The ITO, Ward-2(3), Surat V. M/s. M.K. Traders, Surat

ITA 1709/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 170920514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR TEKRIWAL SRDR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .., .. , ! ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-2006 DATE OF HEARING:24.8.11 DRAFTED:24.8.11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SURAT V/S. M/S. M.K. TRADERS, PLOT NO.4, UDHYOG NAGAR, UDHANA, SURAT PAN NO.AAKFM1387J (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- NONE REVENUE BY:- SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR-DR DATE OF HEARING 24-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT -08-2011 ' '' ' /O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND TH ESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS)-II SURAT DATED 27-02- 2009 AND DATED 30-03-2009 AND BOTH ARE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. THE FIRST APPEAL IS IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS I.E. ITA NO.1709/AHD/ 2009 AND THE SECOND APPEAL IS IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS I.E. ITA NO.2070/ AHD/2009. BOTH ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 2 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TH E FIRST TIME ON 24-08-2009. ON THIS DATE, ON THE REQUEST OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI PRASANT B SHAH THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. THERE AFTER BOTH THESE APPE ALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING AGAIN ON 24-08-2011 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE (RPAD FOR SHORT) BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE HEARING AND HENCE, THESE APPE ALS WERE HEARD AS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN QUANTUM APPEAL AND PENALTY ORDER IN THE REMAINING APPEAL. 4. GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE IN QUANTUM APPEAL (ITA NO.1709/AHD/ 2009) ARE AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O OF RS.2 9,80,210/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. B) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O OF RS.2,15,583/- BEING AN AMOUNT OF 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.10,77 ,916/- C) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O OF RS.7 0,215/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. D) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84,480/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS ASSETS. GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE IN PENALTY PROC EEDINGS (ITA NO.2070/AHD/ 2009) IS AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O OF RS.11,16,228/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR OF THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FIRST, WE DECIDE THE QUANTUM APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S.144 OF THE ACT AND HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.33,50,488/- INCLUDING OF RS.29,80,210/- BEING THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM U/S.68 OF THE ACT, RS.90,215/- BEING EXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS, RS.2,15,583/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 20% AND RS.84,480/- BEING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION IN RESPECT OF ASSET ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 3 PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS .5,31,791/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ALL THESE MATTERS IN APPEAL BE FORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE, I.E. REGARDING ADDITION MADE BY AS SESSING OFFICER OF RS.29,80,210/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THESE INCLUDE FRESH UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.14.85 LAKH AND FRESH CAPITAL BROUGHT IN BY TWO PARTNERS SMT. VARSHABEN M DESAI OF RS.8,95,210/- AND SMT. SHILPABEN A DESAI OF RS.6 LAKH. THIS ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN PARA- 5.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 5.2 IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS STATED THAT C ONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE DEPOSITORS/CREDITORS TOTALING RS.14,85,000 HAD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE HIM ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE PASSBOOKS. THIS MEANS T HAT THE UNSECURED LOANS STAND SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PARTNERS HAD CONFIRMED THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY TH EM, THEIR BANK PASS-BOOKS SHOWED THAT THE CASH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THEY ISSUED CHEQUES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE FIRM. IN ANY CASE, THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS INTO THE FIR M COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, AS HEL D BY MANY COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.29,8 0,210 WILL STAND DELETED. THE AO MAY HOWEVER, INTIMATED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF THE TWO PARTNERS, SMT. VARSHABEN M PATEL AND SMT. SHILPABEN A DESAI TO ENQ UIRE INTO THE GENERATION OF FUNDS IN THEIR HANDS WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF THEIR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( APPEALS), IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THA T CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE DEPOSITORS FOR CREDITS TOTALING OF RS.14.85 LAKH HA S BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE HIM ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE PASS-BOOKS. THERE IS NO ADVER SE COMMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT AS PER THE NOTINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LD. DR OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW BEFORE US THAT THERE IS ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT UNSECURED LOANS STAND SATISFACTOR ILY EXPLAINED. REGARDING THE FRESH CAPITAL BROUGHT BY TWO PARTNERS, IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT PARTNERS HAD CONFIRMED THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THEM AND TH EIR BANK PASS-BOOKS SHOWED THAT CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BA NK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THEY ISSUED CHEQUES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. IT IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT THAT FOR THE CAPITAL ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 4 INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS INTO THE FIRM, IT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND WHETHER IT WAS FROM THE DISCLOSED SOURCES OF THE PARTNERS OR NOT, THE ISSUE MAY BE EXAMINED IN THE H ANDS OF THE PARTNERS AND IF THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE, THE AD DITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS BUT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HAN DS OF THE FIRM. HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND HENCE, ON BOTH ASPECTS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). GROUND NO.1(A) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. REGARDING SECOND ISSUE I.E. ADDITION OF RS.70,21 5/-, THE ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO.1. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN D ECIDED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS PER PARA-6.1 AND 6.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6.1 IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY TH E AO THAT INSPITE OF BEING PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING SUCH CREDITORS. IN HIS WRITTEN R EBUTTAL DTD. 23.2.2009, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AR THAT OUT OF THE FOUR PARTIES, TWO OF THEM, FROM WHOM ADVANCES HAD BEEN TAKEN, HAD VERY NOMINAL CREDIT TO THEIR ACCOUNTS. THE ADVANCES WERE AGAINST ORDERS TAKEN FROM THEM. GOODS WERE DULY SUPPLIED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR LEAVING NO BALANCE WHATSOEVER. THE AR HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID PARTIES TO SU BSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 6.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATER. IT IS QU ITE EVIDENT THAT THE OUTSTANDING SUMS TOTALING RS.70,215 UNDER THE HEAD OF SUNDRY DEBTORS ADVANCE WERE ESSENTIALLY TRADE CREDITS, AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE AR, WHICH WERE SQUARED-UP IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE REMAINS NO CASES FOR TREATING THE SAID SUM AS UNEXP LAINED, OR SUCH CREDITS HAVING CEASED TO EXIST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO DELETE TH E SUM OF RS.70,215. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS ), IT IS SEEN THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THIS AMOU NT OF RS.70,215/- WAS ESSENTIALLY TRADE CREDIT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME WERE SQUARED UP IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR BY MAKING SU PPLY OF GOODS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WHEN THE ACCOUNT IS SQUARED UP ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF GOODS, THE AMOUNT COMES TO THE CREDIT OF PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT BEING THE SALE AMOUNT AND FOR THE SAME CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, N O ADDITION CAN BE BY MADE BY HOLDING IT TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BECAUSE IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE , ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, NO ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 5 INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO1.(C) IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. THIRD ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,15,58 3/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE AS P ER GROUND NO.1(B). THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDING BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS PER PARA-7.2 AND 7.3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 7.2 IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE EXPENSES, BUT NO BILLS OR VOUCHERS WERE FURNISHED. IN HIS WRITTEN REBUTTAL, THE AR HAS STATED THAT THE BOOKS HAD BEEN DULY AUDITED, THE VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO THE S AID EXPENSES WERE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD IN SURAT, SINCE THEY WERE NO T MAINTAINED IN A PROPER SAFE. THE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER WHICH HAD ENABLED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE PRINT OUTS BEFORE THE AO. THE T OTAL EXPENSES LISTED OUT BY THE AO WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,77,916 WH ICH REPRESENTED ONLY 4.11% OF THE TOTAL SALES. IN SUPP[ORT OF THE CLAIM REGARDING THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE FLOOD, THE AR HAS FURNISHED AN ASSESS MENT OF THE DAMAGE MADE BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE WHICH IS DTD . 30.9.2006. 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS. THE ASST. MADE BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE OF THE ASSESSEES PREMIS ES AT A-302, VEDANT APARTMENT, ADAJAN ROAD, SURAT, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SHOWS THE DAMAGE O F FURNITURE AT RS.2,000 AND OTHER GOODS AT RS.15,000. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE L EDGER ACCOUNTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THE ONLY ISSUE WIT H THE AO WAS THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE RELEVANT BIL LS AND VOUCHERS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALILITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE HAD CLOSED DOWN IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR ITSELF, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELET E THE SUM OF RS.2,15,583. 10. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(AP PEALS) WE FIND THAT IT WAS REPORTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND REPORT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THE EXPENSES BUT NO BILLS OR VOUCHER S WERE FURNISHED AND IN THE REBUTTAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT BOOKS WERE DULY AUDITED AND THE VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO THE EXPENSES WERE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD IN SURAT, SINCE THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINED IN THE PROPER SAFE. REGARDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT S AME WERE MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER WHICH HAD ENABLED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE PRINT-OUTS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT TOTAL EXPENSES LISTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY RS.10.78 LAKH WHICH REPRESENTED ON LY 4.11% OF TOTAL SALES. IT IS NOT ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 6 THE CASE OF AO THAT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR OR ANY COM PARABLE CASE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. HENCE, GROUND NO.1 (B) OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. REGARDING THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84,4 80/- BEING DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS ASSET WORTH OF RS.531,79 1/-, IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE PURCHASE BILLS OF NEW ASS ET ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR. ALTHOUGH IT IS STATED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPOR T THAT THE BILLS OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF APPR OPRIATE DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSET, IT WAS HELD BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT DISALLOWANCE OF D EPRECIATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY AO ON THIS BASIS THAT BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF NEW ASSET PURCHASED DURING THIS YEAR. NOW, THE BILLS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDIN GS AND THE SAME WERE EXAMINED BY HIM AND ONLY ONE ADVERSE OBSERVATION IS THERE THAT IN THE BILLS RELATING TO FURNITURE AND FIXTURE, THERE WAS NO APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION. THE AO HAS NOT EVEN SPECIFIED THE AMOUNT OF BILL IN WHICH THERE IS NO A PPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION OF ASSET. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE FE EL THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO . HENCE, GROUND NO.1(D) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, QUANTUM APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP THE PENALTY APPEAL. 14. WE FIND THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.29,80,210/- U/S. 68 AND RS.70,215/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS TOTAL OF RS.30,50,425/-. BOTH THESE ADDIT IONS HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE, THE VERY BASIS REGAR DING PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IS SUSTAINABLE. LD. CIT(A PPEALS) ALSO DELETED THE PENALTY ON THIS VERY BASIS THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONS WERE DE LETED, THERE REMAINS NO CASE FOR ITA NO.1709 & 2070/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2 005-06 ITO WD-2(1), SRT V. M/S. M.K.TRADERS, PAGE 7 LEVYING THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. NO INTERFERENC E IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 15. IN THE RESULT, PENALTY APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALS O DISMISSED. 16, IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2011 # ' $ %& '() / 08 / 2011 !+ , $ - . SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.K. GARODIA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( ) ( ! ) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 26/08/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-II, SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ' ' ' ' $ $$ $ /01 /01 /01 /01 21&0) 21&0) 21&0) 21&0)- -- - 1. 56 2. /56 3. (( 0 +9 4. +9 - - 5. 1<= /0' , , . 6. ? @# ' , A/ (B , .