The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Swastik Developers, Ahmedabad

ITA 1725/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5974 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Business income; Wrong claim
• Section: 131; 145

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 / A.Y. 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. SWASTIK DEVELOPERS, 1/31, EESHITA TOWER, NR. SAMVED HOSPITAL, COMMERCE COLLEGE ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-38009 PAN : ABOFS 2217 A / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) BY REVENUE : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR DR BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 15/02/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/02/2018 / O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD-5S ORDER DATED 11.03.2015 IN CAS E NO. CIT(A)- 5/WD.991)/135/2014-15 REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING IN BOTH REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AS WELL AS RESTRICTING THE ADD ITION TO RS.2,67,767/- FROM RS.58,32,000/- ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 25% OF NET PROFITS ON RELEVANT PROJECT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES FROM THE CASE RECORDS THAT THE REVENU E SEEKS TO REVIVE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN BOTH REJECTING ASSESS EES BOOKS AS WELL AS ESTIMATING ITS NET PROFITS TO RS.58,32,000/- @ 25% OF THE TOTAL SALES. BOTH ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 2 - THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES TAKE US THROUGH LEARNED CIT(A)S FINDINGS ELABORATELY DISCUSSING THE RELEVANT FACTS, ASSESSIN G OFFICERS REASONS AS WELL AS ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER:- 3.4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.58,32,000/- BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @25% OF THE TOTAL SALES I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE HAS NOTICED CERT AIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME ARE DISCUSSED ALONGWI TH THE SUBMISSIONS OBTAINED FROM THE APPELLANT FROM PARA NO.3 TO 3.3 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BRIEFLY THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROJECT LABOUR EXPENSES CONSISTS OF SLAB 1 TO SLAB-8 WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE LABOUR EXPE NSES CHARGED BY THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR FOR 6 TH FLOOR AND 7 TH FLOOR ONLY. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE BILLS PRODUCED FOR THE 4TH FLOOR WERE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF BILL OF THE THIRD FLOOR. SO THIS CLERICAL MISTAKE CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SUBMITTED ANY PROOF REGARDING COMPLETION OF THE WORK WITHIN SUCH A SHOR T PERIOD. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETA ILS OF EXPENDITURE MONTH- WISE BUT HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE MEASUREMENT OF WORK BILL SUBMITTED IT WAS FOUND THAT NOWHERE THE DATE OF THE WORK HAS B EEN MENTIONED. EVEN THE PHASE-WISE WORK REPORT HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR FROM THE CERTIFIE D ENGINEER. MERELY THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CHEQUES FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS THE ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LABOUR E XPENSES. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE SALE RECEIPTS CHARGED BY THE APPELLAN T ON THE BASIS OF THE JANTRI RATE IS FOUND CORRECT BUT NOT GENUINE AS THE APPELL ANT WAS VERY SILENT REGARDING DISCREPANCIES FOUND SPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.501, 502 AND 503 WHICH IS SOLD WITH TERRACE RIGHT WITH SAME BUIL T UP AREA I.E. 113 SQR. YARDS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT FOR UNIT NO. 502 THE APPELLANT HAD CHARGED RS.55 LAKHS BUT THE SAME SALE PRICE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED ON OTHER TERRACE RIGHT UNITS LIKE 501 AND 503. IN VIEW OF TH E DISCREPANCIES FOUND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE REJECTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER THE NET PROFIT OF RS.58,32,000/- ON THIS PROJECT WAS ESTIMATED @25% ON SALE OF RS.2, 33,28,000/-. 3.5. DURING THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEED INGS THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION AS PROVIDED TO THE A .O., FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED THE PERCENTAGE COMP LETION METHOD IN PLACE OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD WHEREBY IT HAS RECOGNI ZED THE INCOME PROGRESSIVELY IN PROPORTION OF THE COMPLETED WORK. IN THIS METHOD THE APPELLANT HAD TO MAKE VARIOUS ESTIMATIONS ON ACCOUN T OF EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE INCURRED IN FUTURE AND THEN HE COULD RECOG NIZE THE INCOME. HE HAS ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 3 - SUBMITTED THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TOTAL SALES, INTERE ST TO PARTNERS, RETURNED INCOME, INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION ETC. DURING THE THREE YEARS PERIOD WHEN THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENC E THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- FINANCIAL SALE INTEREST TO RETURNED INCOME INCOME YEAR (RS./CR.) PARTNERS (RS. / LAKHS) OFFERED (R S./ LAKHS) FOR TAX (RS. / LAKHS) 1 2 3 6 2008-09 0 24.20 -25.80 24.20 2009 - 10 2.33 25.76 - 15.97 25.76 2010 - 11 2.88 3.76 48.96 10.82 5.21 53.60 7.18 60.78 3.6. FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD THE TOTAL SALES OF RS.5.21 CRORES ON WHICH IT HAS SHOWN THE OVERALL INCOME OF RS.60.78 LAKHS. SO THERE WAS THE NET PROFIT OF 11.66% OF THE TURNOVER. SO IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE WAS THE LOSS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT SO FAR AS THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS CON CERNED THERE WAS THE PROFITS DERIVED ON SALES. 3.7. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXP ENSES WITH REGARD TO THE RCC WORK FROM LABOUR CONTRACTORS NAMELY M/S JAY AMB E CONSTRUCTION WERE AT RS.9,38,090/- AND NOT THE LABOUR EXPENSES O F RS.13,92,532/- AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. 3.8. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE CHARGES OF RCC WORK FOR THE 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR @ 65% BY SHRI PRAVIN P. CHOTALIA IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO HIM WAS MADE IN ADDITION TO THE BASE RATE. THE B ASE RATE WAS RS.52,775/- AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE TERRACE LEVEL WORK ADDITIO NAL 65% OF THE BASE RATE WAS CHARGED BY HIM I.E. ON 6 TH AND 7 TH FLOOR. THE 65% RATE WAS AS PER THE TERMS OF EXTRA 10% CHARGES FOR EVERY FLOOR. SO IT W AS PLEADED THAT IN FACT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL RCC WORK BILL BUT IT WAS ON LY CONSIDERED TO DECIDE THE RATE OF THE WORK DONE AT THE TERRACE LEVEL. FUR THER ARGUED THAT THE RCC CHARGES WERE PAID ONLY FOR PARKING LEVEL, FIRST FLO OR, 2 ND FLOOR AND 3 RD FLOOR BY JAY AMBE CONSTRUCTION, 4 TH FLOOR BY TUSHAR JANI AND 5 TH FLOOR AND OVERHEAD TANK BY SHRI PRAVINBHAI P. CHOTALIA. WITH REGARD TO THE AO'S OBSERVATION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF BILL RAISED BY TUSHAR JANI FOR 4 TH FLOOR DTD. 20.6.2009 WAS PRIOR TO THE 3RD FLOOR BI LL DATE I.E. 25.7.2009. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF 8IH CALENDAR MONTH BY MISTAKE BILL DATE WAS WRITTEN AS JUNE I.E. 6 TH CALENDAR MONTH. SO THIS WAS THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERR OR BUT IT DOES NOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT NO CONST RUCTION OF THE 4 TH FLOOR HAS BEEN MADE AND NO EXPENDITURES THERE UPON HAVE BEEN MADE. ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 4 - IN SUPPORT HE SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES OF LABOUR CONTRACTORS NAMELY M/S.JAY AMBE CONSTRUCTION, SHRI PRAVIN P. CH OTALIA AND SHRI TUSHAR JANI RELATING TO RCC WORK ALONG WITH DETAILE D MEASUREMENT PAPERS. 3.9. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTI CES U/S. 131 TO ALL THE MAJOR CONTRACTORS AND OBTAINED DETAILS INCLUDING CO NTRA CONFIRMATIONS, MEASUREMENT SHEET ETC. AND NO DISCREPANCIES WERE NO TICED THEREIN WITH COMPARISON TO THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THUS IT WAS PLEADED THAT ALL THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURES WERE MADE GENUINELY AND THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO REJECTION U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT WAS WARRANTED. 3.10. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE SALE PROCEEDS OF S OME FLATS WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OTHER FLATS, IT HAS B EEN PLEADED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SALE RATE OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT COULD NOT BE SAME AND IT DEPENDS UPON VARIOUS FACTORS. IT VARIES FROM ONE UNIT TO AN OTHER UNIT. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE PRICE OF ALL THE UNITS WERE MORE THAN THE JANTRI RATE. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY OF THE FLATS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BELOW THE JANTRI RATE. FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED THE SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO ALL THE BUYERS AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEY HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. BUT NO DISCREPANCIES WITH REGARD TO ANY SUPPRESSION OF THE SALE PROCEEDS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF ANY UNIT HAS BEEN FOUND. THIS MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE B OOKS OF ASSESSEE WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE AMOUNT PAID BY EACH OF THE PURC HASERS OF THE UNITS. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SALE DEED PRICE WAS I N CONFORMITY WITH THE SALE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE PRICE RANGE OF THE FLAT WAS BETWEEN RS.28 LAKHS TO 35 LAK HS. HOWEVER, AFTER OBSERVING THE BREAK EVEN POINT AND HAVING CONSIDERE D THE COMFORT OF LIQUIDITY THE PRICES WERE RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY FOR I TS TWO FLATS AND WAITED FOR ATLEAST 6 MONTHS TO SALE THEM. THIS HAS ACTUALLY FE TCH THE HIGHER PRICES FOR THE TWO FLATS SOLD LAST FOR THE FLAT NO.402 AND 502 WHICH IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3.11. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION IT IS FO UND THAT NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH THE MAJOR LABOUR CONTRACTORS H AVE BEEN EXAMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY HIM. MERELY DU E TO FEW TECHNICAL BREACHES IT WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO ANY BOGUS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURES OR THE CASE WHERE THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN INFLATED. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED BREAK-UP ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTIONS CARRIED O UT ALONGWITH LAY OUT PLANS, INVOICES AND BILLS RAISED BY THE CONTRACTORS ALONG WITH MEASUREMENT OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY THEM. ALL THESE DETAILS WERE IN TALLY WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE RECORDS KEP T BY THE CONTRACTORS. NOT ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 5 - A SINGLE INSTANCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE ANY CLAIM OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN MADE OR ANY UNDERSTATEMENT OF ANY EXPENDI TURES HAVE BEEN MADE. 3.12. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF TH E AO THAT THE SALE PRICE OF EACH OF THE FLATS MUST BE SAME IS WITHOUT ANY BA SE. IT IS WORTH HERE TO MENTION THAT SALE RATE OF THE FLAT DEPENDS UPON VAR IOUS FACTORS LIKE ITS LOCATION, BOOKING TIME, MODE OF PAYMENT, TERMS OF P AYMENT AND OTHER VARIOUS FACTORS.. THE SALE PRICE CAN NEVER BE SIMIL AR TO ALL THE UNITS. EVEN IN THE EXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS U/S.131 OF THE ACT OF T HE BUYERS NO INSTANCE OF ANY UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE SALE PRICE HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE A.O. THUS, ON PRESUMPTION BASIS NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT T HE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF FEW FLATS. 3.13. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE AO'S STAND OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) IS FOUND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT APPROVED. IN THE SIMILAR MANNER THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE A.O. ASSUMING THE N.P. RATE AT 25% OF THE TOTAL SALES IS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY COMPARABLE CASE. THE BASIS OF TAKING THE N .P. RATE AT 25% (NEITHER LESS NOR MORE) HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE A.O. M ORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE NET PROFITS @11.66% ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT. 3.14. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE LABOUR PA YMENTS ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE WITH REGARD TO THE WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THEM. SINCE THE COMPLETE DETAILS ABOUT THE WORK CARRIED PUT AND THE WORKING OF THEIR LABOUR EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE THEREFORE THE POSSIBILITIE S OF SUCH CLAIMS AT THE INFLATED RATE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THUS, TO PLUG TH E LEAKAGE OF REVENUE IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISALLOW THE LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.2,67,767/- BEING 10% OF THE LABOUR CLAIMS WITH R EGARD TO THE LABOUR EXPENSES RELATING TO CONTRACTORS NAMELY JAY AMBE CO NSTRUCTION AT RS.9,38,090/-, PRAVIN P. CHOTALIA AT RS.8,32,000/-, SHRI HIMANSHU PRAJPATI AT RS.6,75,585/-, TUSHAR JANI AT RS.2,32,0 00/- TOTALING TO RS.26,77,675/- HAS BEEN MADE. THUS, THE DISALLOWANC E OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OFRS.2,67,767/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE RELIEF IS GRANTED TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE ITS PROFIT @ 25% ON THE TOTAL SALES COMING TO RS.2,33,28,000/-. HE PARTICULARLY PLACES A STRONG RELIANCE ON ASSESSING OFFICERS REASONS AS ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 6 - DISCUSSED IN CIT(A)S ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 3.4 THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED ON MULTIPLE ISSUES MAKING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. MR. DIVA TIA ON THE OTHER HAND HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. HE TAKES US THROUGH THE RELEVANT CORRESPON DING INCOMES RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONWARDS HEREINABOV E. HIS CASE THEREFORE IS THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT. HE THEN QUOTES HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. VIKRAM PLASTIC & ORS, 239 ITR 161, UPHOL DING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER THAT AN ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION INVOKING S ECTION 145 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN CASE THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES OR DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN AN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINE D NOT INDICATING ANY INFLATED PURCHASES OR SUPPRESSED SALES OR ANY DEVIA TION FROM THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED. 4. WE KEEP IN MIND THE SAID LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO ADV ERT BACK TO REVENUES GRIEVANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE. LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FIRST OF ALL FAILS TO DISPUTE THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER SHOWN PROFIT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN PR ECEDING ASSESSING YEAR QUA THE RELEVANT PROJECT BY FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE CO MPLETION METHOD. THIS FOLLOWS CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION ON ASSESSING O FFICERS FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I N PARAGRAPH 3.8 TO 3.13. THE SAME HAVE GONE UNREBUTTED FROM THE REVENUES SI DE. WE FURTHER INVITED LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES ATTEN TION TO ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK FORMING PART OF RECORD COMPRISING OF ALL RELEVANT PARTICULARS. NOTHING COMES FROM THE REVENUES SIDE TO CONTROVERT THE CIT(A)S DETAILED FINDINGS EXTRACTED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. WE THUS FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN REVENUES ARGUMENT SEEKING TO REVIVE ASSESSING OFFI CERS ACTION REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS FOLLOWED BY ESTIMATION OF NET PROF ITS @ 25% IN THE ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2015 ITO VS SWASTIK DEVELOPERS A.Y :- 2010-11 - 7 - IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. REVENUES TWO SUBSTANTIV E GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE THEREFORE DECLINED. 5. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED 22/02/2018 *BT ! '! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' $ / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ' **' , ' , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' (, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD