TO DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OR GRANTED AND GIVEN EFFECT TO, I.E., DEBITED BY THE AO AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE BUSINES S WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO MEAN 'NOTIONALLY ALLOWED OR MERELY ALLOWABLE ON A NOTIONAL BASIS OR PROVIDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY HAVING AN ACCOUNTING ENTRY. THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ARISES, ONLY WHEN FOR THE PUR POSE OF ASSESSING INCOME-TAX THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE B USINESS ARE TO BE COMPUTED. IF NO INCOME-TAX IS PAYABLE, WH ETHER ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPTION OR OTHERWISE, PROFITS AND G AINS OF THE BUSINESS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AND TH ERE IS NO OCCASION FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THUS, THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALL OWED ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 7 AND DEPRECIATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IF T HE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS HAD TO BE COMPUTE D FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME-TAX, AND UNDER S. 43(6) THE WD V IS CALCULATED AFTER DEDUCTION FROM THE ORIGINAL COST, ONLY THAT DEPRECIATION THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINES S DURING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME-TAX IN EARLIER YEARS. THE WORD 'ACTUALLY' USED IN S. 43(6) WAS NOT REDUNDANT AND MUST BE GIVEN ITS FULL EFFECT. DEPREC IATION DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED OR WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEE N ALLOWED IF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS HAD BE EN ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX IN PREVIOUS YEAR IS CERTAINL Y NOT DEPRECIATION 'ACTUALLY ALLOWED' AND CANNOT BE DEDUC TED FROM THE ORIGINAL COST. THE WDV DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN QUESTION WOULD BE THE ORIGINAL COST LESS NIL, I. E., THE ORIGINAL COST. THE ONLY DEPRECIATION ALLOWED UNDER THE IT ACT IS THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED BY ANY ITO WHEN COMPUTING ITS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS FOR ASS ESSMENT PURPOSES. 'ACTUALLY ALLOWED' MEANS ALLOWED BY AN IT AUTHORITY; DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ITS ELF IN ITS OWN ACCOUNT IS NOT DEPRECIATION ALLOWED TO IT. THE LANGUAGE USED IN S. 43(6) IS VERY CLEAR. SO LONG AS THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, RESORT TO A NY INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS TO UNFOLD THE LEGISLATIVE IN TENT BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE. THE SUPPOSED INTENTION OF TH E LEGISLATURE CANNOT THEN BE APPEALED TO WHITTLE DOWN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WHICH IS OTHERWISE UNAMBIGUOUS. IF THE INTENDMENT IS NOT IN THE WORDS, IT IS NOWHERE E LSE. THE NEED FOR INTERPRETATION ARISES WHEN THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE ARE, ON THEIR OWN TERMS, AMBIVALENT AND DO NOT MANIFEST THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. WHEN WOR DS ACQUIRE A PARTICULAR MEANING OR SENSE BECAUSE OF TH EIR AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY SUPERIOR COURTS, THEY ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THE SAME SENSE WHEN U SED IN A SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR CONTEXT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE EXPRESSIONS USED IN A TA XING STATUTE WOULD ORDINARILY BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE OBJECT OF THE STATU TE TO EFFECTUATE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. IT FOLLOWS, T HEREFORE, THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF ASSETS ACQUIRED BEFORE THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHERE IN THE PAST, NO DEPRECIATION W AS COMPUTED, ACTUALLY ALLOWED OR CARRIED FORWARD, FOR NO FAULT ITA NO. 1326/AHD/2009 MR. JAYESH KALIDAS PATEL VS/ ACIT AY : 2006-07 8 OF THE ASSESSEE THE WDV SHALL UNDER CL. (B) OF S. 4 3(6), BE THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSETS TO THE ASSESSEE.MADE VA UPENDRA SINAI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (1975) 98 I TR 209 (SC), RAMPUR DISTILLERY & CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VS. C IT (1965) 55 ITR 338 (ALL), CIT VS. COIMBATORE MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR EX-SERVICEMEN (1 968) 70 ITR 165 (MAD) AND G.C. ASSOCIATES VS. DY. CIT (2 003) 80 TTJ (PUNE) 539 RELIED ON. 4. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.43,629/- OUT OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAI M OF RS.7,76,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- N.K. BILLAIYA SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICI AL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/02/2016 BIJU T., PS !' #'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / D R, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD