Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1859/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5983 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGADISH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-2010) AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD., SARABHAI CAMPUS, GORWA ROAD, BARODA 390023 APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA RESPONDENT PAN: AABCA6893K /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI JAGADISH, CIT D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 08.03.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 008-09 & 2009-10 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-I, BARODAS SEPARATE ORDER S; BOTH DATED 23.05.2016, IN CASES NOS. CAB-1/162/14-15 & CAB-1/165/14-15, PA RTLY AFFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENALTIES OF RS .5,33,00,000/- & RS.15,60,00,000/-; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S . 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLE NGES CORRECTNESS OF THE ABOVE IMPUGNED PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS UPHELD IN THE TWO LOWER APPELLATE ORDERS FORMING SUBJECT MATTER O F ADJUDICATION BEFORE US. IT EMERGES THAT THE MAIN ISSUE LEADING TO IMPOSITIO N OF THE ABOVE IDENTICAL PENALTY IS THAT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF ITS IMMOV ABLE PROPERTIES (CAPITAL ASSETS SOLD) AS ON 01.04.1981 IN THE TWO IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEARS. BOTH PARTIES INFORM US IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT FOR MER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 INVOLVES ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL LAND COMPRISED IN CITY SURVEY NO. 383, ADMEASURING 28430.58 SQ.MTRS. SITUATED AT WADI, BAR ODA WHEREAS THE LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR COMPRISES SUCH LANDS I.E. THE FORME R ONE IS IN THE VERY SURVEY NO.383/PART, SURVEY NO. 54/A MEASURING 33128 .45SQ.MTRS. AND THE SECOND PROPERTY THEREIN MEASURES 6351.21SQ.MTRS. IN THE VERY SURVEY OF MOUJE WADI WITH 57959SQ.MTRS. IN SURVEY NO.1138 OF SUBHANPURA MOUJE. BOTH COUNSELS SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO QUARREL BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR AS SALE PRICE OF THE ABOVE MENTIO NED LANDS ARE CONCERNED. IT IS THEIR CASE THAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTI ES PERTAINS TO COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PROPERTIES AS ON 01.04.1981 . BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL INFORM US THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOLLOW FORMER ASSESSMENT YEARS REASONING IN LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUANTUM AS W ELL AS PENALTY MATTER SINCE INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUE ARISING FROM IDENTICAL BAC KDROP OF FACTS. WE THUS TREAT ASSESSEES FORMER APPEAL ITA NO.1859/AHD/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS THE LEAD CASE. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MANUFACTURES DRUGS AND PHA RMACEUTICALS. IT FILED RETURN ON 31.03.2010 STATING LOSS OF RS.24,14 ,47,411/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY THEREAFTER. HE CAME ACROS S THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE ABOVESTATED LANDS SALE EXECUTED IN LIEU OF SALE CON SIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.51,13,77,104/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A GO VERNMENT APPROVED VALUERS REPORT IN RESPECT OF ITS LAND SOLD TAKING COST OF ACQUISITION @RS.2050/- PER SQ.MTR. AS ON 01.04.1981 THEREBY ARR IVING AT ITS VALUE TO BE OF ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 3 - RS.5,82,82,689/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TERMED THE SAME AS NOT CORRECT SINCE IT DID NOT INDICATE THE PLOT OF LAND CONCERN AS COM MERCIAL IN NATURE IN SPECIFIC WORDINGS. HE THEREFORE SUMMONED ASSESSEES VALUER FOR NECESSARY CROSS EXAMINATION. THIS FOLLOWED NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES. THE ABOVESTATED VALUER APPEARS TO HAVE TURNED UP ON 29.12.2010. THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY THEN SOUGHT TO KNOW THE RELEVANT BASIS OF RS.2050/- PER SQ.MTR. RATE AS ON 01.04.1981 ALONGWITH SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS. THIS VA LUER THEREAFTER DID NOT PRODUCE HIMSELF FOR FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION EXCEP T FOR REITERATING CONTENTS OF HIS REPORT SUBMITTED EARLIER. THIS MADE THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO PROCEED WITH THE IMPUGNED VALUATION ISSUE AFTER TAKING SUPP ORT OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. HE FIRST OF ALL CONSIDERED A LOAN TRANSA CTION BETWEEN A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND ITS CUSTOMER DATED 18.01.1984 IN REVENUE S URVEY NO. 360 HAVING AREA OF 2000SQ.FT. THE SAID BANK HAD TAKEN VALUE O F THE ABOVE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.360 TO BE RS.375/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAN CTIONING BANK LOAN FACILITY. 4. IT IS EVIDENT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12. 