Shri Dayaram Printing & Dyeing Mills Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1682/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 274; 143(2); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 22/07/09 DRAFTED ON: 28/07/ 09 1. ITA NO.1682/AHD/2009 - A.Y. 2005-06 2. ITA NO.1683/AHD/2009 - A.Y. 2005-06 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS PVT.LTD. NR.RANG PARABDI, ASTODIA RANGATI KAPAD BAZAR, ASTODIA AHMEDABAD VS. THE ITO WARD-1(4) AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAACD 5357 Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL, SR.DR O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 24/02/2009 & 27/02/2009 IN ITA NOS.1682/AHD/2009 & 1683/AHD/2009 RESPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. 2. IN ITA NO.1682/AHD/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPE AL:- ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.30,000/- U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN A MECHANICAL MANNER IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION AND APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION FILED, SINCE THE ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE, IF ANY, BEING ON ACCOUNT OF REASONABLE CAUSE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.30,000/- U/S.271(1)(B) OF TH E ACT REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS WELL A S TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ON 17/10/2006 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19/10/2006 AND NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 29/10/2007, 22/11/2007 AND 10/12/2007. THE SAME WERE ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE AFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH WAS SERVED ON 01/01/2008 ON THE AS SESSEE. THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSES SEE. AGAIN, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) R.W.SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13/05/2008 AND SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED POST-AD. THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO REMAINED NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE A SSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER NO TICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) R.W.SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 03/06/2008, WHICH WAS SERVED BY THE WARD INSPECT OR ON 05/06/2008. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE ASSESS EE FILED HIS REPLY WIDE ITS LETTER DATED 04/06/2008, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE COMPLIAN CE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED AS THE COMPANY WAS HAVING DIFFIC ULTY IN COMPILATION AND COLLECTION OF DETAILS REQUIRED IN V IEW OF ACCOUNTANTS PROLONGED ABSENCE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT FIND THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS A PLAUSIBLE ONE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PE NALTY UNDER ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - SECTION 271(1)(B) R.W.SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE RATE RS.10,000/- FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING D EFAULT:- SR.NO. NOTICE ISSUED U/S DATED OF NOTICE DATE OF SERVICE DATE OF HEARING REMARKS 1. 142(1) 29/01/2007 05/11/2007 16/11/2007 -DO- 2. 142(1) 22/11/2007 24/11/2007 27/11/2007 -DO- 3. 142(1)ALONGWITH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE 10/12/2007 14/12/2007 21/12/2007 -DO- 4. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.30,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) R.W.SECTION 274 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED T HE LEVY OF PENALTY. 6. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTORY PREMISES IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE- COMPANY WAS CARRYING HIS BUSINESS WAS OWNED BY A GR OUP CONCERN M/S.UMA TEXTILES AND THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIB UNAL ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - ATTACHED WITH THE SAID PROPERTY RESULTING IN CLOSUR E OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THIS RESULTED I N HEAVY FINANCIAL CRISIS TO THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO THIS RE ASON THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WERE BUSY IN SORTING OUT T HE SAME AND COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL OR MALA FIDE AND PLEADED TH AT A LENIENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER AND IF T HE PENALTY IS NOT DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY THE SAME MAY BE ATL EAST BE REDUCED. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING DIFFICULTIES, THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD HAVE ATLEAST INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY LEVIED SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LE VIED PENALTY OF RS.30,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMP LY WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING FIXING THE HEARING ON 16/11/2 007, 27/11/2007 AND 21/12/2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLA INED THAT THE PREMISES FROM WHERE IT WAS CARRYING ON ITS BUSI NESS WAS IN THE NAME OF ONE OF ITS GROUP CONCERN; NAMELY, M/S.U MA TEXTILES AND DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AS ATTACHED TH E SAID PROPERTY RESULTING IN CLOSURE OF BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE- COMPANY. THIS RESULTED IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WERE ENGAGED IN SORTING OUT THE ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, CO ULD NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR TA KING A ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - LENIENT VIEW AND DELETING THE PENALTY AND IN THE AL TERNATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE REDUCED. THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY OR REDUCTION IN THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEGLECTED TO MAKE COMPLIAN CE TO THE NOTICES OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EXPLAINED ITS DIFFICULTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FILING A N ADJOURNMENT PETITION AND REQUESTING TIME FOR COMPLIANCE THEREWI TH. THIS WAS NOT DONE AND, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE S AME TIME, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE EFFORT TO INFORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT ITS DIFFICULTY AND SEEKING TIME FOR MAKING COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING WHICH CO ULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF THE PENALTY IS S USTAINED FOR ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - RS.10,000/-. WE, THEREFORE, MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REDUCE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO RS.10,000/ -. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. 9. IN ITA NO.1683/AHD/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WERE NOT GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES REQUESTED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN PASSING TH E ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF TH E FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION, AND MORE PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED/SET-ASIDE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,059/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF FIXED ASSETS ADDED DURING THE YEAR WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLAN T ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - COMPANY BEING DULY AUDITED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION MADE ON ADHOC BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.30,059/- REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,60,796 /- MADE BY A.O. BEING 10% OF TOTAL MANUFACTURING EXPENSES MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEING DULY AUDITED AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST RECORDS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,60,796/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATED BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.52,60,769/ - REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,13,316/ - MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEING DULY AUDITED AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST RECORDS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF THE ENTIRE INTERES T EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.4,13,316/- REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,804/ - MADE BE A.O. BEING 20% OF TOTAL SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,804 /- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ESTIMATION BASIS. ACCORDINGLY , THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.1,02,804/- REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS WELL A S TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 10. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY WAS IN DIFFICULTY DUE TO CLOSURE OF ITS BUSINESS, IT CO ULD NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE M ADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. A PERUSAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26/12/2007 WILL SHO W THAT IN ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED EVIDENCES AND DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF DEPRECI ATION OF RS.1,50,299/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDI TION OF RS.30,059/-. HE ALSO MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF RS.5,26,07,967/- AND HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.52,60,796/- TO THE INCOME OF TH E ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 11 - ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO D ISALLOWED THE ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.4,13,316/-. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DISALLOWED 20% OUT OF KASAR AND VATAV EXPENSES OF RS.5,14,023/- AND ADDED RS.1,02,804/- T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.67,56,180 /- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.9,49,200/-. TH EREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING OF DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE A LSO GAVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD RENDER ALL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FILING THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 12 - 12. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NARRATED AB OVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD JUST AND FAIR TO S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ASSESS MENT AFRESH. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT AFRESH, AFTER ALLOWIN G PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUO MOTO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS O RDER FOR FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING AND SHALL RENDER FULL CO -OPERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT BY F ILING THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EXPEDITIOUSLY. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.1682 AND 1683/AHD/2009 DAYARAM PRINTING & DYEING MILLS P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 13 - 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1682/AHD/2009 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1683/AHD/2009 IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31/07/2009. SD/- SD/- ( R.V. EASWAR ) ( N.S. SAINI ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/07/2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RES PONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT( APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH.6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD