Shri Parikh Rajesh R.(HUF), Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1578/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 157820514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS SHINDE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: S H RI G. D. AGRAWAL , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF), 21 - B, SHALIGRAM, OPP. AMBALI ROAD - OCTROI NAKE, B/H, S ATELLITE POLICE STATION, SATELL ITE, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAHHP8579G (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 7(3), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) ASS ESSEE BY: S H RI VIVEK CHAVDA , A.R. REVENUE BY: SHRI VILAS SHINDE , SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 08 - 2 015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 09 - 2 015 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 , AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 26 - 04 - 2011 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - VI/WD.7(3)/20/ /09 - 10, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 1578 / A HD/20 11 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 2 2. THIS APPEALS RAISES FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS: - 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 26.4.2011 FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 BY CIT(A),VI, ABAD , PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 28.11.2008 PASSED BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD. CI T(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 OF LAND APPARTENT TO THE HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 560 PER SQ. YARD AS AGAINST RS.800 P ER SQ. YARD ESTIMATED BY REGD. V ALUER. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE VALUATION OF LAND AT RS.560 PER SQ. YARD ESTIMATED BY AO . 3.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS, 500 PER SQ. YARD AS AGAINST RS.L 550/ - P ER SQ. YARD ESTIMATED BY REGD. V ALUER. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ESTIMATED OF HIS OWN THE VALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.500 PER SQ . YARD . 4.1 THE ESTIMATE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN QUESTION (BOTH LAND AND BUILDING) MADE BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OF THEIR OWN IS GROSSLY ILLEGAL , UNLAWFUL AND IN EXCESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A. BOTH THE L OWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SECTION 55A DOES NOT PERMIT REPLACEMENT OF VALUATION MADE BY REGD. VALUER WITH THE ESTIMATE OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES NOR THE SAME TO BE LOW ER THAN THE VALUATION OF REGD. V ALUER. I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 3 5.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVO USLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING AO TO WORK OUT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUGAMCHAND C. SHAH. 5.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CLT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.61,448 AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RATHER THAN DIRECTING AO TO WORK OUT THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUGAMCHAND C. SHAH. 3. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS FOR ITS GROUNDS NO. 1.1, 1.2 , 5.1 AND 5.2. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE SOLE ISSUE OF V ALUATION OF THE ASSESSEE S PLOT SOLD AND BUILDING ERECTED THEREUPON AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ITS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE - AN HUF CO - OWNED A PLOT FP NO. 418, SP N O. 4, TPS3 - (VARIED), OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER S B UNG ALOW, E LLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD MEASURING 1032.15 SQ. YD. HAVING CONSTRUCTED AREA OF 351 SQ. YD. IT SOLD THE SAME FOR RS. 28,38,000/ - IN RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . ITS REGISTERED VALUER ADOPTED LAND PORTI ON S VALUE @ RS. 800 PER SQ. YD AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FIVE SALE DEEDS IN THE SAME WARD DATED 03 - 01 - 1980, 22 - 01 - 1982, 01 - 02 - 1980, 12 - 09 - 1980 AND 23 - 03 - 1981 @ RS. 519.6 PER SQ. YD, RS. 800.06, RS. 635.39, RS. 1,174.48 AND RS. 600 RESPEC TIVELY . THE VALUE OF THE BUILT UP AREA WAS TAKEN AS RS. 1550/ - SQ. YD COMING TO RS. 5,44,050/ - WITH FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 29,000/ - FOR COMPOUND WALL AND GATE ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAID VALUATI ON. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) S ORDER UND ER CHALLENGE COMPRISES OF ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS AS UNDER: - I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 4 4. THE GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST REWORKING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS 1163 540. 4.1 THE A.O. HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2008 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'MORE OVER HE HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RECEIVED BY SALE OF ANCESTRAL HOUSE PROPERTY JOINTLY HEAD AND INVESTMENTS MADE U/S 54EC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY BASED ON VALUATION REPORT. ON VERIFICATION OF VALUATION REPORT IT IS AS CERTAINED THAT THE VALUE OF LAND IS TAKEN AT RS.800/ - PER SQ. YARD. BUT THE SALE INSTANCES ATTACHED THAT THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE LAND OF NEAREST OPEN LAND OF FP.NO.478/P IS RS.519.66 ONLY AND ANOTHER SALE INSTANCES OF FP NO.495 IS RS.600 DATED 23 - 03 - 81. I N THIS CIRCUMSTANCES THE CORRECT SALE INSTANCES IS ADOPTED AT RS.560/ - ON AVERAGE BASIS AND THE SAME IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER. LAND PRICE RS.560/ - PER YARD X 1032 SQ. YARD =RS.5,77,920/ - THE BUILDING VALUE IS TAKEN AT RS. 1550/ - PER SQ. YARD ON ESTIMATE D BASIS WITHOUT ANY WORKING. THE VALUE OF BUILDING IS TAKEN AT RS.574000/ - ON DATE 01 - 04 - 81AND THE SAME IS INDEXED FOR WORKING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN.' THE STRUCTURE VALUE CANNOT BE ENHANCED BY INDEXATION TOR 35 YEAR OLD CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF ACQUIS ITION IS WORKED OUT FOR CONSTRUCTION IS AS UNDER: COST DECLARED BY THE VALUER RS.574000/ - AS ON 01 - 04 - 81 WITHOUT ANY INDEXATION. INDEXED PRICE FOR COST OF ACQUISITION IS RS. 574000/ - FOR CONSTRUCTION AND RS.577920/ - FOR LAND AND TOTALING RS. 11,51,920/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PROPORTIONATE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE SAME IS RS. 5,75,960/ - . THUS CAPITAL GAIN IS ARRIVED AT RS.28,38,000/ - ( - ) 5,75,960/ - = 22,62,040/ - . THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS DECLARED AT RS. 1098500/ - WHERE IN C ORRECTLY IT IS RS.22,62,040/ - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 11,63,540/ - ADDED TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING RS.11, 63,540/ - .'. 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'TO CALCULATE TAXABLE CAPITA L GAIN, APPELLANT RELIED ON CHARTERED CIVIL ENGINEER REPORT WHO IS ALSO A GOVF. REGISTERED AND APPROVED VALUER, TO GET THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SOLD, AS ON 1/4/1981. (COPY ENCLOSED) I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 5 THE VALUER QUOTED THE DETAILS OF - INSTANCES WHICH HE GATHERED FROM THE GOVER NMENT RECORD WITH FINAL PLOT NUMBER, DATE OF TRANSACTION AND RATE AT WHICH SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE FINALIZED. VALUER HAD GIVEN DETAIL REPORT, WITH REASONING BY UTILIZING HIS EXPERTISE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSIDERING THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN TO BY THIRD PARTIES IN IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND DURING THAT PERIOD. VALUER HAD QUOTED FIVE INSTANCE OF SUCH TRANSACTION WITHIN THE RANGE OF 590 TO 1174. FROM THE NUMBER OF TRANSFER INSTANCES OF SURROUNDING AREA AT THAT TIME THE VALUER CERTIFIED THE COST OF L AND AT 800 PER SQ. YARD AND CONSTRUCTION AT 1550 PER SQ YARD. THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 1/4/81 IS ARRIVED AT BY VALUER AS UNDER (PART II OF REPORT) . LAND : 8,26,000 BUILDING : 5,74,000 TOTOAL 14,00,000 AO CONSIDERED SHARE OF IND EXED COST AT 5,75,960 ON THE BASIS OF SOME IMAGINARY FIGURE WHICH CANNOT BE CALCULATED UNDER ANY FORMULA OF MATHEMATICS. IT IS THE WORKING BEST KNOWN TO HIM ONLY. FROM THE READING OF THE ORDER IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INDEXED VA LUATION OF COST IS NOT APPLICABLE ON 35 YEAR OLD CONSTRUCTION AND FOR VALUING THE LAND HE TOOK ONLY TWO INSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SURROUNDING AREA AND PUT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF BOTH THIS TRANSACTION AT 560 PER SQ. YARD. THIS WORKING IS BASELESS. INVE STMENT IN R.E.C. BOND IS ALSO NOT CONSIDER BY A.O. (COPY ENCLOSED) INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(C) SHOWS THE PREJUDICED APPROACH OF THE A.O. THE WORKING OF A.O. IS PURELY SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. WITH THESE FACTS AND SUBMISSION IT IS PRAYED TO GIVE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON WRONG FOOTING AND TO CONSIDER THE RETUNED INCOME INTACT.' I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 6 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. APPELLANT DISPUTED ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF T AXING LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS - 1 - ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCED THE LAND VALUE AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981 AND IN TURN INCREASED CAPITAL GAIN 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW INDEXATION OF VALUE AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981. 3 - ASSESSIN G OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER INVESTMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 54 EC AND DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME. APPELLANT CONSIDERED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD ON THE BASIS OF VALUER'S REPORT SUBMITTED BY REGISTERED VALUER. THE REGISTERED VALUER VALUED LAND AND BUILDING SEPARATELY. THE LAND WAS VALUED AT THE RATE OF RS 800 PER SQUARE YARD AND BUILDING WAS VALUED AT RS 574000 BY APPLYING THE RATE PER SQUARE YARD AT RS 1550. VALUER CITED FIVE SALE INSTANCES. OUT OF THESE SALE INSTANCES ONE SALE INSTANCES IS IN RESPECT OF VERY LARGE PLOT OF LAND ADMEASURING 10,006 43 YD. 2 THE LOCATION OF THIS PLOT OF LAND WAS ALSO DIFFERENT THEREFORE THE SELLING RATE WAS RS 1174.48. SINCE THIS IS NOT A NORMAL SALE RATE, THIS SALE INSTANCE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. APART FROM THIS OTHER TWO INSTANCES WERE WITH BUILDING HENCE THE SAME ARE ALSO NOT COMPARABLE FOR VALUING LAND. THE REMAINING TWO INSTANCES ARE THE ONE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VALUING LAND AT AVERAGE PRICE OF THESE TWO SALE INSTANCES I.E. RS 560 PER SQUARE YARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN VALUING PLOT OF LAND AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981 AT RS 560 PER SQUARE YARD IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS VALUING BUILDING, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S VALU ATION AT RS 574000. THE APPELLANT VALUED THE BUILDING AT RS 1550 PER SQUARE YARD. AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BE RS 1550 WHICH WAS THERE AROUND 2001. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT THAT POINT OF TIME COULD NOT BE MORE THAN RS 500 PER SQUA RE YARD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO APPLY THE RATE OF RS 500 PER SQUARE YARD FOR 351 SQUARE YARD CONSTRUCTION. THE VALUE OF BUILDING AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981 COMES TO RS 175500. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOP TING THE AFORESAID LAND AND BUILDING VALUE AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981. I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 7 AS REGARDS ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF NOT ALLOWING INDEXATION WHILE COMPUTING LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAIN, I DO NOT FIND THE ACTION OF AO APPROPRIATE. JUST BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS 35 - YEAR - OLD, BENE FIT OF INDEXATION CANNOT BE DENIED WHEN IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE SECTION. ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DETERMINE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981 BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISCRETION IN NOT ALLOWING INDEXATION OF SUCH VALUE. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION ON THE VALUE OF PROPERTY DETERMINED AS ON 1 - 04 - 1981 IN PREVIOUS PARA. AS REGARDS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 EC, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AFTER EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DETAIL S AND CONSIDERING RELEVANT PROVISIONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH TH E PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. RELEVANT FACTS STAND NARRATED HEREINABOVE. THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS ONLY THAT OF VALUATION OF ASS ESSEE PLOT AND CONSTRUCTION RAISED THEREUPON AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. IT DOES NOT NEED MUCH A LENGTHY DISCUSSION TO HOLD THAT THIS IS PURELY A SUBJECTIVE ISSUE WHEREIN ACCURATE COMPUTATION MAY NOT BE ALWAYS POSSIBLE. IT IS EVIDENT TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE S REGI STERED VALUER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT FILE SALE INSTANCES (SUPRA) FOR EVALUATING ITS PLOTS VALUE TO BE RS. 800 PER SQ. YD AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. THE PLOT IN QUESTION MEASURES 1032.15 SQ. YD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED AVERAGE VALUE OF TWO SALE DEEDS HAVING AREA OF 1019 SQ. YD WITH RATE OF RS. 519.66 SQ. YD EXECUTED ON 03 - 01 - 1980 AND THE OTHER ONE DATED 23 - 03 - 1981 INVOLVING AREA OF 1034.18 SQ. YD WITH SALE PRICE OF RS. 600 SQ PER YD; COMING TO RS. 560 PER SQ. YD. THE OTHER THREE SALE INSTANCES FORMING PART OF REC ORD STAND TOTALLY BRUSHED ASIDE WITHOUT ANY FINDING TO THE CONTRARY. WE OBSERVE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN OVERRULING I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 8 ASSESSEE S REGISTERED VALUER S REPORT WITHOUT QUOTING ANY MATERIAL OR MAKING NECESSARY REFERENC E TO THE DVO. WE HOLD IN THESE PECULIAR FACT THAT A REMAND ORDER SIMPLICITOR WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. MORE SO, WHEN THEY IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON BOTH PLOTS SOLD AND CONSTRUCTED PORTION ARE OF RS. 11,63,540/ - ONLY TO BE ASSESSE D @ 20%. WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONCLUDE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REJECTED ASSESSEE S VALUATION OF THE PLOT SOLD BASED ON A REGISTERED VALUER S REPORT. WE ACCEPT ITS ARGUMENTS AND D IRECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ADOPT VALUE OF THE PLOT SOLD AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AS RS. 800/ - PER SQ. YD. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE REMAINING ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA VALUATION. IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE S VALUER HAS ELABORATED HIS FINDINGS AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN DETERMINING VALUATION THEREOF @ RS. 1550/ - PER SQ. YD. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TREAT A SUM OF RS. 500/ - PER SQ. YD ONLY AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 TO BE JUST AND PROPER. WE FIND FROM THE VALUATION REPORT THAT THIS WAS AN OLD CONSTRUCTI ON RAISED IN 1952 AND 1967 HAVING BEEN RENOVATED FROM TIME TO TIME. WE REITERATE THAT ASCERTAINING COST OF CONSTRUCTION; AND THAT TOO FROM BACK DATE MAY NOT BE ALWAYS ACCURATE. AND IT MAY ALSO REQUIRE SOME GUESS WORK. WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE IN LARGER IN TEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THIS COST OF CONSTRUCTION @ RS. 700/ - PER SQ. YD WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLE. ORDER ED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY FRAME THE NECESSARY COMPUTATION. I.T.A NO. 1578 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO PARIKH RAJESH R. (HUF) VS. ITO 9 5 . THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 30 - 0 9 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) ( S. S. GODARA ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 30 /0 9 /2015 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/ , / ,