M/S. THE SANDESH LTD., V. THE JT.CIT.,

ITA 1773/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1939 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C
• Assessee Lawyers: R C SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C-BENCH, AHMEDABAD. BEFORE: SHRI T K SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) M/S. THE SANDESH LIMITED SANDESH BHAVAN LAD SOCIETY ROAD, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD-380 015. VERSUS JT. CIT, SR9, AHMEDABAD NOW DY.CIT CIRCLE 8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) ACIT, CIRCLE 8, AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. THE SANDESH LIMITED SANDESH BHAVAN LAD SOCIETY ROAD, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD-380 015. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) PAN:AAACT 5730 D FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI R.C. SHAH, AR FOR THE REVENUE SHRI M.C. PANDIT, SR.DR ORDER PER D C AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FILED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 12-03-200 3. 2. IN ITS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: 1) THAT THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 THOUGH THERE WAS ONLY A CHA NCE OF OPINION IN THE MATTER OF CLAIM MADE U/S. 80-I OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. IT IS 2 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3), THE A.O. HAD ALREADY MADE SOME REDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE C LAIM OF RS.39,82,962/- MADE U/S. 80-I IN RESPECT OF BARODA UNIT AFTER FULL VERIFICATION OF SUCH CLAIM AND, THEREFORE, FURTHER REDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF RS.39,82,962/- MADE U/S. 80-I IN RE SPECT OF BARODA UNIT AFTER FULL VERIFICATION OF SUCH CLAIM AND, THE REFORE, FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE CLAIM CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE CHAN GE OF OPINION ONLY FOR WHICH RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMI TTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF (I) HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD., REPORTED IN 237 ITR 668, (II) HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD., REPOR TED IN 256 ITR 1 AND CLAUSE 7.2 OF BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.549 DATED 31 ST OCTOBER, 1989 REPORTED IN 182 I.T.R. (STATUTE) 1. IT IS, THEREFOR E, SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN L AW AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) BE ALSO HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. 2) THAT THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE REDUCTION OF CLAIM U/S. 80-I IN RESPECT OF BARODA U NIT BY RS.365147/- BY MAKING FURTHER ALLOCATION OF SOME EXPENSES TO BA RODA UNIT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE A.O. HAD SUCH POWERS BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-I(9) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-I(9) DO NOT PERMIT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND THE SAID PR OVISION IS ABSOLUTELY NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPEL LANT. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT FURTHER ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND C ONSECQUE4NTIAL REDUCTION OF CLAIM U/S. 80-I IS ABSOLUTELY BAD IN L AW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM U/S. 80-I B E RESTORED ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE DIRECTED TO BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 3 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ALLO CATION OF FURTHER EXPENSES TO BARODA UNIT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERI TS OF SUCH ALLOCATION AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES SO ALLOCATED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH ALLOCATION CANNOT BE IN THE PRO PORTION OF SALES AND SUBSCRIPTION AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOCATE A LUMP-SUM AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SOME SMALL COMMON EXPENSES OR IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS MAY APPEAR TO B E JUST AND FAIR TO THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINES. IT HAD, IN ADDITION TO HEAD QUARTER AT AHMEDABAD, UNITS AT BARODA, SURAT, AND RAJKOT. THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993 DECLARING AN INCOME O F RS.1,16,01,753/- WAS FILED ON 31-12-1992. IT WAS PROCEEDED UNDER SE CTION 143(1)(A) ON 09- 07-1993. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) WAS COMPLETED ON 31-03-1995. IN THIS RETURN ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80I FROM ITS INCOME FROM BARODA UNIT AT RS.39,82,968/-. MIN OR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNIT REGARDING PROVISIONS OF EA RLIER YEAR WAS MADE AND THUS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I WAS R ESTRICTED TO RS.39,01,22,221/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON 07-03-1997. ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS INCO RRECTLY ALLOCATING OR NOT ALLOCATING EXPENSES OF HEADQUARTERS AT AHMEDABAD TO VARIOUS UNITS INCLUDING BARODA UNIT AND ACCORDING BY INFLATING PROJECTS AT BARODA UNITS CLAIMING HIGHER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FOLLOWING POINTS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ALLOCATED PRINTING EXPENSES AND FEATURE EXPENSES TO BARODA UNIT. 4 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) 2. ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE HEAD OFFIC E AT AHMEDABAD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATED T O BARODA UNIT. 3. THE PROPORTION OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME AND RAW-MA TERIAL CONSUMPTION IS NOT CONSISTENT FOR ALL UNITS. 4. INTEREST EXPENDITURE ALLOCATED TO BARODA UNIT IS SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS AT BARODA UNIT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE REASO NS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IT READS AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143 (3) ON 31.3.1995 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,18,2 5,760/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,16,01,753/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IN THE RE TURN DEDUCTION U/S. 80I OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.39,82,968/-, AS AGAINST THIS, THE DEDUCTION O F RS.39,01,221/- WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ANY VARIATION IN THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF SUCH DEDUCTION. IT IS SEE N THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PUBLISHING GUJARATI NEWSPAPER BY THE NAME OF SA NDESH FROM FOUR UNITS AT AHMEDABAD, BARODA, RAJKOT AND SURAT. ONLY BARODA UNIT, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80I. AS AGAINST GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,16,470/- FROM ALL THE FOUR UNITS, THE DEDUC TION IN U/S.80I WAS COMPUTED IN THE RETURN AT RS.1,59,31,868/- FROM ALL THE FOUR UNITS, THE DEDUCTION IN U/S 80I WAS COMPUTED IN THE RETURN AT RS.1,59,31,868/- INDICATING THEREBY THAT ENTIRE PROFIT WAS FROM BARO DA UNIT AND ALL OTHER UNITS PUT TOGETHER MAKING LOSSES. IT WAS FOU ND THAT THE PROFIT OF BARODA UNIT WAS COMPUTED BY ALLOCATING THE PROPORTI ON OF TOTAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ON SOME BASIS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTICED: 5 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ALLOCATED PRINTING EXPENSES AND FEATURE EXPENSES TO BARODA UNIT. B) ESTABLISHMENT EXPRESSES DEBITED AT THE HEAD OFFI CE AT AHMEDABAD HAVE NOT BEEN PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATED T O BARODA UNIT. C) THE PROPORTION OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME AND RAW-MA TERIAL CONSUMPTION IS NOT CONSISTENT FOR ALL UNITS. D) INTEREST EXPENDITURE ALLOCATED TO BARODA UNIT IS SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS AT BARODA UNIT. SUCH COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80I FOR THE ELIG IBLE UNIT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT REFLECTS MORE THAN ORDINARY PROFITS FOR BARODA UNIT WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM BARODA UNIT WE RE TO BE COMPUTED AS PER SECTION 80I(9). EVEN IF THE 50% OF THE TOTA L INCOME OF COMPOSITE UNIT IS TREATED AS PERTAINING TO BARODA U NIT GIVING ALL BENEFITS OF DOUBT TO THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH ESTIMATIO N, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80I HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN EXCESS TO TH E ASSESSEE BY APPROXIMATELY A SUM OF RS.20 LACS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THA T THE INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS.20 LACS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1992-93 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, NO TICE U/S. 148 IS ISSUED FOR REASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RECOMPUTING DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80I. VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) I. DETAILED INQUIRES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80I IN THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN DEDUCTION OF CLAIM FR OM RS.39,82,968/- TO RS.39,01,221/-. THUS, IT IS MERE A CHANGE OF OPINION FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE PRINTING EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED AT BARODA UNIT BECAUSE ASSESSEE H AS GIVEN THE JOB OF PRINTING TO M/S. SANDESH PATEL AGENCIES PRIV ATE LIMITED AT BARODA UNIT AND ITS OWN EMPLOYEES HAVE CARRIED O UT PRINTING WORK AT NO EXTRA COST. FEATURE EXPENSES WERE INCUR RED BY THE HEAD OFFICE ONLY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BARODA UNIT. THERE IS NO EXTRA COST OF THIS TYPE ON OTHER UNITS. II. AHMEDABAD UNIT/HEAD OFFICE IS PRINTING OTHER VA RIOUS MAGAZINES WHICH IS NOT SO AT BARODA UNIT. III. THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN SUBSCRIPTION RATE BETWE EN AHMEDABAD AND BARODA UNIT. IV. BARODA UNIT HAS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR INTEREST IN RESPECT OF MONEY BORROWED AND HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF FU RTHER ALLOCATION OF INTEREST. V. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AT HEA D OFFICE WORK ONLY FOR THE HEAD OFFICE. THEY SIT AT AHMEDAB AD OFFICE ONLY AND MAKE PERIODICAL VISITS TO OTHER UNITS. HE NCE, NO EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE DEBITED TO BARODA UNIT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE. HE HELD THAT SEVERAL EXPENSES ARE ONLY DEBITED IN THE HEAD OFFICE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO OTHER UNITS. IF THEY ARE SO ALLOCATED THEN INCOME OF BARODA UNIT WOULD BE REDUCED AND SO THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80I. HE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80I(9) FOR COMPUT ING ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO 7 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) NOTED THAT MAIN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMPANY IS AT AHMEDABAD FROM WHERE THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BRANCHES ARE EXER CISED. THEREFORE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT HEAD OFFICE SHOULD HAVE BEE N PROPERLY ALLOCATED TO THE BRANCH UNITS ALSO. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER IDENTIFIED THE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE CARRIED OUT AT HEAD OFFICE IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE BRANCHES. THESE ARE AS UNDER: (I) MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING THOSE FOR BRANCHES. (II) MANAGEMENT OF TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF NEWS PRIN T AND OTHER NECESSARY ITEMS. (III) KEEPING THEIR INVENTORY AND ARRANGEMENT FOR T RANSFER OF MATERIAL FROM HEAD OFFICE TO BRANCHES OR INTRA BRAN CH. (IV) MAJOR PART OF BOOKING OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR TH E NEWS PAPER INCLUDING FOR BRANCHES. (V) LIAISON WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND O THER PARTIES IN REGARD TO VARIOUS KIND OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS FOR THE COMPANY. (VI) OVER ALL MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPOSITE AFFAIRS O F THE COMPANY INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO BRANCHES ALSO. 6. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR ALLOCATION O F EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE RATIO OF SALES AND SUBSCRIPTION OF THE RESPECTIVE UNITS WITH TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALES AND SUB SCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION IN VARIOUS UNITS W ITH RESPECT TO TOTAL NEWSPAPER ALLOCATION RESULTED IN FOLLOWING RATIOS: PARTICULARS AHMEDABAD BARODA SURAT RAJKOT SALES & 70627587 31403980 21213167 21743533 SUBSCRIPTION 48.71% 21.66% 14.63% 14.99% NEWS-PAPER 168494 95016 72186 53042 CIRCULATION 43.34% 24.44% 18.57% 13.65% 8 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IDENTIFIED FOLLOWING EXPEN SES WHICH ARE EITHER TOTALLY DEBITED IN HEAD OFFICE OR ARE INADEQUATELY DEBITED IN THE BRANCHES: THEY WERE AS UNDER: I. FEATURE EXPENSES: NO EXPENDITURE IS DEBITED IN THE BRANCHES WHEREAS, FEATURE ARTICLES APPEAR IN PUBLICATIONS IS SUED FROM BRANCHES ALSO. NO EXTRA EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE BRANCHES ON THIS ITEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEV ER, CONSIDERED THAT 20% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY ALLOCATED TO HEAD OFFICE AND THE RES T SHOULD BE DIVIDED ON PRORATA BASIS AMONGST BRANCHES. II. STATIONARY: ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, INA DEQUATE EXPENDITURE IS DEBITED IN THE BRANCHES. HE ACCORDI NGLY ALLOCATED THIS ITEM AGAINST THE BRANCHES ON PRO RAT A BASIS LEAVING 10% EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE HEAD OFFICE. III. NEWS SUBSCRIPTION: THIS AMOUNT IS PAYABLE TO P RESS TRUST OF INDIA AND OTHER NEWS AGENCIES FOR GETTING NEWS ITEM S FOR PUBLICATION. SINCE IT IS PAID FROM THE HEAD OFFICE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISTRIBUTED IT IN THE RATIO OF CI RCULATION. IV. POST, TELEGRAM AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES: ACCORDIN G TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE OR OTHER SUCH EX PENDITURE COULD NOT BE TREATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE HEAD OFFIC E. HE ALLOWED 10% OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR HEAD OFFICE AND DI STRIBUTED THE BALANCE AMONGST THE FOUR UNITS (AHMEDABAD, BARO DA, SURAT AND RAJKOT). 9 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) V. TRAVELLING INCLUDING DIRECTORS TRAVEL: ASSESSIN G OFFICER CONSIDERED 20% EXPENSES FOR HEAD OFFICE AND DISTRIB UTED THE REST IN THE RATIO OF SALES AND SUBSCRIPTION. 8. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONAL EXPENDITURE , MANAGING DIRECTORS REMUNERATION, LEASE RENT, COMMISSION OF OTHERS, STA FF SALARY OF AHMEDABAD UNIT, WERE DISTRIBUTED IN THE RATIO OF SALES AND SU BSCRIPTION. HE WORKED OUT THE ALLOCABLE EXPENDITURE TO BARODA UNIT, REDUCED T HE EXPENDITURE ALREADY DEBITED THEREFROM AND WORKED OUT THE AMOUNT FURTHER DEBIT ABLE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKING. IN THIS MANNER HE WORKED OUT AN EXPEN DITURE OF RS.14,47,309/- BEING THE EXPENDITURE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURTHE R DEBITED IN THE BARODA UNIT AS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS ALREADY DEBITED OR NOT DEBITED AT ALL. ON THIS BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THAT DEDUCTI ON ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80I SHOULD BE LESS BY RS.3,65,147/-. DETAI LED WORKING DONE BY HIM IS ANNEXED AT ANNEXURE-1 AND ANNEXURE-2 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER WHICH WE NEED NOT REPRODUCE. 9. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONF IRMED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF REASONS REC ORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NEW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. ON MERIT , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ALL THE MAJOR ACT IVITIES CONNECTED WITH RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS IS CENTRALLY CONTROLLED BY HEAD OFFICE. MAJOR PURCHASES ARE NEWS PRINTS, STORES AND SPARES WHICH CONSTITUTE MORE THEN 90% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE, FROM AHMEDABAD BUT USE D BY ALL THE BRANCHES. ALL THE STOCK IS FIRST UNLOADED AT AHMEDABAD AND TH EREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO VARIOUS BRANCHES AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. FURTHER, TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NOTED THAT SECTION 80I EMPOWERE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS IF IT IS FOUND THAT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RESU LTED IN MORE THEN REASONABLE PROFITS FOR THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS ENTITL ED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 10 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) SECTION 80I. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, ACCORDING TO H IM, CORRECTLY CONSIDERED 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AS OTHER THEN FOR PUBL ISHING NEWSPAPER AND BALANCE OF 90% FOR ALLOCATION TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES INCLUDING AHMEDABAD BRANCH IN PROPORTION OF SALES AND SUBSCRIPTION OF T HE NEWSPAPER. HE CONFIRMED THE REDUCTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DETAILED OBSER VATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SUBMISSION AS ADVANCED BY T HE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION TAKE N BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.3,65,147/- OUT OF DEDUCTI ON U.S. 80I IS FULLY JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE A.O. IS AUTHORIZED AS PER SEC .80I(9) TO COMPUTE THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION IN A MANNER HE DEEMED FIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN OB SERVING THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES WHERE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS ONLY A PART OF OVER ALL BUSINESS, THE PROFIT HAS TO BE COMPUTED, A S IF IT WERE AN INDEPENDENTLY FUNCTIONING UNIT CARRYING OUT THE PRE SCRIBED ACTIVITIES AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN SUFF ICIENT PRECAUTION TO PREVENT MISUSE OF THE INCENTIVE PROVISION OF SEC.80 I AND IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HAVING COMPOSITE BUSINESS AND ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION U.S. 80I IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OR A FEW UNITS, THERE IS ALWAYS A TEMPTATION TO INFLATE THE PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE BRANCH ES AT THE COST OF OTHER BRANCHES WITHOUT EFFECTING THE OVER ALL PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. THE A.O. IS ALSO RIGHT IN OBSERVING FURTHER THAT THE EX PENDITURE ALLOCATED TO AHMEDABAD OFFICE PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS NOT PERTAINING EXCLUSIVE LY FOR AHMEDABAD BRANCH. SINCE THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS EXPEN SES SEPARATELY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM A ND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS, I DONT SEE ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ACTION TAKEN 11 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) BY THE A.O. AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,65,147/- OUT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80I IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 10. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE ALRE ADY ON RECORD AND SUBSEQUENT VIEW THAT BARODA UNIT HAS NOT BEEN DEBIT ED WITH SOME EXPENSES IS ONLY A CHANGE OF OPINION. HE RELIED ON FOLLOWIN G JUDGMENTS: (A) SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 295 ITR 333 (B OM.) (B) ADANI EXPORTS LTD. V. DCIT 240 ITR 224 (GUJ.) (C) GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. 237 ITR 668 (GUJ.) (D) KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. 256 ITR 1 11. REGARDING MERIT OF THE CASE, LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN D ETAILED REASONING AS TO WHY EXPENSES ARE NOT PROPERLY ALLOCATED BY THE A SSESSEE IN VARIOUS UNITS AND THUS COMMITTED ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION . 12. AGAINST THIS, LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE ISSUES ON WHICH THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ARE NOT TOUCHED UPON IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ORIGINAL PROCE EDINGS ONLY THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WERE CONSIDERED AND ADJUSTED. THEREFORE T HERE CANNOT BE A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER HEAD OFFICE EXPENSE S WERE PROPERLY AND REASONABLY ALLOCATED TO BARODA UNIT OR NOT. IT HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOCATION OF EXPEND ITURE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND HE WAS SATISFIED ON SUCH ALLOCATION. EXPLANATION 2 OF S ECTION 147, AS AMENDED 12 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-1989, PROVIDES THAT IF ALLO WANCES UNDER THIS ACT HAVE BEEN COMPUTED EXCESSIVELY, THEN IT WILL BE THE CASE OF DEEMED ESCAPEMENT ASSESSMENT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E WE REPRODUCE SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS UNDER: 147. INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT.--IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INC OME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURS E OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LO SS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THI S SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR): PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLES S ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH A SSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE T O MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FU LLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THA T ASSESSMENT YEAR. EXPLANATION 1.--PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENC E COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISO. EXPLANATION 2.--FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, T HE FOLLOWING SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INC OME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER T HIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX; 13 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) (B) WHERE A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE INCOM E OR HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE LOSS, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF IN T HE RETURN; (C) WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT-- (I) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESS ED; OR (II) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW A RA TE; OR (III) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECT OF EXCE SSIVE RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR (IV) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR AN Y OTHER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED. 14. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE SEVERAL DECISIONS AS ABOVE WHICH ARE NOW NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE REASONS ARE AS UNDER: IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX[2007] 295 ITR 0333- [BOM BAY HIGH COURT]. IN THIS CASE, REASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A. THERE IS NO INFORMATION THAT ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPEN ED ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH LED TO HIGHER COMPUTA TION OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. IN THE CASE OF ADANI EXPORTS LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA) ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED O N THE BASIS OF OPINION OF THE AUDIT PARTY AND HON'BLE COU RT SOUGHT TO APPLY THE CONCEPT OF INFORMATION AS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 147(B). IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH LED TO HIGHER COMPUTATION OF A LLOWABLE DEDUCTION. IN GARDEN SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITEDS CASE (SUPRA), 14 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT ADJUSTMENT IN THE VALUATION IN CLOSING STOCK, BUT S UBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT WER E ERRONEOUS. THIS WAS HELD TO BE CHANGE OF OPINION. ITEMS OF AD JUSTMENT WHICH RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT ARE DIFFERENT. THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 15. IN CALVINATOR INDIA LIMITEDS CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-1988 AND HENCE WILL NOT BE APP LICABLE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS AFTER 01-04-1989 WHEN LAW HAS SUBS TANTIALLY AMENDED BY WAY OF INSERTION OF NEW PROVISION OF SECTION 147. WHERE EXPLANATION 2 PROVIDES FOR DEEMED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. 16. SINCE IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SHOWN IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY COMPUTED THEN REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS JUSTIFIED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 17. ON MERITS, WE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN WHETHER THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE OR NO T ALLOCATION OF SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS REASONABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAD GIVEN D ETAILED WORKING TO SHOW THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I WAS INCORRECT LY COMPUTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES OF HEAD OFFICE TO VARIOUS BRANCHES. THE O NLY QUESTION NOW REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHERE ESTIMATE MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS REASONABLE OR NOT? THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED 10% OF T HE EXPENSES AS NOT FOR BUSINESS OF PUBLICATION AND 90% EXPENDITURE FOR BUS INESS OF PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINES BY 4 UNITS VIZ. AHMEDABAD, BARODA, RAJKOT AND SURAT AND ALLOCATED EXPENDITURE IN PROPORTION OF SA LES AND SUBSCRIPTION. IN 15 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS REASONABLE AS NO ALTERNATIVE BASIS HAS BEEN SUGGEST ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. SO FAR AS CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80I IS CONCERNED, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE SAME IS ALSO REASONABLE AN D NO MISTAKE AS SUCH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT 10% EXPENDITURE WOULD PERTAIN TO NON PUBLICATION OF WOR K AND 90% FOR PUBLICATION WORK IS AGAIN A REASONABLE ESTIMATE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 19. AS A RESULT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TWO AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IS REASONABLE AND IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 20. ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003: REVENUES APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PRESENTATION EXPENSES OF RS.1,11,47 6/- UNDER RULE 6B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,82,259/- BEING EXPENSES NOT P ERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 21. FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,476/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 6B. THE EXPENDITU RE WAS INCURRED IN 16 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) RESPECT OF PRESENTATION ARTICLES. THE ASSESSING OF FICER INVOKED RULE 6B AND FOUND THAT AS PER AUDITORS REPORT, SUCH EXPENSES I N EXCESS OF RS.200/- EACH, AMOUNTED TO RS.1,11,476/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION WHILE REFERRING TO SE CTION 43B. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND LEARNED AR. IN OUR VIEW L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN EARLIER OCCASION HAD DELETED THE ADDITION AND IT SEEMS THAT ISSUE HAS BECOME FINAL. PRESENT LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAD ALSO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR. SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE NOT CHANGED, THERE IS NO CAS E FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ). THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 22. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,8 2,259/- BEING EXPENSES PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CREDIT NOTES ISSUED FOR RS.55,89,177/- DUR ING THE FINAL YEAR 1991- 1992 CREDIT NOTICE FOR RS.11,82,485/- PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEARS. HE ACCORDINGLY, MADE A DISALLOWANCE. ON THE OTHER HAN D LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GRO UND THAT VARIOUS PARTIES HAD MADE THE CLAIM, THOSE CLAIMS WERE SETTLED DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, CREDIT NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE THIS YEAR. HE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.11,8 2,485/-. REGARDING BALANCE OF THE SUM OF RS.1,98,775/-, LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWI NG THE METHOD OF CLAIMING/OFFERING, SHORT/EXCESS PROVISION FOR EXPEN SES IN THE YEAR OF DETERMINATION AND SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THIS PART OF TH E ADDITION ALSO. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D LEARNED DR. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. 17 ITA NO.1773/AHD/2003 ITA NO.2750/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE REASONS A RE THAT ONCE CLAIMS ARE SETTLED DURING THIS YEAR, ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THEM THIS YEAR. SIMILARLY, IF DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE METHOD AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING OR CLAIMING EXCESS PROVISIONS IN EARLIER Y EARS, THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO DISTURB THAT METHOD THIS YEAR. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE PRI NCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY. IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING/CLAIMING, EXCESS PROVISION/SHORT PROVISION S IN EARLIER YEARS, THEN THERE IS NO REASON THAT THIS METHOD BE DISTURBED TH IS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS). 25. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (T K SHARMA) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED: 31/12/2009 ANKIT* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD.