The ACIT,(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad V. Smt. Deohooti J.Vyas, Ahmedabad

ITA 1418/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9235 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 263; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS, B/1/A, RAJHANS SOCIETY , ST. ZAVIER S COLLEGE CORNER, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAJPV5327Q (APPELLANT) VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - 1, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS MRS. DEVHOOTI J. VYAS, B/1/A, RAJHANS SOCIETY, ST. ZAVIER S COLLEGE CORNER, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAJPV5327Q (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI JAGDISH, CIT - D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI TUSHAR HEMANI , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 01 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 03 - 2 016 I T A NO . 11 1 7 / A HD/20 11 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 ITA NO. 1418 /AHD/20 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 2 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE FILED THE INSTANT APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT - I IN APPEAL NO. CIT/ABD - 1/263/ 08 /2010 - 11 , AND THAT OF THE CIT(A) - 6 AHMEDABAD DATED 02 - 05 - 2012, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 AND 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT RESPECTIVELY . 2. IT EMERGES FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE CIT S ORDER PASSED IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE A DE - NOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF HER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,53,10,736/ - IN THE FORMER APPEAL. THE REVENUE S CASE IN ITS APPEAL PLEADS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING ABOVE STATED LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS AS EXEMPT IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. 3. WE COME T O THE RELEVANT FACTS FIRST. THE ASSESSEE - INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN ON 31 - 07 - 2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 18,36,943/ - . THE SAME STOOD PROCESSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED A R EGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 25 - 08/2008 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME ITSELF. THE CIT THEREAFTER ASSUMED SECTION 263 JURISDICTION BY TERMING THE ABOVE STATED REGULAR ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS CAUSING PREJUDICED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN SHARE INVESTMENTS OF RS. 0.88 CRORES INCLUDING INVESTMENTS MADE IN SHARES OF M/S. NAGARJUNA I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 3 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF RS. 69.5 LACS STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR RS. 1,99,53,336/ - RESULTING IN THE IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS INDICATED HER EINABOVE . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SAME ON 01 - 12 - 2004. THEIR DATE OF SALE IS 08 - 12 - 2005. THE CIT OBSERVED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THESE SHARES REVEALED THAT THE SAME IN THE NATURE OF EQUITY SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED ON PREFERENTIAL BASIS SUBJECT TO LOCKING PERIOD AS PER SEBI GUIDELINES. HE SOUGHT TO REVISE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THIS LOCK IN ASPECT OF THE S HARES SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING ASSESSEE S EXEMPTION CLAIM ON H ER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,53,10,780/ - . 4 . THE ASSESSEE FILED HER REPLY BEFORE THE CIT STRONGLY CONTESTING THE IMPUGNED REVISION PROPOSAL. SHE EXPLAINED RELEVANT FACTS PER TAINING TO HER ACQUISITION OF S HARES AS UNDER: - YOUR GOODSELF HAS OBSERVED THAT SHARES IN NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. WERE ALLOTTED ON PREFERENTIAL BASIS ON 01/12/2004 AND WERE SOLD ON 08/12/2005, HOWEVER, THEY WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF LOCK - IN - PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND THE ID. AO HAS NOT I NQUIRED INTO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SHARES WERE KEPT IN LOCK - IN - PERIOD AND WHETHER LOCK - IN - PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WAS EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SALE OF SUCH SHARES OR NOT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR GOODSELFS ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DA TED 01/08/2008 ADDRESSED TO THE ID. AO, WHEREBY , THE ASSESSEE HAS VIDE POINT NO. 1 EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED 25,000/ - EQUITY SHARES OF NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. ON 01/12/2004 WHICH WERE LATER ON CONVERTED INTO 1,25,000 EQUITY SHAR ES ON 29/10/2005 DUE TO SPLITTING OF EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/ - EACH INTO EQUITY SHARES OF RS.2/ - EACH AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 56,500 EQUITY SHARES AT RS.238094 ON 08/12/2005 AND 27,000 EQUITY SHARE AT RS.239 ON 08/12/2005, WHICH RESULTED INTO LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,53,10,736/ - . I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 4 ALONGWITH THIS LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED INTIMATION GIVEN BY NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES ON PREFERENTIAL BASIS AND THE DEMAT STATEMENT. IN RESPECT THERETO, THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE ID. AO THAT THE EQUITY SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT ON 01/12/2004 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEY WERE CREDITED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ON 05/02/2005 AND THEREFORE THE PERIOD OF HOLDING AS WELL AS LOCK - IN - PERIOD SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT I.E 01/12/2004. HAVING REGARDS TO THE FACTS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE ID. AO, THE ID. AO TOOK A CONSCIOUS VIEW THAT THE LOCK - IN - PERIOD WAS RECKONED FROM 01/12/2,004 AND AS THE SHARES WERE SOLD ON 08/ 12/2 005 I.E. FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, THE ID. AO TREATED THE SAME LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND TREATED IT AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT TRANSPIRES THAT SHE FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ASSESSEE NAMELY ADITI J. VYAS HAD SUCCEEDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON T HE VERY ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS VIS - - VIS EQUITY SHARES, LOCK IN PERIOD AND THEIR ALLOTMENT AS PREFERENCE SHARES QUA THE VERY ENTITY M/S. NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (SUPRA). THE CIT HAS PASSED HIS DATED 03 - 02 - 2011 REITERATING CON TENTS OF HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY TREATING IT AS A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY BEING MADE IN THE COURSE OF FRAMING OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT THEREBY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE SAME. 5. THIS CIT S ORDER PASSED IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS IS SUBJECT MA TTER OF CHALLENGE IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL ITA 1117/AHD/201 1 BEFORE US. 6 . WE COME TO R EVENUE S APPEAL ITA 1418/AHD/2012 NOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IN PURSUANCE TO CIT S DIRECTION HEREINABOVE ADDED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT IN I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 5 QUESTION OF RS. 1,53,10,736/ - . THE CIT(A) ACCEPTS ASSESSEE S ARGUMENTS IN THE LOWER A PPELLATE ORDER AS FOLLOWS: - 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION. CIT DIRECTED THE AO BY ORDER UN DER SECTION 263 TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF SHARES ALLOTTED TO HER BY NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION LTD AND TO SEE WHETHER SALE OF SUCH SHARES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(38). FROM THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE AO DURING A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT WAS ALLOTTED EQUITY SHARES ON PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT AS PER THE SCHEME OF SEBI. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES AS P REFERENTIAL SHARES COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN ALLOTMENT LETTER AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS THE SHARES ALLOTTED WERE CLEARLY EQUITY SHARES AND NOT PREFERENCE SHARES. PREFERENCE SHARES ARE SEPARATE CATEGORY OF SHARES NOT EQUIVALENT TO EQUITY SHARES. APPE LLANT ALSO SOLD EQUITY SHARES ONLY THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND PAID STT ON THE SAME AFTER HOLDING THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38). ACQUISITION OF EQUITY SHARES CAN BE FROM PUBLIC ISSUE, PURCHASE FROM THE MARKET OR PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT AS PER SEBL GUIDELINES. MATURE OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTERS OF EQUITY SHARES. SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED APPELLANT THE SAID EXEMPTION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID NOT SALE EQUITY SHARES, SUCH DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IS BASED ON WRONG INTERPRETATION OF FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY NOT SUSTAINABLE. EQUITY SHARES ALLOTTED ON PREFERENTIAL BASIS WILL NOT BECOME PREFERENCE SHARES. PREFERENCE SHARES ARE SEPARATE CLASS OF SHARE S AS PER COMPANY'S ACT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONFUSED WITH PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES. ACCORDINGLY THE VERY BASIS OF ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF DENYING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSE IS WRONG, THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO C LAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (38) SINCE WHAT WAS SOLD WAS EQUITY SHARES OF NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION LTD. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. THIS LEAVES THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED. I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 6 7 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE SOL E ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THESE TWO APPEALS IS ABOUT ASSESSEE S TREATMENT OF SHARES PURCHASED IN M/S NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE ASPECT OF HOLDING PERIOD THEREOF. IT EMINATES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT A CO - ORDI N ATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 3115/AHD/ 2009 DCIT VS. ADITI J. VYAS (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE VERY ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT O F RS.69,50,000/ - IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF NCL ON 01/12/2004. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED 25000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/ - EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS.6,268/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREFORE EXPLAINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION, I.E. 25000 X RS.278/ - WHICH COMES TO RS.69 ,50,000/ - . FACTS HAVE FURTHER REVEALED THAT ON 29/10/2005, THERE WAS SPLIT OF THE EQUITY SHARES IN THE RATIO OF 1:5, ACCORDINGLY, ON EVERY EQUITY SHARE OF RS.10/ - ASSESSEE GOT 5 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.2/ - EACH. THEREFORE, DUE TO THE SAID SPLIT THE HOLDING OF 25000 EQUITY SHARES HAD GONE UP AND CONVERTED INTO IT 125000 SHARES. OUT OF THE SAID HOLDING, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ON 08/12/2005 41750 SHARES AT RS.99,78,254/ - AND EARNED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.76,56,954/ - . AS PER THE DEFINITION OF SHORT - TERM CAPITAL ASSE T AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 (42A) OF THE I.T.ACT MEANS A CAPITAL ASSET HELD BY AN ASSESSEE FOR NOT MORE THAN 36 MONTHS(AS PER FIRST PROVISO;12 MONTHS FOR LISTED SHARES OR SECURITIES), IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF ITS TRANSFER. THE IMPORTANT TERM USED IS HELD WHICH MEANS THAT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH A PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUB - CLAUSE(D) OF SUB - SECTION 2 (42A) OF THE I.T.ACT SAYS THAT IN CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING A SHARE SUBSCRIBED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS RIGHT TO SUBS CRIBE TO SUCH SHARES, THE PERIOD SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN CLARIFIED BY A CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO.704 DATED 28/04/1995, WHEN A QUESTION WAS RAISED AS REGARDS TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND ABOUT THE DAY FROM WH ICH THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SECURITIES SHOULD RECKONED. THE BOARD HAS GIVEN THE INSTRUCTION AS FOLLOWS, ONLY RELEVANT PORTION; REPRODUCED. .. 2. WHEN THE SECURITIES ARE TRANSACTED THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGES; IT IS THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE THAT THE B ROKERS I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 7 FIRST ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE/SALE OF SECURITIES AND THEREAFTER, FOLLOW IT UP WITH DELIVERY OF SHARES, ACCOMPANIED BY TRANSFER DEEDS DULY SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED HOLDERS. THE SELLER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE CONSIDERATION AGREED TO AS O N THE DATE OF CONTRACT. THE BOARD ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS THE DATE OF BROKER S NOTE THAT SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN CASES OF SALE TRANSACTIONS OF SECURITIES PROVIDED SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE FOLLOWED UP BY DELIVERY OF SHARES AND ALSO THE TRANSFER DEEDS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASERS OF THE SECURITIES, THE HOLDING PERIOD SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF THE BROKER S NOTE FOR PURCHASE ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTORS. IN CASE THE TRANSACTIONS TAKE PLACE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE PARTI ES AND NOT THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGES THE DATE OF CONTRACT OF SALE AS DECLARED BY THE PARTIES SHALL BE TREATED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER PROVIDED IT IS FOLLOWED UP BY ACTUAL DELIVERY OF SHARES AND THE TRANSFER DEEDS. 7.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS THUS CLEAR THA T DATE OF CONTRACT IS THE DATE OF PURCHASE. IT IS NOT THE DATE ON WHICH SHARES WERE DEMATED BECAUSE THAT CAN BE SAID TO BE THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF SHARES. THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATION IS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS ON THE SHARES. WHEN THE SHARES ARE ALLOTTED TO AN INVESTOR, THEN THE SAID INVESTOR HAS RIGHT TO EXERCISE HIS DOMAIN OVER THE SHARES SO ALLOTTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 01/12/2004 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED EQUITY SHARES. SALES WAS EXECUTED ON 8/12/2005, THEREFO RE AS PER SECTION 10(36) OF THE I.T.ACT ANY INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING AN ELIGIBLE EQUITY SHARES IN A COMPANY AND HELD FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE. THERE IS AN ANOTHER SECTION WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED TO ELABORATE THE SAID POINT THAT AS PER SECTION 10(38) OF THE I.T.ACT ANY INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING AN EQUITY SHARE IN A COMPANY WHERE THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SUCH EQUITY SHARE COME INTO FORCE AND SUCH TRANSACTION IS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX. ALL THESE PROVISIONS THUS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING SHOULD BE RECKONED FORM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SUCH ASSET. WE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT IS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AND NOT THE DATE ON WHICH CREDITED TO DEMAT ACCOUNT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY UPHELD AND GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 8 THE LD. CO - ORDINATE BENCH ACCORDINGLY HOLDS THAT DATE OF ALLOTMENT IS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE S HARES IN QUESTION AND NOT DATE ON WHICH THE SAME WERE CREDITED TO DEMAT ACCOUNT. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE S HOLDING PERIOD IN QUESTION IS OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO DRAW A DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR ON MERITS. THIS LEAVES HER APPEAL ITA 1117/AHD/2011 AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED INFRU CTU OUS. THE REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 1418/AHD/2012 IS DISMISSED . 8 . WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL ITA 1117/AHD/2011 HAS BEEN RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. THE REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 1418/AHD/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 - 03 - 2016 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 04 /03 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , I.T.A NO.1117 /AHD /2011 & 1418/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO MRS. DEO HOOTI J. VYAS VS. CIT 9 / ,