The ACIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1424/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94615 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO: 1424/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, AHMEDABAD V/S M/S. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD. 17/345, SATYAGRAH CHAVNI SOCIETY. JODHPUR TKRA: AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAFCS4436C APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR. D .R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 01-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 -10-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 26.02.2010 FOR A.Y. 20 06-07. ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TWO B USINESS ACTIVITIES NAMELY STOCK BROKING AND DEPOSITORY ACTIVITIES. ASS ESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 22.12.2006 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 5,78,53,059/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORD ER DATED 30.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,80,19, 770/- INTERALIA BY CONSIDERING THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME AND BY DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2010 GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN AP PEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THA T THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,193/- CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BUSINESS TO TH E SHARE TRADING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. BALANCE SUM OF RS. 1,80,83,258/- HAS TO B E TAXED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE CASE OF SARDAR INDRA SINGH & SONS LTD. VS. CIT, 24 ITR 415, THE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE CASE OF A COMPANY WHICH WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE OBJECT, INTER ALIA OF CARRYING THE BUSINESS OF BANK ERS, FINANCIERS, MANAGING AGENTS AND SECRETARIES AND WAS ALSO EMPOWERED TO INVEST AN D DEAL WITH THE MONIES OF THE COMPANY NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED FOR ITS BUSINESS, UPON SUCH SECURITIES AND IN SUCH MATTERS AS MIGHT FROM TIME TO TIME BE DETERMINED. T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SHARE BROKER WHERE BUSINESS IS TO DEAL IN SHARES 7 SECURI TIES AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE HELD THE SALE PROFITS FROM TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES AND SECURITIES WILL BE BUSINESS INCOME, IF THE REALIZAT ION OF SECURITIES IS A NORMAL STEP IN CARRYING IN THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. 2. THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PRINCIPLE APPLI CABLE IN ALL SUCH CASES WAS WELL SETTLED AND THE QUESTION ALWAYS WAS WHETHER THE SAL ES WHICH PRODUCED THE SURPLUS ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 3 WERE SO CONNECTED WITH THE CARRYING ON OF THE ASSES SEE'S BUSINESS THAT IT COULD FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE SURPLUS WAS THE PROFIT AND GAINS O F SUCH BUSINESS. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SURPLUS RESULTING OF SAL E OF SHARES AND SECURITIES CONSTITUTED BUSINESS INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE CITED SUPRA. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME. 4. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE REVEN UE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO T REATING THE PROFITS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON PERUSING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HA D DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,81,10,551/-. CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE INCOME ON SALE OF SHARES NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES IN QUESTION WERE SHOWN AS INVESTMENTS AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE GAINS WERE EARNED ONLY ON 6 SCRIPS AND IN PREVIOUS YEARS THE D EPARTMENT HAD CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN INVESTOR AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROFITS ON SALE OF SHARES WERE ACCEPTED AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SHARES OF RS. 10 CRORE AND SOLD SHARES OF OVER RS. 8 CRORE WITHIN THE YEAR, THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE EXTREMELY LOW AND THE EARNING BY WAY OF DIVIDENDS WAS FAR LESS AS COMPARE D TO THE GAINS EARNED ON ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 4 SALE OF SHARES WHICH ACCORDING TO THE A.O DEMONSTRA TED THAT DEALING IN SHARES WAS A REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSES SEE AND THEREFORE THE ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES CANNOT BE T REATED AS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2010 D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.7. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. FROM THE VARIO US JUDICIAL DECISION AND THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT, IT IS CLEAR THAT TO DECIDE WHETHER AN ASSE SSEE IS AN INVESTOR OR IS TRADING IN SHARES : (I) AN OVERALL HOLISTIC VIEW IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKE N ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE, KEEPING IN VIEW MORE THAN ONE PARAMETER. (II)AN ASSESSEE'S ACTIVITIES COULD SIMULTANEOUSLY B E THAT OF INVESTOR AS WELL AS THAT OF DOING BUSINESS IN SHARES. 2.8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS A HISTO RY OF BEING AN INVESTOR AND CLAIMING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, A FACT WHICH CANNOT BE IG NORED. ALTHOUGH IT HAS SHOWN A TURNOVER OF ABOUT RS.8 CR, YET AS RIGHTLY STRESSED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, FIRSTLY ITS MAIN ACTIVITIES ARE RELATED TO SHARES OF 5 SCRI PS, RELIANCE BEING THE PREDOMINANT AND SECONDLY MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DELIVERY BASE D. THIS BECOMES AN IMPORTANT PARAMETER TO DETERMINE APPELLANT'S MOTIVE. 2.9. IT WILL BE AXIOMATIC TO SAY THAT MERE TURNOVER IN ITSELF IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. ALONG WITH THAT THE FREQUENCY OF TURNOVER AS WELL AS THE STOCK IN HAND IS GOING TO BE AS WELL AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF HIMAN SHU J. SHAH & OTHERS VS. ACIT (SUPRA), IT AT AHMEDABAD REASONED THAT UNLESS A PER SON IS INVOLVED IN TRADING ON ALMOST DAILY BASIS, A FEW TRANSACTIONS IN A MONTH MAY NOT MAKE THAT PERSON A TRADER. AS PER THE TABLE OF TRANSACTIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT IT IS DOING TRANSACTIONS EVERYDAY (THOUGH THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE TRANSACTIO NS ON SOME DAYS). 2.10. IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 17/02/2010, THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS TRIED TO PROVE THAT IT MEETS THE VARIOUS TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 5 CASE OF CIT |/S. REWASHANKER A. KOTHARI (SUPRA), A CASE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IT HAS ALSO TRIED TO RECKON ITS CASE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF GUIDELINES LAID IN BY IT AT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF HIMANSHU J. SHAH (SUPRA). I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH WHAT HE HAS SAID. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS (I) AS INVESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS (II) HAS NOT BORROWED ANY F INANCE TO ACQUIRE THE SHARES AND (III) HAS RECEIVED REASONABLE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND, SHOULD GO IN ITS FAVOUR. 2.11. THE CHART OF TIME PERIOD OF HOLDING THE SHARE S IN QUESTION, AS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 13 ANTE, IS ALSO QUITE IMPORTANT. OUT OF THE TOTAL; CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.1,80,83,258/-, ONLY RS..7,15,737/- PERTAINED TO SHARES HELD FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS AND RS .56,47,946/- (RS. 49,32,209 + RS.7,15,737) PERTAIN TO THOSE TRANSACTED WITHIN 60 DAYS. BALANCE OF THE GAIN ABOUT 2/3 RD PERTAINED TO SHARES HELD FOR OVER 60 DAYS. NORMALLY , AS A BUSINESSMAN, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE CARRIED FORWARD SUCH AN INVENTORY. IT SHOW S HIS INVESTOR PEOPLE. 2.12. ONE MUST ALSO NOTE THAT ALSO DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.9,42,688/- A POINT WHICH GOES I N ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR WHILE CONSIDERING THE OVERALL PICTURE. 2.13. THEREFORE, I THINK, FROM ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT TH E APPELLANT IS BASICALLY INVOLVED IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS AN INVESTOR. 2.14. THAT BEING SO, I DO NOT THINK THE ASSESSING O FFICER'S STAND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED THIS ROUTE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SECTION 111 A HAS MUCH RELEVANCE. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT GRUDGE IF ANY TAX LAWS TURN OUT T O BE IN ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR. 2.15. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, DID SHOW CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WHERE THOSE WERE SQUARED OFF T HE SAME DAY OR WHERE APPARENTLY 'SHORT SELLING' WAS INDULGED IN. BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT 'THE TRIBUNAL HAVING ENTERED A PURE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TWO DIFFERENT TYPE OF TRANSA CTIONS NAMELY, INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND DEALING IN SHARES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND H ELD THAT THE DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT TRANSA CTIONS AND THE PROFIT RECEIVED THERE FROM IS TO BE TREATED AS SHORT- TERM OR LONG-TERM C APITAL GAIN DEPENDING ON THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES AND THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFOR MITY AND CONSISTENCY IN VARIOUS YEARS ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 6 WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES.(P.583)' 2.16. IN CONTEXT OF THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF SUCH CASES WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SETTLED WITH OUT TAKING DELIVERY. HE HAS SEGREGATED DETAILS OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS AS PER W HICH THE FOLLOWING SITUATION EMERGES: (I) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 9 ,42,688/- -TRANSACTION THROUGH DEMAT A/C. (SHOWN OF SAME VALU E AS CLAIMED EXEMPT IN RETURN OF IN COME) (II) SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (NET) RS. 1,80,83 ,158/- -TRANSACTION THROUGH DEMAT A/C (III) SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (NET) RS. 27,193 /- -NOT TRANSACTION THROUGH DEMAT A/C 2.17. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA), THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 27,193/- ONLY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING DONE BY THE APPELLANT . 2.18. THEREFORE, TO SUM UP,- (I) AS FAR AS THIS YEAR IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT S TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES ARE PREDOMINANTLY IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTOR. (II) ONLY SUM OF RS. 27,193/- CAN BE STATED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED THROUGH THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING. (III) BALANCE SUM OF RS. 1,80,83,258/- HAS TO BE TA XED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS . 2.19 HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK HIS COMPUTATION ACCORDINGLY. 6. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. POINTED TO THE VARIOUS FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS, VOLUME OF SHARES TRADED INDICATES THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF S HARES WAS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AN INVESTMENT ACTI VITY AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DIVIDEND EARNED WAS ONLY RS. 4.27 LACS AS AGAINST THE GAINS OF RS. ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 7 1.81 CRORE EARNED ON THE TRADING OF SHARES. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCO ME TAX MATTER AND EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY . HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS THE PROFITS ON SALE OF SHA RES WERE HELD TO BE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THOU GH THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY TO TAX MATTERS BUT THE RULE O F CONSISTENCY DOES APPLY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INDULGED INTO PURCHASE, SALE RE- PURCHASE AND RE-SALE OF THE SAME SCRIPS AGAIN AND A GAIN AND THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DELIVERY BASED AND THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TO BE THE INVESTOR OF SHARES. IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD HARDLY TRANSACTED IN ABOUT 30 DAYS IN THE YEAR. HE ALSO POINTED TO THE SUMMARY OF PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE SHARES WHICH HA VE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 13 OF THE ORDER AND FROM IT HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES SOLD WI THIN 30 DAYS WAS ONLY RS. 7,15,737/- AND THE BALANCE CAPITAL GAINS WAS EARNED WHERE THE HOLDING PERIOD WAS MORE THAN 30 DAYS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER THE PROFIT EAR NED ON SALE OF SHARES IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATING AS CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSI NESS INCOME. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE PROFIT EARNED TO BE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND HAS NOTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS HISTORY OF BEING AN INVESTOR AND CLAIMING SHORT TERMS CAPIT AL GAINS AND THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTIONS WERE RELATED TO 5 SCRIPS AND THE TRANS ACTIONS WERE DELIVERY BASED. ITA NO 1424/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 8 HE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT IT IS NOT A CAS E WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE ON EVERY DAY BASIS. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SHARES WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESS EE AS INVESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HAD NOT BORROWED ANY FINANCE TO ACQUIRE THE SHARES AND OUT OF THE TOTAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, AROU ND 2/3 OF THE PROFITS WERE EARNED FROM SHARES WHICH WERE HELD FOR OVER 60 DAYS . HE THEREAFTER RELYING ON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT REPORTED IN 228 CTR 582 ( BOM) HELD THAT ONLY SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 27,19 3/- EARNED ON THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT TRANSACTED THROUGH DEMA T ACCOUNT IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS O F LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, A SSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE PROFITS AS SHORT TERMS CAPITAL GAINS AND THE SAME W AS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND OF REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 - 10 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT.