Shri Samir Kishor Parikh, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,(OSD)Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 1697/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KULSHRESTHA
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, , , , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 ' (' ' (' ' (' ' (' / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH PROP. OF M/S. SHREE KRISHNA INDUSTRIES 46, MITHILA SOCIETY, NR. SHREYAS CROSSING, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD- 380015. PAN: AFVPP7637L VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD. )*/ (APPELLANT) +, )*/ (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B. KULSHRESTHA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR !- . #// // / DATE OF HEARING : 19/08/2014 01( . #/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/08/2014 2 2 2 2/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVI DAT ED 22.06.2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ERRONEOUS AND ILLEGAL ADDITION MADE BY WAY OF FIRST LY ESTIMATING THE ALLEGED UNDERVALUATION OF SALES AT ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 - RS.4,95,30,000/- AND SECONDLY BY ESTIMATING G.P. THEREON AT 14.13% AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.69,98,589/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE C .I.T. (APPEALS) IS PURELY BASED ON INQUIRIES CARRIED OUT BY CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICERS AND WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS OR EVIDENCES AGAINST THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT ESTIMATION OF UNDERVALUATION OF SALES OF RS.4,95,30,000/- AS WELL AS CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT THEREON OF RS.69,98,589/- IS MADE WITH OUT APPLYING MIND, WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERI AL OR EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,51,889/- BY FIRSTLY ESTIMATING AL LEGED SUPPRESSED MANUFACTURED QUANTITY OF FRIT PURELY AND SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF CONSUMPTION OF GAS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY C.I.T. (APPEALS) AT RS.3,00,91,218/- AND ESTIMATING G.P. THEREON AT 14.13% AND CONSEQUENTLY MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,51,889/- IS TOTALLY BASELESS, ILL EGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING AND CONFIRMING, WITHOU T ANY BASIS, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ISSUED PARALLEL VOICE S OF RS.1,00,000/- WHICH IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE G.P. ADDITION OF RS.14,1307- AT THE RATE OF 14.13% ON THIS ALLEGED PARALLEL SALES O F RS. 1,00,0007-. BOTH THESE ESTIMATIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IN ANY CASE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF SHORTAGE @ 15% WHICH HAS RESULTED IN TO UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS. 10,40,8757- AND FURTHER ERRED IN MAKIN G G.P. ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,0757- AT THE RATE OF 14.1 3% ON THIS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS. 10,40,8757 -. BOTH THESE ESTIMATIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IN ANY CASE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 5. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING AND CONSIDERING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCES AND SUPPORTING AND DECISIONS PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING AND NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING VARIOUS FACTS AND LAW IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 - 6. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FA CTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) READS AS UNDER: 1. THE APPELLANT, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 08/05/2009 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.12,90,840/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O F THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS IS SUED ON 27/08/2010. NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 22/09/2010 ALONGWITH ANNEXURE CALLING FOR VARIOUS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN PU RSUANT TO SUCH NOTICES, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ALL THE DE TAILS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FAC TS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT; MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS OF RS 1, 14,11,683/- AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY DETERMINI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,27,02,520/-. HENCE, THIS APPEAL. 2. INVESTIGATION TEAM OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT REVE ALED THAT THE TILE MANUFACTURERS WERE DECLARING ONLY 50% OF THE ACTUAL EX-FACTORY PRICES AND MRPS FOR THE PURPOSE O F PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DGCEI CA RRIED OUT SEARCH AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 21/08/2008. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE SEARCH TEA M THAT THE APPELLANT HAS REMOVED CERAMIC FRIT CLANDESTINELY AN D HAS UNDERVALUED THE FINISHED GOODS BY ADOPTING VARIOUS MEANS SUCH AS ISSUING PARALLEL INVOICES / COMMERCIAL INVO ICES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SEARCH TEAM HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUS E NOTICE UPON THE APPELLANT TO SHOW AS TO WHY RECOVERY OF EX CISE DUTY SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON SUCH UNDERVALUED FINISHED GOO DS. IN THAT RESPECT, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER UNDERVALUED THE FINISHED GOODS NOT CLANDESTINELY REMOVED THE GO ODS. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES FOR WARDED SEIZED DOCUMENTS TO THE OFFICE OF ID. ASSESSING OFF ICER. ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRY CARRIED OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICERS AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICER, TH E LD. AO PROCEEDED WITH TO CARRY OUT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO THAT AS PER THE INVEST IGATION MADE BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES BASED ON VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS RECORDED, THE A PPELLANT HAS UNDERVALUED THE SALE PRICE OF FRIT BY SHOWING T HE AVERAGE ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 - SALE PRICE AT RS.10/- INSTEAD OF RS.25/-. ACCORDING LY, THE LD. AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 21/12/2010 ASKING THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY RS.4,95,30,000/- SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS UNDERVALUATION OF SALES PRICE (I.E 33,02,000 KGS. X RS.15) AND G.P. ON THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS.69,98,589/- @ 14.1 3% SHOULD NOT] BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 24 /12/2010 SUBMITTED DETAILED REPLY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A ND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDE D OF 26 BUYERS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE SALES AT UNDER I NVOICED AND DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK TO T HE APPELLANT IN CASH IS PATENTLY INCORRECT AS NONE OUT OF 26 BUYERS HAS STATED THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN RE TURNED BACK TO THE APPELLANT AND MORE SO OVER, NO DOCUMENTARY P ROOF HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS RECEIVED BACK DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IN CASH. IN RESP ECT OF THE ALLEGATION THAT POST-SURVEY THE FINISHED PRODUCT HA S BEEN SOLD AT HIGHER PRICE, THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED TO THE ID. AO ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THAT DUE TO INCREASE 4N PRODUCTION COST AND TECHNICAL CHANGES, THE SALE PRI CE HAS BEEN INCREASED AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DOES NOT LEAD TO MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOW STARTED TO CHARGING THE CORRECT VALUE. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT DUE TO QUALITY AND STANDARDIZATI ON REQUIREMENT OF M/S SURANI CERAMICS, THE PRICE WAS C HARGED AT HIGHER RATE THAN THE RATE CHARGED TO OTHER DOMESTIC CUSTOMERS WHERE THE REQUIREMENT WAS DIFFERENT. AGAINST THE AL LEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED STOCK GODOWN HYPOTH ECATED TO THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AT RS.15, THE APPELLANT S UBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT NO SUCH DECLARATIO N HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT BUT IT WAS DONE BY M/S CRYST AL GLAZERS PVT. LTD. FURTHER IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT THE SALES VALUE DETERMINED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHOR ITIES IS DEEMING/NOTIONAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING E XCISE DUTY WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING INCOME TAX WITHOUT BRINGING ANY RECORD CONTRARY. SO FAR AS GROSS PROFIT RATION @ 14.13% ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THA T FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION G.P. RATIO WAS AT 9.06% AN D NOT 14.13%. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND MADE G.P ADDIT ION OF RS.69,98,589/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . 4. THE SECOND ISSUE FOR WHICH THE ID. AO ISSUED A S HOW CAUSE NOTICE IS IN RESPECT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES OF RS.3,00,91,218/- AND G.P @ 14.13% THEREON I.E RS.42,51,889/-. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS OF 1 4,29,280 KGS WHICH WAS USED FOR MANUFACTURING 33,16,000 KGS. OF FRIT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE WORKING PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES, ACTUAL PRODUCTION WAS WORKED AT 45,19, 649 KGS., ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 5 - RESULTING INTO NON-ACCOUNTING OF 12,03,649 KGS. OF FRIT, COST OF WHICH COMES TO RS.3,00,91,218/-. IN THIS CONNECTION , THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DETAILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATE D 24/12/2010. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT CEN TRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES IS BASED ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION AND SUR MISES AND THAT CANNOT 6E MADE BASE FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, WHICH IS BAD AND ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ALLEGATION OF CLANDES TINE REMOVAL HAS TO BE PROVED BY EVIDENCES/SUPPORTING AND MERE CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS BASE TO MAK6 AN ADDITION. HENCE, THE APPELLANT STRONGLY SUBMITTE D TO THE LD. AO THAT WITHOUT BRINING ON RECORD EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL ABOUT PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND SALE O F GOODS MANUFACTURED OUT OF SUCH RAW MATERIAL, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON ASSUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS SU BMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.42,51,889/- A FTER ADOPTING G.P. RATE @ 14.13%. 5. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER, ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRY CARRIED OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICERS, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ISSUED PARALLEL BILLS OF RS 1,00, 000/- AND ACCORDINGLY AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,00,000/- REMAINS UNAC COUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE G.P. @ 14.13 % AMOUNTING TO RS 14,130/- SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE APPELLAN T VIDE LETTER DATED 24/12/2010 SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY PARALLEL BILLS TO THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE SAID MENTIONED PARTIES HAVE NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT IN RESPECT THEREOF AND HAS DEN IED TO RECEIVE ANY GOODS UNDER SUCH PARALLEL INVOICES FROM THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED NOT TO ADD SUCH GROSS PROFIT OF RS 14,130/- ON SUCH ALLEGED UNACCOU NTED SALES OF RS 1,00,000/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS 14,130/-. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ID. AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DECLARING S HORTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF WASTAGE RANGING FROM 13.5% TO 20.5% I N NATURAL GAS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO TH AT AVERAGE SHORTAGE OF WASTAGE COULD BE 15% AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXCESS SHORTAGE OF 41,635 KGS, WHICH IS RESULTING INTO UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.10,40,875/- AND THEREF ORE G.P. @ 14.13% , AMOUNTING TO RS.1,47,075/- SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 24/12/2010 SUBMITTED A DETAILED R EPLY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THA T THE EXCISE RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE SUBJECTED TO TH E EXCISE AUDIT BY THE EXCISE OFFICERS AND THEY HAVE NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY ON ACCOUNT OF CLANDESTINE MANUFACTURE A ND REMOVAL OR UNDERVALUATION OF THE FINISHED GOODS. IT WAS ALSO ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 6 - SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO SUBJECTED TO AUDIT BY THE TAX AUD ITORS IN VIEW OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND NO ADVERSE COM MENT HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. A CCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LD. AO THAT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS, NO ARBITRARY AVERAGE SHORTAGE OF WASTAGE CAN BE ASSUMED TO MAKE AN ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND ADDED G.P.@ 14.13%, AMOUNTING TO RS.1,47,075/- ON ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED S ALES OF RS.10,40,875/-. 4. AT THE OUTSET, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL T HE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE BASED ON T HE BASIS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THE CENTRAL EXC ISE DEPARTMENT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX TRIBUNAL (CESTAT). THE APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD IN JULY 2013. THERE ARE A BATCH OF APPEALS AND THEY ARE BE ING HEARD TURN BY TURN AND THE CESTAT MEMBERS HAVE STATED THAT THEY W ILL PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ADJUDICATI ON AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF CESTAT. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATT ER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FO R ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF CESTAT. NEEDLE SS TO MENTION THAT HE SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ITA NO. 1697/AHD/2012 SAMIR KISHOR PARIKH, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 - 7 - ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THU S, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN THE MANNER INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARI NG IN PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON TUESDAY, THE 19 TH OF AUGUST, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/08/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY 2 . +#3 43(# 2 . +#3 43(# 2 . +#3 43(# 2 . +#3 43(#/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. # !5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. !5() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. 3'8 +# , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89' :- / GUARD FILE. 2! 2! 2! 2! / BY ORDER, ; ;; ;/ // / < < < < ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD