The ITO, Ward-7(2), Surat V. Shri Jitendra N. Maradia, Surat

ITA 1606/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6643 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:6.4.10 DRAFTED:8.4.10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), SURAT V/S . SHRI JITENDRA N MARADIA, PROP. OF NOBLE ENTERPRISE, 6 TH FLOOR, BELGIUM TOWER, OPP. UNEAR BUS STAND, RING ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.ACHPM0894P (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.230/AHD/2006 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI JITENDRA N MARADIA, PROP. OF NOBLE ENTERPRISE, 6 TH FLOOR, BELGIUM TOWER, OPP. UNEAR BUS STAND, RING ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.ACHPM0894P V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR REVENUE BY:- SMT. NEETA SHAH, SR-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO) BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-V, SURAT IN APPEAL ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 2 NO.CAS-V/80/05-06 DATED 02-02-2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD-7(2), SURAT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-12-2005 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2003-04. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL NO.ITA NO.16 06/AHD/2006. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.50 LAKH MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PACKING EXPENSES. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE PACKING EXPENSES AT RS.1.50 LAKH BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES UNDE R THE HEAD PACKING MATERIAL AT RS.5,47,638/- WHICH IS 0.89% OF THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDI NG ASSESSMENT YEAR IT WAS 0.68% OF THE RECEIPTS AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXPENSES HAD ON E UP BY 0.21% IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED AT RS.1.50 LAKH ON ESTIM ATE BASIS. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS JUST DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY GIVING THE REASO NING THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES WAS 0.89% COMPARING TO THIS YEAR AT 0.68%. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT EVEN RECEIPTS HAD INCREASED BY MORE THAN 20% AND IN THIS YEAR THE TOTAL RECEIPTS A RE AT RS.6,10,07,249/- AS AGAINST THE RECEIPTS IN EARLIER YEAR AT RS.4,73,32,416/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN RECEIPTS AND THE EXPENSES I S BOUND TO INCREASE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THIS EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONF IRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT TWO ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF LEAVE TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.10,81,750/- AND MEDICAL RE IMBURSEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.13,015/-. ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 3 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE CASE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED LEAV E TRAVEL EXPENSES AND MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT ONLY BY COMPARING THE EXPENDITURES FO R THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. IT IS A FACT THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO INCREASED AS NOTED IN EARLIER GROUND, EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE WAS PAY ING LEAVE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO HIS EMPLOYEES IN THE FORM OF ALLOWANCE IN EACH AND EVER Y MONTH IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE LTE ON SALARY PACKAGES AND TDS DUE ON THIS EXPENSE IS ALSO DEDUCTED ALONG WITH PF & ESI AND THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN NEGATED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING NOW. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF SALARY/TDS DEDUCTED THEREON, PF & ESI AL SO PAID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THESE FACTS. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF CIT(A) NEED NO INFERENCE AND B OTH ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FOOD EXP ENSES AND TEA COFFEE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.21,83,609/- AND RS.10,17,100/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,09,921/- UNDER THE HEAD REFRESHMENT EXPENSES (BIFURCATED THIS UNDER TWO HEADS I.E. RS.21,83,609/- FOR FOOD EXPENSES PAID TO M/S.AMIBA VIJAY HOTEL AND RS.10,71,100/- FOR TEA COFFEE AND MILK EXPENSES PAI D TO M/S SHREE KRISHNA ENTERRPRISE). THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE AS SESSEE TO EXPLAIN THESE EXPENSES AND ALSO EXAMINED SHRI AMRATLAL M CHAHWALA, PROPRIE TOR OF M/S. AMIBA VIJAY HOTEL AND HIS THREE EMPLOYEES, SHRI VENUS DHIRUBHAI GAMTI (MAIN COOK); PRAMODBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL (ACCOUNTANT) AND SHRI AMARBHAI PANK AJBHAI SHAH (SUPERVISOR) BY RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS. THE AO NOTED THAT M/S. AMIBA VIJAY HOTEL WAS NOT ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 4 HAVING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE, EQUIPMENT, MANPOWER AND UTENSILS ETC. THE AO BASED ON RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENTS OF SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES OF M/S.AMIBA VIJAY HOTEL, ADMITTING IN THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THE HOTEL WAS NO T HAVING ANY CAPACITY TO SUPPLY FOOD IN SUCH LARGE QUANTITY, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXPENSES. BUT WHEN THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AMIBA VIJAY HOTEL, SHRI AMRA TLAL M CHAHWALA WAS EXAMINED, HE CLEARLY ADMITTED TO HAVE SUPPLY FOOD TO THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT HOTEL HAVING A M ARUTI VAN BEARING REGISTRATION NO. IS GCH 9860, WHICH WAS USED IN HOTEL BUSINESS, TRANSPO RTATION AND SUPPLY OF FOOD AND ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE HOTEL WAS THROUGH ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUES DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE HOTEL AND ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AMBICA VIJAY HOTEL THE SUPPLIER OF FOOD/DISHES TO THE ASSE SSEE ADMITTED TO HAVE SUPPLIED THE SAME REGULARLY DURING THE YEAR AND REFLECTED THE EN TIRE DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIALS AND THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST THE SUP PLY OF FOOD ITEMS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME REGULAR LY DISCLOSING THE TURNOVER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE STATE MENTS AS MADE BY THE EMPLOYEES CAN ALSO BE NOT TAKEN AS RELIABLE EVIDENC E BECAUSE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THESE WERE NOT ON THE PAY ROLL OF TH E ASSESSEE AS THEY JOINED THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, WHATEVER STATEMENTS THEY HAD MADE, CANNOT BE RELIED UPON COMPLETELY. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS TO PROPRIETOR OF M/S AM BICA VIJAY HOTEL WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. COMPLETE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS AND ALSO THE COPIES OF BILLS AS FOUND REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VE RIFICATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THESE ARE FOUND IN ORDER. FURTHER R EGARDING THE INADEQUACY IN THE CAPACITY OF THE HOTEL TO SUPPLY FOOD ITEMS/DISHES A S DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE HE FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE AND ON THE CONTRARY, THE PROPRIET OR OF M/S. AMBICA VIJAY HOTEL HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE SUPPLIED THE FOOD ITEMS/DISHES TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT WHIL E DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD FOOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.21,83, 609/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BRING CONCRETE AND CLINCHING EVIDENCES/MA TERIALS ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS DIFFICU LT TO BELIEVE THAT WHILE RUNNING A FACTORY AND EMPLOYING ABOUT 200-250 PERSONS ON REGU LAR BASIS, THERE COULD HAVE ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 5 BEEN NO EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD FOOD EXPENSES. IT IS SEEN THAT IN DIAMOND INDUSTRY, AS THE EMPLOYEES WERE WORKING UNDER CLOSE SUPERVISION RATHER IN A COMPLETELY WATCHFUL SITUATION, LUNCH AND TEA/COFFEE ETC. ARE PROVIDED IN THE FACTORY PREMISES BY THE EMPLOYER AND THUS, SUPPLY OF FOOD/D ISHES CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNWANTED AND NON-TRADE PRACTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE FAILED TO BRING ANY CON VINCING EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IT IS SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT RECORD THE STATEMENT OF SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES TO VERIFY THE FACTS WHETHER THEY W ERE SUPPLIED FOOD ITEMS/DISHES DURING THE LUNCH HOURS IN THE FACTORY PREMISES OR N OT. ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BOTHER TO INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE WORKING IN M/S. AMBICA VIJA Y HOTEL AT THE TIME WHEN FOOD ITEMS/DISHES WERE SUPPLIED BY IT TO THE EMPLOYEES O F THE ASSESSEE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT TWO OUT OF THREE EMPLOYEES W ERE QUITE NEW AND NOT FOUND WORKING DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN TH E PREMISES OF M/S. AMBICA VIJAY HOTEL. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE THIRD EMPLOYEE, SHRI VENUS DHIRUBHAI GAMIT JOINED THE HOTEL TOWARDS THE FAG END OF THE ACCOUNTING PER IOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WAS EMPLOYED TO MANUFACTURE ONLY FARSAN ITEMS AND THERE FORE, HE WAS NO AWARE OF THE OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE HOTEL I.E. SUPPLYING OF FOO D ITEMS/DISHES TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS REGARDS TO TEA, COFFEE EXPENSES THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- 11.6 I HAVE PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAREFULLY AND ALSO PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. AFTER THE PERUSA L OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE ALL THE PAYMENTS BY CHE QUES TO M/S. SHREE KRISHNA ENTERPRISES AGAINST PURCHASES OF READY MIX TEA AND COFFEE POWDER AND THE SAME WERE FOUND DULY REFLECTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER (M/S. SHREE KR ISHAN ENTERPRISE). AGAIN, THE PROPRIETOR SHRI SUDHARSHAN NAIR OF M/S. SHREE K RISHNA ENTERPRISES HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE S UPPLY OF READY MIX POWER TO THE APPELLANT AND REFLECTED THE SALE TRANSACTIONS I N HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, REGARDING THIS SUPPLY OF NESTLE MACHINE FO R THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING COFFEE AND TEA, IT IS SEEN THAT M/S. K.P. SANGHVI & SONS HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN ITS LETTER ABOUT THE SAME AND IT IS ALS O SEEN THAT THE SAID MACHINE WAS PURCHASED FROM M/S. SHREE KRISHAN ENTERPRISES O NLY AND THEREFORE, THE SUSPICION AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARD ING NON-AVAILABILITY OF MACHINE FOR PREPARATION OF COFFEE/TEA ETC. FOR SUPP LYING THE SAME TO THE EMPLOYEES, APPEARS TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. REGARDING AVA ILABILITY OF CUPS AND ROCKERY ITEMS, THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE A.R TH AT UNBREAKABLE STAINLESS STEEL GLASSES WERE USED TO SERVE TEA AND COFFEE APP EARS TO BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE EVERY DAY LARGE NUMBER OF CUPS AND SAUCERS WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AND IN SUCH A SITUATION USING CUPS AND GLA SSES WOULD HAVE PROVED A ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 6 VERY COSTLY AFFAIR, I, THERE, IN THIS REGARD AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A.R. 9. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE ON BOTH ISS UES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE CONF IRM THE SAME. BOTH THE ISSUES OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.230/AHD/2006. 10. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CO OF ASSESSEE IS AS REG ARDS TO DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.52,118/-. 11. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING THROU GH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS OFFICE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO CAREFULLY WENT THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY TH E A.R. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, IT IS FOUND THAT AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL M RANA, THE APPELLANT WAS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNI TY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM TO UNEARTH THE CORRECT FACT BUT THE APPELLANT REFUS ED TO AVAIL THAT. FURTHER, LATER ON, WHEN ON THE BASIS OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE AP PELLANT, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM TO CROSS-EXAM INE, SHRI ANIL M RANA BUT THE SAME WAS AGAIN NOT UTILIZED AND IN THIS WAY , IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD KNOWINGLY DID NOT COME FORWARD TO CLA RIFY THE FACTUAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO SHRI ANIL M RANA AS TO WHETHER HE WA S HIS EMPLOYEE OR NOT. THE PLEA AS TAKEN BY THE APPELLATE THAT THE STATEME NT OF SHRI ANIL RANA WAS PREFABRICATED AND OBTAINED FORCEFULLY WITH MALA FID E INTENTION HAS NO MERIT IN IT BECAUSE THE A.R HAS OUT RIGHTLY FAILED TO PRODUCE A NY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUN TING TO RS.52,118/- IS JUSTIFIED IN EYES OF LAW AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 12. WE FIND FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING THE EMPLOYEE, SHRI ANIL M RANA W AS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT SHRI ANIL M RANA HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED BEING ON THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AFTER THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL M RANA, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM TWICE BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT AVAIL THE ITA NO.1606/AHD/2006 & CO 230/AHD/2006 A.Y. 03-04 ITO WD-7(2) SURAT V. SH. JITENDRA N MARADIA PAGE 7 OPPORTUNITY REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES DOES NOT CALL FOR INTER FERENCE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CO IS DISM ISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND TH AT OF ASSESSEES CO IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/04/2010 SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 06/04/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- V. SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD