Vallabhbhai Hiralal Kothari, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1591/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2058 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NK GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 201

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ITA NO.2598/AHD/2017 2. ./ITA NO.1591/AHD/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2012-13) 1-2. VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI B-11,JAYNAGAR CO-OP.SOC NR. RAMBAG, MANINAGAR AHMEDABAD / VS. 1-2. THE ITO WARD-6(1)(3) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACVPK 0399 M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. GOEL, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 23/09/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06 /12/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)6, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE A PPEAL NOS.CIT(A)- 6/11/16-17 & CIT(A)-6/133/17-18 DATED 14/08/2017 AND 27/04/2018 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER(S) PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) AND 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 10/03/2016 AND 14/11/2017 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2013-14 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 2 - SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS BELONG TO SAME ASSESSEE, THE SE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1591/AHD/2018 FO R THE AY 2012-13, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 27.08.2018 FOR A.Y. 201 2-13 BY CIT(A)-6, ABAD UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,07,303/- U/ S.14A MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGN ED DISALLOWANCE. 1.3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WERE APPLICABLE AND THEREBY DISALLOWING RS.3,07,303/-. 1.4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A WERE APPLICABLE AND THEREBY DISALLOWING RS.3,07,303/-. 2.1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,07,303/- U/S.14A MADE BY AO IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND CALLS FOR REDUC TION. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.3,07,303/- U/S.14A MADE BY AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 3,07,303.00 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD H OUSE PROPERTY, SHARE ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 3 - OF PROFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SH OWN EXEMPTED INCOME OF 3,32,287.00 ONLY BUT HE HAS NOT MADE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF ANY EXPENDITURE AGAINST SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME. 4.1. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUND WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTMENTS WHICH A RE GENERATING THE EXEMPTED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 10 ,89,270/- INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME NEEDS TO BE DISALL OWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WORKED OUT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES C ORRESPONDING TO SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME IN THE MANNER AS GIVEN BELOW: A. AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED RS. 1089270/- B. EXEMPT INCOME RS. 332287/- C. TOTAL INCOME RS.1177830/- A+B+C = RS.1089270/- X RS.332287/- = RS,.307303/- 1177830/- THEREFORE, RS.3,07,303/- (BEING PROPORTIONATE EXPEN SES) IS ADDED IN HIS RETURN INCOME. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARN ED CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 4 - 5. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 15 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE OWN FUND OF THE ASSESS EE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED AR CLAIMED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUND OF 1,46,21,584/- WHEREAS THE TOTAL INVESTMENT STANDS A T 87,43,615.00 ONLY. THE LEARNED AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION DREW ATTENTION ON PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE BA LANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PLACED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, W E NOTE THAT OWNED FUND OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2012 STANDS AT 1,46,21,584.00 WHICH IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AT 87,43,615.00 AS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET. THE DETAILS OF THE OWN FUND AND THE AMOUNT OF IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE A PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE MONEY OUT OF ITS FUND. IN HOLDING SO, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 313 ITR 340 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R:- THE PRINCIPLE THEREFORE WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THE N A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST -FREE FUND GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST-FREE FU NDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 5 - THE INVESTMENTS. IN THIS CASE THIS PRESUMPTION IS E STABLISHED CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF FACT BOTH BY THE CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL. 7.1. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD REPORTED IN 366 ITR 505 (BOM). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REP RODUCED BELOW:- WHERE ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL, PROFIT RESERVES, SURPLUS AND CURRENT ACCOUNT DEPOSITS WERE HIGHER THAN THE INVESTMENT IN TAX-FRE E SECURITIES, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESUMED THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED U/S 14A. 7.2. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE JUD GMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UTI BANK LTD. REP ORTED IN 32 TAXMANN.COM 370 WHERE THE HEADNOTE READS AS UNDER : IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO MEE T TAX FREE INVESTMENTS, THEY ARE PRESUMED TO BE MADE FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AN D NOT LOANED FUNDS AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. 7.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, WE HOLD T HAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE, WE REVERSE T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1591/AHD/2018 FOR AY 2-012-13 IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 6 - COMING TO THE ITA NO. 2598/AHD/2017 FOR THE AY 2013 -14 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 14.08.2017 FOR A.Y. 201 3-14 BY CIT(A)-6, ABAD UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84,499/- U/S. 14A MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGN ED DISALLOWANCE. 2.1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE LOAN TAKEN FROM LIC WAS UTILIZED FOR INVES TMENT IN FIRM WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT SHARE OF PROFIT SO THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S.14A WAS JUSTIFIED. 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 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84,499/- U/S.14A MADE BY AO. 3.1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84,499/- U/S.14A MADE BY AO IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND CALLS FOR REDUC TION. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.84,499/- U/S.14A MADE BY AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 10. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 84,499.00 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D OF INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962. 11. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N HAS SHOWN EXEMPTED INCOME OF RS.2,59,300/- AND RS.10,874/- BY WAY OF SHARE IN PROFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DIVIDEND. BUT THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH INCOME HAS NOT SHOWN ANY EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE AO INVO KED THE PROVISIONS ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 7 - OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE S AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS UNDER: I. DIRECT EXPENSES NIL II. INTEREST EXPENSES 44445 III. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 40054 TOTAL RS.84499.00 11.1. THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARN ED CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US CLAIMED THAT THE OW N FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE THER E CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 12.1. THE LEARNED AR SIMILARLY CLAIMED THAT HE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES QUA THE EXEMPTED INCOME, THEREFORE THERE C ANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AGAINST SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME. ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 8 - 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 14.1. REGARDING THE INTEREST EXPENSES, WE NOTE T HAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS BEEN DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN CASE VIDE PARAGRAPH NUMBER 7 TO 7.3 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION PLEASE REFER TO THE REL EVANT PARAGRAPH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE HOLD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 14.2. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENSES, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 4A READ WITH RULE 8D MECHANICALLY WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITUR E AGAINST SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPTED INCOME. IN HOLDING SO WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAKESH K. PATEL (HUF) VS DCIT IN ITA NO . 246/AHD/2018 ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 9 - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED 23 RD JULY 2019. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME O F RS. 32,155/- ON INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 38,66,171/- FROM THE P ARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. THE INVES TMENT IN MUTUAL FUND DOES NOT PER SE CALL FOR ANY SEPARATE A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE MUTU AL FUNDS ARE RUN BY PROFESSIONAL WHO SEPARATELY CHARGES ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE FU NDS. LIKEWISE, INVESTMENTS IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM WOULD NOT ATTRACT DISALLOWANCE UNDER S. 14A UNLESS IT IS SHOWN BY THE AO THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES HOWSOEVER SMALL HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND CLAIMED IN THE ASS ESSEES ACCOUNTS. NO SUCH OBSERVATION IS FOUND IN THE ORDE R OF THE AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY APPLICATION OF SEC. 14A IS NOT AUTO MATIC AND IT INHERES IN IT THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLENESS. THE A O IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT INCURRING OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE PART NERSHIP FIRM IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY AND REQUIRES TO RUN ITS AF FAIRS SEPARATELY. THE PARTNERS ARE HOLDING THE MUTUAL AG ENCY IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND UNLESS THE PARTNERS ARE SHOWN TO BE DRAWING REMUNERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE CONCERN AND AT THE SAME TIME INVESTING ITS ATTENTION IN THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE ASSESSEE FO R NOT INCURRING IN EXPENDITURE. WE, THUS, FIND NO REASON TO THRUST MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE AC T IN THE GIVEN FACTS. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REVERSE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RULE 8D(2)(III) R.W.S 14A OF THE ACT. 14.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THERE C ANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND ADMINISTRAT IVE EXPENSES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING ITA NOS.2598/AHD/2017 & 1591/AHD/2018 VALLABHBHAI HIRALAL KOTHARI VS.ITO ASST.YEARS 2013-14 & 2012-13 - 10 - OF THE LEARNED CIT-A AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE TH E ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2598/AHD/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/12/2019 SD/- SD/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) (W ASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 6/12/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD