Shri Bhuralal M. Shah, Navsari V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

ITA 1404/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 140420514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 BHURALAL M. SHAH 26/2, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY GRID ROAD KABILPORE NAVSARI 396 424. PAN : AHKPS 9646 M VS ITO, WARD - 1 NAVSARI. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION. REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/09/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 20.3.2015 PASSED FOR THE AS STT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, O UT OF WHICH GROUND NO.3 AND 4 ARE GENERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I N GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT . IN GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,91,699/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 2 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN, HE HAS WITHDRAWN GROU ND NO.1, MEANING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO.1. THUS, REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS UPHELD. 4. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITA T PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESHCHANDRA S. AGARWAL, BEARING ITA NO.25 71/A/2001. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE TRIBUNAS ORDERL DATED 17.7.2015. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT T HE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGARWAL, WHO IS ALSO CO-OWN ER OF THE PROPERTY, IN WHOM, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 6.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,43,680/- AN D AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2,77,536/-. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED OPEN PLOT OF LAND IN JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 25% (SALE VALUE AS PER THE PURCHASED DEED). THE COST OF THE PLOT F ALLING IN THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING 25% AS PER PURCHASE DEED IS RS.1 9,35,250/-. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT VALUATION CELL HAS DETERMINED THE SHARE OF ASSESSEE AT RS.33,26,949/-. OUT OF THIS SHARE, AS ASSESSEE SHOWN IN THE PURCHASE DEED AT RS.,19,35,250/-. HE CONFRONTE D THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,19,699/- SHOULD NOT BE A DDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AFTER H EARING THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION. ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 3 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION . 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGARWAL, WHO WAS CO-OWNER TO THE EXTENT OF 75% OF T HE PLOT. OUR FINDING IN ITA NO.2567/AHD/2011 AND 2571/AHD/2011 F OR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 READ AS UNDER: 7. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON INQUIRY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE AO FOR CONCLUDING THAT TH E ASSESSEES HAVE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH DESERVES TO BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT, WE D EEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. IT READS AS UNDER: 'AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLOSED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT - WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE A.O. FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THI S BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLAN ATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O.. SATISFACTOR Y, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR.' 8. A PERUSAL OF THE SECTION WOULD REVEAL THAT SECTI ON 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AUTHORIZES THE AO TO DEEM UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT, IF HE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE I NVESTMENTS OR OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN A CQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE E XCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO WOULD CALL FOR AN EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT SOURCE OF INCOME FOR MAKING SUCH INV ESTMENT, AND IF EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT, IN T HE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THEN, THE EXCESS AMOUNT WOULD BE T REATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. TH US, THE BASIC CONDITION FOR APPLYING UNDER SECTION 69B IS THAT IT SHOULD BE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OR THE ASSESS EE FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THE MONEY, BULLION AND JEWELLERY. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, BOTH ASSESSEES WERE FOUND TO HAVE MADE INVEST MENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER TH E ASSESSEES ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 4 HAVE MADE INVESTMENT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THIS IS A CRUCIAL QUESTION, WHICH DEMONSTRA TES FACTUAL POSITION. IT IS TO BE PROVED WITH THE HELP OF EVI DENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THEY HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS EQUIVALENT TO THE ONE DISCLOSED I N THE SALE DEED. IT IS THE AO WHO IS DISPUTING AND HARBOURING A BELI EF THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS, OVER AND ABOVE, TH E AMOUNT SO DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. HIS BELIEF IS BASED ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE VALUATION AUTHORITIES TO CHARGE STAMP DUTY ON REGISTERING THE TRANSFER OF PL OTS. THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY THE AO IS OF NOT SUCH A NA TURE, WHICH EMPOWERS HIM TO INVOKE SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. STA MPS DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE OF LAND IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION, SAY, 8% OR 10% OF THE TOTAL VA LUE. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE NOT DISPUTED LEVY OF THAT STAMP DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WHEN C OMPARED TO THE LITIGATION COST. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY. THIS ISSUE HAS FALLEN FOR CON SIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON EARLIER OCCASIONS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORD ER PASSED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. VALLABHAI, REPORTED IN (2012) 27 T AXMANN.COM 306 (AHD) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY AND THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOTEWORTHY, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 11. THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TH AT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LA ND. THE PURCHASE COST OF A SQ. MTRS. OF LAND WAS SHOWN TO B E RS. 74/- PER SQ. MTR. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE LOW AS COMPARED TO THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF THE LAND. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOULD HAV E BEEN RS. 510/- PER SQ. MTR. HE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PREVAILING JANTRY PRICE AND THE AUCTION PRICE OF SU DA, ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT RS. 97,41,0 00/- .AFTER ADJUSTING FOR THE VALUE DISCLOSED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF RS. 14,13,000/- ADDED RS. 83,27,600/-AS THE NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE A.O. HAS THUS RELIED ON THE JANTRY PRICE AND AUCTION PRICE OF SUDA AND ON THAT BASIS PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE A.O. HAS FAILED T O BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS ESTIMATED PRI CE. 12. SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE UNDER THE STAMP DUTY RATE IS TREATED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48. IT IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A SELLER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 5 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASE OF PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 69B. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY OR COLLEC TED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. 13. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) [200 3] 261 ITR 664/ 130 TAXMAN 15 (DELHI) THE HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT HAS HELD THAT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC .69B, THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE REAL INV ESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMAR KUMARI SURANA V. CIT [1997] 226 ITR 344/[1996] 89 TAXMAN 544 (RAJ.) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS U NDER: '10. IT IS TRUE THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MA RKET VALUE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT, 1961, BUT ON THE BASIS OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RE CORD SOME REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT PETITIONER HAS INVESTED MORE AMOUNT THAN THE SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS, THEN ONLY THE ADDITION U/S. 69B C AN BE MADE. THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT REAL INVESTMENT EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 15. IN THE CASE OF ITO V. HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTI CALS LTD. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (AHD) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SELLER ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURCHASER. LEGAL FICTION CANNO T BE EXTENDED ANY FURTHER AND HAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE A REA FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. SECTION 50C CREATES A LEGAL FI CTION FOR TAXING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR TAXING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPAR ENT CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION DONE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69. 16. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. VIRJIBHAI KALYAN BHAI KUKADIA [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 13 (AHD.) HAD ON IDENTICAL FACTS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. 17. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 6 THE RATES ESTIMATED BY HIM AND RELYING ON THE DECIS IONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINA BOVE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREF ORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE THUS, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 9. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERRY PLASTICS P. LTD., 35 TAXMANN.COM 296 AND JAYE NDRA N. SHAH, 27 TAXMANN.COM 306 MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S: 8. BEFORE US COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE GAP BETWEEN T HE VALUATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED, WHICH WAS ALS O ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AND WHAT WAS ES TIMATED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLL ECTING STAMP DUTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER , ON THE BASIS OF DVO'S REPORT, FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WA S MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTY. COUNSEL PLAC ED HEAVY RELIANCE UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 9. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED NO ERROR IN DELETING THE ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SOLE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION WAS THE DVO'S REPORT. DVO'S REPORT MAY BE A USEFUL TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEVERTHELESS IT IS AN ESTIMATION AND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANYTHING MORE, CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR ADDITIONS UNDE R SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, ADDITION WAS CORRECTLY DELETED. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 9. COMING TO THE QUESTION OF ADDITION TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL BOTH HAVE EXAMINE D THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NO DISCLOSURE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DVO'S REPORT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 7 MOREOVER, THE DVO HAD ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY RELIED ON JANTRI RATES AND HAD MADE OTHER REFERENCES FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUATION. 10. IN THE ABOVE THREE DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN UNANI MOUSLY HELD THAT VALUATION MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY I S AN ESTIMATED OPINION. IT CAN BE A CORROBORATIVE EVIDE NCE FOR THE HELP OF THE AO, BUT, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EV IDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ESTIMATED OPINION, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT, APART FROM THIS ESTIMATED OPINION, THE A O WAS NOT POSSESSING ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. AS FAR AS REFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 50C IS DEEMING PROVISION, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AO TO REPLACE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO THE F ULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IN THAT SITUATION, THE AO WOULD REPLACE THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASS ESSEE BY AN AMOUNT ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THIS SECTION IS OF NO HELP WHILE DETERMI NING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT MADE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS, AND TH EREFORE, NO ADDITIONS DESERVE TO BE MADE. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAVE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES, BUT THESE GROUND WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BE CAUSE OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED THEREIN. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRES ANY OTHER GROUNDS. T HEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY, AND DELET E THE ADDITIONS OF RS.27,39,079/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL, AND RS.32,20,512/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESCHCHAND RA S. AGRAWAL. 13. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1404/AHD/2015 8 8. WE HAVE DELETED THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT FROM THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNERS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUPRASAD S. AGRAWAL (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER