LMP Motors Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1629/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8531 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1629 & 1630/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD., SURAJ PLAZA, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, BARODA RESP ONDENT & ITA NO. 1761/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BARODA APPELLANT VS. M/S. LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD., SURAJ PLAZA, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA, PIN-390020 RESPONDENT PAN: AAACL3413H / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 02.04.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.04.2018 ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE INSTANT BATCH OF THREE CASES COMPRISES OF TWO Q UANTUM AND ONE PENALTY APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE A ND REVENUE HAVE FILED THEIR QUANTUM CROSS APPEALS ITA NOS. 1629 & 1761/AHD/2015 AGAINST THE CIT(A) - 1, VADODARAS ORDER DATED 25.03.2015, IN CASE NO. CAB- 1/26/2014-15, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION INITIATING THE REOPENIN G IN QUESTION AS WELL AS IN PARTLY UPHOLDING EXPENDITURE OF EMPLOYEES COST DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.87,57,691/- TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30LACS ONLY AND INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/S.36(1)(III) OF RS.45,86,059/- IN TOTO; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 R.W.S. 1 44 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES LATTER APPEAL CHAL LENGES BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY OF RS.48,85 ,000/- QUA THE ABOVE TWO QUANTUM ISSUES HEREINABOVE, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. WE ADVERT TO THE ABOVE TWO QUANTUM CROSS APPEALS FIRST. THE ASSESSEES THREE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL ITA NO. 162 9/AHD/2015 PLEAD THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON F ACTS IN INITIATING THE IMPUGNED REOPENING RESULTING IN THE TWO CONSEQUENTIAL DISALL OWANCES OF EXPENSES AND INTEREST (SUPRA). THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND RAISES ITS SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN APPEAL ITA NO.1761/AHD/2015 SEEKING TO REVIVE THE E NTIRE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.87,57,691/- (SUPRA) AS RESTRICTE D TO RS.30LACS ONLY IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE STATES AT THE OUTSET THAT ITS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF REOPENIN G BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AT THE TAX PAYERS BEHEST. WE THUS REJECT THE INSTANT LEGAL GROUND FOR WANT OF CHALLENGE ON ASSESSEES BEHEST. ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - 4. WE NOW PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE SECOND COMMON IS SUE OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.87,57,691/- AS UPHELD TO THE TUNE OF RS.30LACS ONLY IN CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AS FOLLOWS: 4.6 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND ALSO SUBMISSION DATED 12/02/2014 AND REBUTTAL/REPLY DATE D 23/03/2015 OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 87,57,691/- ON THE GROUND THAT THER E WAS EMPLOYEE COST OF RS. 1,06,75,513/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS A GAINST EMPLOYEE COST OF RS. 19,17,822/- OF LAST YEAR. MOREOVER, VARIOUS OPPORTU NITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH REQUIRED DETAILS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE COS T OF RS. 1,06,75,513/-. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE, OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF LEDGER AC COUNTS AND THE PAYMENT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NO SUCH EVIDENCES AND DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH FIVE OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE APPE LLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INCREASE IN THE COST OF EMPLOYEES. AS PER THE AO FU RTHER NO BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCES AT THE STAGE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE AO THE APPELLANT IS NOW FEN CED WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THAT WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT T HE TIME OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS CLAIMED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE OPERATIO N OF THE APPELLANT WAS CLOSED AND HENCE THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED, THE A R OF THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS ANOTHER SUBMISSION DATED 23/03/2015 AS REPRODUCED I N EARLIER PARAGRAPHS HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCO UNT OF ALL THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD 'EMPLOYEE COST' TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE AR THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD EARNED INCOME FROM SERVICE COUPON, ACCESSORIES ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,18,05,135/-. AS PER THE AR SUCH INCOME WAS EARNED ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT IN EARLIER YEAR WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IT IS PLEADED BY THE AR THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NO T HAVE EARNED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,18,05,135/- WITHOUT HAVING INCURRED ADDITI ONAL COST TOWARDS EMPLOYEES. THE AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE O F RS. 50,57,072/- WERE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARD EMPLOYEE COST BY CHEQUES. THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR IS FOUND TO BE TENABLE TO SOME EXTENT. FIRST OF ALL, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE IT ACT. S ECONDLY, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WAS INITI ALLY PASSED BY THE AO ON 26/12/2007 AND IN SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS AS CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IN SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS FURT HER MENTIONED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT WERE PRODUC ED BEFORE HIM. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REMAN D PROCEEDINGS THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF SALARY, JOB CHARGES, WAGES, PF CONTRIBUTION, ESIC, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, INCENTIVES, HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE AND GRATUITY ETC. WERE FURNISHED TO THE AO. ANOTHER VITAL ASPECT OF THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT HAD EARNED INCOME F ROM SERVICE COUPON, ACCESSORIES ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,18,05,135/-. IN MY OPINION FOR EARNING SUCH ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - HUGE INCOME, EXPENSES ARE BOUND TO BE INCURRED AND WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE NO SUCH INCOME CAN BE EARNED. ANOTHER POINT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT PUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,06,75,513/-, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 50,00,000/- HAS BEEN STATED TO BE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH CHEQUE ONLY. ADMITTEDLY, THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 56,75,513/- (I.E. RS. 1,06,75,513 - RS. 50,00,000) HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH. AS REPORTED BY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO SOME OF THE EXPENDITURES AR E NOT VERIFIABLE FOR WANT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT B ILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE EXPENDITURES COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BY THE AR TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 0,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 87,57,691/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND REMAININ G ADDITION OF RS. 57,57,691/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 OF THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES REITERATE THE A SSESSEES AND REVENUES RESPECTIVE PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE US IS THAT IT HAD FILED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM IN QUESTION. LEARNED COUNSEL SEE KS TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT IN PAGE 28 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM SERVICE COUPON, ACCESSORIES TO THE WORKSHOP ETC. AM OUNTING TO RS.1,18,05,135/- FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ON LY. MR. PATEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY WELL ENTITLED TO CLAIM TH E CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE SAID INCOME EARNED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. WE NOTICE IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FR AMED HIS RE-ASSESSMENT ON 29.12.2010 U/S.144 OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAIL. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED THE SAID DETAILS IN THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ONLY. THIS FOLLOWED CONSEQUENTIAL REMAN D PROCEEDINGS AS THE CIT(A) HAD ADMITTED ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/SUBMISS IONS. IT IS IN COURSE OF THE SAID REMAND PROCEEDINGS ONLY THAT THE INSTANT TAX PAYER COULD PRODUCE ALL OF ITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED CLAIM. LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED THROUGH CHE QUES ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.50LACS. IT IS IN VIEW OF THESE PECULIAR FACTS T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE F ROM RS.87,57,691/- TO RS.30LACS BY EXERCISING HIS LOWER APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GRANT ED SUFFICIENT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT COULD PROVE C HEQUE PAYMENTS OF RS.50LACS ONLY. ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 5 - WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO PROVE ANY MIS-APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OR NON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ALL THIS MAKES US TO CONCLUDE THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.30LACS ONLY SO FAR AS ASSESSEES SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS CONCERNED. IT IS SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROU ND CHALLENGING THIS REMAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30LACS IS THEREFORE REJECTED. 6. WE NOW COME TO REVENUES CORRESPONDING GRIEVANCE SEEKING TO REVIVE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN REMAND AS WELL AS LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION OF RS.50LACS AT LEAST BY BANKING MODE. THERE IS FURTHER NO QUARREL THAT IT HAS DERIVED THE CORRESPONDING INCOME OF RS.1.18CRORE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO TAKE U S ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD PINPOINT ANY EXCESSIVE CORRESPONDING EXPENDIT URE CLAIM AGAINST THE ABOVESTATED INCOME. WE THUS FIND NO MERIT IN REVEN UES INSTANT GROUND SEEKING TO REVIVE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.87.57LA CS AS WELL. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.1761/AHD/2015 RAISING THIS SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE THEREFORE FAILS. 7. WE STAY BACK IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE NOW LEFT WITH ITS THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO DELETE SECTION 36(1)(III) INTERES T DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,86,059/-. CASE RECORDS SUGGEST THAT A COORDINATE BENCH IN ASS ESSEES APPEAL ITSELF ITA NOS. 1101, 1102 & 1354/AHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 4-05 TO 2006-07 (INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR) DATED 31.08.2015 HAS RESTORED THE VERY ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FACTUAL VERIFICATION. TH E SAID REMAND DIRECTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN SECTION 143(3) PROCEEDINGS IN T HE REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION FRAMED ON 26.12.2007. WE THEREFORE ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAK E OF UNIFORMITY TO BE DECIDED AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING. THIS THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS THUS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 1629/AHD/2015 IS PARTLY ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 6 - 8. WE NOW LEFT WITH ASSESSEES PENALTY APPEAL ITA N O. 1630/AHD/2015. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IMPOSED THE PENALTY IN QUESTI ON QUA THE ABOVE TWO QUANTUM DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST (SUPRA). THEY ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BOTH FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALED ITS TAXABLE INCOME FROM BEING TAXED SO FAR AS THE SAID TWO QUANTUM DISALLOWANCES ARE CONCERNED. WE NOTICE IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THA T THE IMPUGNED PENALTY QUA THE FIRST ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30LAC S IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CONCURRED WITH. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED THE CORRESPONDING INCOME FROM SERVICE COUPON AND ACCESSORIES ETC.(SUPRA) AMO UNTING TO RS.1.18 CRORE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE HAV E ALREADY CONCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS QUANTUM APPEAL THAT THERE IS NO EXCESSIVEN ESS ELEMENT PINPOINTED AT REVENUES BEHEST SO FAR AS THE CORRESPONDING EXPEND ITURE CLAIM QUA THE SAID INCOME IS CONCERNED. COUPLED WITH THIS, THE FACT ALSO REM AINS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREAS THE RE-ASSESSMENT I N QUESTION WAS FRAMED IN THE YEAR 2010. ALL THIS MAKES US TO OBSERVE THAT THE A SSESSEES EXPENDITURE CLAIM WAS VERY MUCH A BONAFIDE ONE WHICH COULD NOT BE ULTIMAT ELY PROVED TO THE HILT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. HONBLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158(SC) HAS ALREADY SETTLED T HE LAW THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE WHEREIN EACH AND E VERY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE IN THE COURSE OF FORMER DOES NOT IPSO FACTO AT TRACT LATTER PENALTY PROVISION. WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IMP UGNED ACTION LEVYING PENALTY IN QUESTION QUA THIS FORMER ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE DISAL LOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAME. 9. COMING TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED PENALT Y REGARDING LATTER ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE QUANTUM ISSUE ITSELF BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE ADOPT THE VERY COURSE OF ACTION IN THE INSTANT CORRESPONDING PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE A FINAL CALL WHETHER OR NOT TO CONTINUE WITH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW AFTER FINAL IZING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO CORRECTNESS OF THE ITA NOS. 1629, 1630 & 1761/AHD/15 [LMP MOTORS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 7 - IMPUGNED PENALTY QUA THIS LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITS PENALTY APPEAL ITA NO.1630/AHD/2015 IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. 10. WE QUOTE OUR DETAILED DISCUSSION HEREINABOVE TO PARTLY ALLOW ASSESSEES QUANTUM APPEAL ITA NO.1629/AHD/2015 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, PARTLY ALLOW ITS PENALTY APPEAL ITA NO.1630/AHD/2015 AND DISMISS REV ENUES QUANTUM CROSS APPEAL ITA NO.1761/AHD/2015. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/04/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )* + ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 + 23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0