The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Rajratna Metal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1375/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 92B; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1375/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012- 13) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD., 909, SAKAR III, NR. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AAACR9980M /BY REVENUE : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI DHINAL SHAH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 03.03.2017, IN CA SE NO. CIT(A)-9/402/DCIT CIR.3(1)(2)/15-16, REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS AC TION INTER ALIA DISALLOWING/ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,94,067/- U/S.1 4A, SECTION 36(1)(III) INTEREST(S) OF RS.9,46,688/- AND RS.4,36,933/- AS W ELL AS ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.36,13,064/-; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROC EEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO. 1375/AHD/17 [DCIT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 2. WE COME TO THE FIRST ISSUE OF SECTION 14A DISALL OWANCE OF RS.6,94,067/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ADMITTED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE CIT(A) QUOTES HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURTS JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. (2014) 372 ITR 97 (GUJ.) THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN ABSENCE OF ANY E XEMPT INCOME BEING CLAIMED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. THIS CLINCHING FINDING HAS GONE UNREBUTTED AT REVENUES BEHEST. WE THEREFORE REJECT ITS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 3. THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO REVIVE SECTION 36(1)(III) INTEREST DISALLOWANCE(S) OF RS.13,83,621/-. THE AS SESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE SAME INTER ALIA AFTER CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY TO HAVE UTILIZED NON INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS WELL AS I N ADVANCES MADE FOR PURCHASING CAPITAL GOODS. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE ABOVE T WO INTEREST COMPONENTS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTS ASSESSEES CONTENTION AS UNDE R: 7.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS, CASE LAW RELIED UPON AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A.O. HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,36,933/- U/S.36(1)(III ) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED AT PARA 6.1 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT TH AT APPELLANT HAD MADE LONG TERM ADVANCES FOR CAPITAL GOODS OF RS.25,00,000/- A ND SHORT TERM ADVANCES FOR CAPITAL GOODS OF RS.64,23,873/-. A.O. HAD OBSERVED THAT NO INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASING OF CAPITAL G OODS HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND S IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.8.36 CRORES AND RESERVES & SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS.119.84 CRORES. HOWEVER, A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT. ON FAILUR E OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR ADVANCE OF CAPITAL GOODS, A.O. HAS PROPORTIONATELY WORKED OUT QUANTUM OF INTEREST FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. IT IS SEEN THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED DURING THE A.Y. 2009-10 AS WELL AS DURING A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. CIT(A )-XI, AHMEDABAD IN THE APPELLATE ORDER NO:CIT(A)-XI/447/ADDL.CLT R-5/13-14 DTD; 12/01/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- '4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIO N MADE BY THE LD. A.R. ITA NO. 1375/AHD/17 [DCIT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - IT IS SEEN THAT FOR CAPITALIZING INTEREST AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1) (III) FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHOULD BE FULFILLED. 1. CAPITAL BORROWED FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS 2. INTEREST IS PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED 3. THE ACQUISITION OF ASSETS SHOULD BE FOR THE PURP OSE OF EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 4. INTEREST LIABILITY MAY OR MAY NOT BE CAPITALIZE D IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT A NYTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR CAPITAL WORK -IN-PROGRESS. SECONDLY, NO EVIDENCE IS THERE ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT ANY INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED TO CREATE THIS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRE SS AND HENCE, NO INTEREST WAS PAID IN RELATION TO SUCH CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRE SS. THIS WAY, THE FIRST AND SECOND CONDITIONS FOR CAPITALIZING INTEREST ARE NOT FULFILLED. ACCORDINGLY, INTEREST IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE CAPITAL IZED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III). IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT BURDEN IS ON THE REVENU E TO PROVE THAT ANY PART OF BORROWED FUNDS WAS DIVERTED TO NON BUSINESS USE. RE LIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) SHHADIRAM & SONS V/S. DCIT 92 ITD 22 II) MODIPON LTD. V/S. ITO 22 TTJ 108 III) JCIT V/S. STERISHEETS LTD.106 TTJ 460 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. HAD MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT PART OF INTEREST BEARING FUND WAS DIVERTED AS NON INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. FURTHER, THE ISSUE WAS ALSO CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN A. Y.2009-2010 BY MY PREDECESSOR AND SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS YEAR AS IT WAS IN A.Y.2009-10, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST OF RS.12,64,738 IS DELETED.' RESPECTFULLY AGREEING WITH THE ABOVE STATED DECISIO N GIVEN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WHICH IS ALSO IDENTICAL WITH THE DECISION GIVEN BY CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2009-10 I HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,46,688/- AND RS.4,36,933/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST AGAINST LONG TERM ADVANCE AND SHORT TERM A DVANCE MADE FOR CAPITAL GOODS RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID ADDITIONS ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD UTILIZED ANY INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR THE ABOVE TWO PURPOSES. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE PLACES ON RECORD TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE SAID TWO A SSESSMENT YEARS ITA NOS. 542/AHD/2012 & 1050/AHD/2015 DECIDED ON 22.09.2017 & 12.05.2017; ITA NO. 1375/AHD/17 [DCIT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - RESPECTIVELY REJECTING REVENUES SIMILAR CONTENTION S. WE THEREFORE ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY TO DECLINE REVENUES INSTANT SUBSTANTIV E GROUND AS WELL. 6. THIS LEAVES US WITH THIRD AND FINAL ISSUE OF TRA NSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.36,13,064/- IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES EXCESS CRED IT PERIOD TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS U NDER CHALLENGE DISCUSS THE RELEVANT BACKDROP AS UNDER: 8.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS, CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND A.O. AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT BASED ON THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE T.P.O. U/S.92CA(3) OF THE ACT, A.O. HAD MADE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.36,1 3,064/- ON AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY T .P.O. U/S.92CA(3) OF THE ACT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 92B OF THE ACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) WERE REPORTED IN FORM 3GEB BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO ITS AES ON CREDIT TERMS. T.P.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT AVERAGE TIME FOR RE ALIZATION FROM THE SALE OF GOODS TO ITS AES IS ON A HIGHER SIDE. GOODS WERE SOLD T O AES IN ITALY AND U.K. FOR THE GOODS SOLD TO EU BASED AES AVERAGE TIME IS OF 180 D AYS. WEIGHTED AVERAGE REALIZATION PERIOD IS FOR 188 DAYS FROM THE BILL OF LADING DATE WHEREAS FOR EU BASED NON AE CUSTOMERS, IT WAS 123 DAYS. CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD GRANTED EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD TO ITS AES, T.P.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT APPELLANT HAD DEPRIVED ITSELF OF THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT AND COST SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR SUCH EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, T.P.O. HAD CONSIDERED THE EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD AS FOREIGN CURRENCY LOAN AND ALP INTEREST RA TE WAS CHARGED ON THE RECEIVABLE OUTSTANDING BEYOND ALP CREDIT PERIOD OF 120 DAYS IN RESPECT OF AES FROM ITALY AND UK RESULTING INTO UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.36,13,064/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAS STRONGLY SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM T HE SALE OF FINISHED GOODS TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOT A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION. FURTHER, APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE A.O. WITH REGARD TO OVERALL T URNOVER WITH ITS AES AND THE NON AES OF ITALY AND U.K. AND EMPHASIZED ON THE COM MERCIAL PRINCIPLES SUCH AS VOLUME GOODS THAT LEAD TO CREDIT PERIOD FOR GOODS S OLD TO ITS AES AS WELL AS NON AES. HOWEVER, A.O. HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE CONSIDERED EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD AS A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE HAS RELIED UPON EXPLANATION 1(C) TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT AND THE WORDINGS THEREIN I.E. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION INCLUDES ANY RECEIVABLE OR ANY OTHER DEBT ARISING DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS'. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAS MADE SIMILAR KIND OF ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD A DOPTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF SALE TRA NSACTION WITH ITS AES. IT AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD THAT WAS EXTEN DED TO AES IN COMPARISON TO NON AES CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE INTERNATION AL TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO THE 'APPELLANT REALIZATION OF PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF FINISHED GOODS IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF FINISHED G OODS AND NOT A SEPARATE TRANSACTION IN ITSELF. THUS, ONCE ALP IS DETERMINED IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL, ITA NO. 1375/AHD/17 [DCIT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - TRANSACTION OF SALE OF GOODS, IT WOULD COVER ALL TH E SPECIAL ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE SAID INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. APPELLANT HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF MICRO INKS LIMITED V /S. ACIT IN ITA NO.2873/AHD/2010 WHEREIN HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT NO NOTIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGED ON DELAYED RECEIVABLES. IT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THE INTEREST LEVY FOR LATE REALIZATION OF DEBTO RS, BEING INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED WITH THE SALES, IS ALSO PART OF OPERATING INCOME. IN THE CASE OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DCIT (2006) 283 ITR 40 2 (GUJ) HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DEALING WITH THE NATURE OF INTEREST ON DE BTORS, HELD IT TO BE INTEGRAL TO BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAME IS THE PRINCI PLE FOR THE TRANSFER PRICING CASES TO THAT EXTENT INTEREST IS TO BE TAKE N AS INTEGRAL TO SALE PROCEEDS, AND, AS SUCH, INCLUDIBLE IN OPERATING INC OME. WHEN SUCH AN INTEREST IS INCLUDIBLE IN OPERATING INCOME AND THE OPERATING INCOME ITSELF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE UNDER THE TNMM, THE RE CANNOT BE AN OCCASION TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT FOR NOTIONAL INTEREST O N DELAYED REALIZATION OF DEBTORS. ONE CAN UNDERSTAND SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT F OR EXCESS CREDIT PERIOD WHEN THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE FOR EXPORTS HAS BEEN BE NCHMARKED ON THE CUP BASIS BUT NOT IN A CASE WHEN THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE EXPORTS HAS BEEN BENCHMARKED ON THE BASIS OF TNMM. THE VERY CONCEPT UAL FOUNDATION, FOR SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT FOR DELAYED REALIZATION OF DEBT ORS AND ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE ME RITS. 8.3 APPELLANT HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS C ASE LAW (AS MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT CREDIT PERIOD PROVIDED TO THE AES WAS NOT A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO N BUT IT IS CLOSELY LINKED TRANSACTION WITH SALE TRANSACTIONS WITH AES AND THE REFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ALONGWITH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BETW EEN APPELLANT AND ITS AES. APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THERE ARE REASONS FOR GRANTING DIFFERENT CREDIT PERIOD FOR THE AES AS WELL AS NON AES DUE TO COMMERCIAL FACTORS. IT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SALE TO AES IN ITALY WAS RS.36.18 CRORES AND SALE TO THE AES IN U.K. WAS OF RS.21.73 CRORES WHEREAS SALE TO NON AES IN THIS REGION WAS OF RS.6.60 CRORES. I AGREE WITH THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT SEPARATE COMMERCIAL FACTORS WOULD DETERMINE THE CRE DIT PERIOD WHICH IS TO BE GRANTED TO THE AES AND NON AES. CONSIDERING THE VOL UMINOUS SALE, DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF PRODUCTS SOLD AND OTHER COMMERCIAL FA CTORS, APPELLANT WAS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT TO OFFER DIFFERENT CREDIT PERIODS TO THE AES AS WELL AS NON AES. FURTHER I ALSO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AP PELLANT AND RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF MICRO INKS LIMITED V/S. ACIT (SUPRA) THAT NO NOTIONAL INTEREST CAN BE CHARG ED ON DELAYED RECEIVABLES FROM THE AES. THUS, THE DELAYED PERIOD OF RECEIVABLES BEYOND 120 DAYS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AS HELD BY T.P.O. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T.P.O./A.O. WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.36,13,064/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALP INTE REST RATE BEYOND CREDIT PERIOD OF 120 DAYS. THUS, THE SAID ADDITION IS HEREBY DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATING THEIR RESPECT IVE STANDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ALP ADJUSTMENT PERTAINS TO ASSESS EE PROVIDING EXCESS CREDIT ITA NO. 1375/AHD/17 [DCIT VS. M/S. RAAJRATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - PERIOD TO ITS OVERSEAS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES QUA IT S TRADING TRANSACTIONS. IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDI NATE BENCHS DECISION IN MICRO INKS LIMITED (SUPRA) HOLDS THAT SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT QUA DELAYED PERIOD OF RECEIVABLES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE INTE RNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S.92(C) OF THE ACT AS PER HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. HOLDING INTEREST PAYMENT OF TRADING RECEIPTS TO BE BUSINESS INCOME. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO PINPOINT ANY D ISTINCTION ON FACTS AS WELL AS LAW THEREIN. WE THEREFORE AFFIRM CIT(A)S WELL REA SONED CONCLUSION DELETING THE IMPUGNED ALP ADJUSTMENT. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.] SD/- SD//- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 23/01/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) 5 )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0