2010 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THREE SALE INS TANCES IN REVENUE SURVEY NOS. 398 STATING RATES OF THE LAND IN QUESTION BETW EEN RS.198/- TO RS.206/- PER SQ.MTR. IN RESIDENTIAL AREA. HE FURTHER CONSID ERED TWO SALE DEEDS DATED 10.02.1982 AND 20.09.1982 IN A SO CALLED POSH LOCAL ITY SAYAJIGANJ INDICATING VALUE BETWEEN RS.75.43PER SQ.MTR. AND RS .353.96 PER SQ.MTR.; ONCE AGAIN INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THEN CALLED FOR STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITYS OPINION TO CONCLUDE THA T INDUSTRIAL LANDS DO HAVE LESSER PRICES THAN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPE RTIES. HE THEREAFTER TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL THIS MATERIAL TO REDUCE THE RATE I N QUESTION FROM RS.2050/- TO RS.250/- PER SQ.MTR. AS ON 01.04.1981 RESULTING IN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADDITION OF RS.44,80,56,580/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FURTHER INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALLEGING BOTH CONCEALM ENT AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 4 - 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THIS VALUATION ISSUE IN APP EAL. THE CIT(A) ENHANCED ASSESSING OFFICERS RATE OF RS.250/- PER S Q.MTR. AS ON 01.04.1981 TO RS.550/- PER SQ.MTR. IN HIS QUANTUM LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS ITA NO. 2786 /AHD/2012 AND ITA NO.35/AHD/2013 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH THEREIN ENHANCED THE ABOVE VALUATION FROM RS.550/- PER SQ.MTR. TO RS .980/- PER SQ.MTR. IN ORDER DATED 11.04.2016. THIS ORDER FORMS PART OF THE CAS E RECORD AT FROM PAGE 703 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO 728. LEARNED CO-ORDINATE BENC H THEREIN OBSERVES AS UNDER: 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, A N ALTERNATE PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 1,940/- PER SQ.MTR. MAY BE ADOPTED BEING THE AVERAGE OF TWO DIFFERENT RATES AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND AND THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR REPORT FROM DVO AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE THEIR OWN ESTIMATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS INCUM BENT UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR REPORT FROM DVO FOR ASCERTAIN ING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET, IN THE EVENT, IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT WITHOUT CALLING FROM THE DVO'S REPORT, THE AO HAS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT RATE AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ADOP TED A DIFFERENT RATE. THE BASIS FOR ADOPTING A DIFFERENT RATE BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS T HAT IN THE CASE OF 3RD PARTY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED A RATE OF RS.533 PER SQ.MT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADO PTING THE RATE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A REPORT FROM AN EXPERT, I.E. GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. THE SALE INSTANCES AS CONSIDERED BY THE AO ARE PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND SUCH VALUATION CANNOT BE ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF THE INDUSTRIAL LAND. THE ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE DEPENDS ON VARIOUS FACTORS; NA MELY, LOCATION OF PROPERTY, NATURE OF PROPERTY, USAGE OF PROPERTY AND ALSO FUTU RE PROSPECTS OF SUCH PROPERTY. AS PER THE GOVERNMENT VALUER, THE PROPERTY HAS POTE NTIAL OF APPRECIATION AND OF COMMERCIAL USAGES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY M ATERIAL ON RECORD FOR REBUTTING THIS CONTENTION OF THE VALUATION. THEREFO RE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT W OULD BE PROPER THAT AN ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE VALUER IN EARLIER YEAR, HAD ADOPTED A H IGHER RATE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, HE ADOPTED A LOWER RATE . THEREFORE, THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, CANNOT B E ADOPTED AS THE VALUATION IS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF POTENTIAL OF THE LAN D BUT NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL PREVALENT RATE IN THE CLOSE VICINITY. THE RE VENUE HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, DEMONSTRATING THE PREVALENT MAR KET RATE AS ON 01/04/1981 IN THE CLOSE VICINITY OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.250/- PER SQ.MTR . AND THE LD.CIT(A) ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.551/- PE R SQ.MTR., WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/198 1 AT RS.1940/- PER SQ.MTR. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE FAIRLY INFERRED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD BE AT RS.980/- ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 5 - PER SQ.MTR TO RS.1050/- PER SQ.MTR. TAKING THE AVER AGE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT A COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.980/- PER SQ.MTR. CALLING FOR REPORT FROM EXPERT AT HIS STAGE WOULD FURTHER DELAY THE DISPOSAL OF THE M ATTER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD, WE DIRECT THE AO TO TAKE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS .980/- PER SQ.MTR AND RECOMPUTE THE GAIN. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTY ALLOWED. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTION P ERTAINS TO ASSESSEES GROUP COMPANY M/S. SYNBIOTICS RAISING THE VERY ISSU E IN ITA NO. 2624/AHD/2012. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE SAID FINDINGS HA VE BEEN ADOPTED MUTATIS MUTANDI IN THE INSTANT ASSESSEES A BOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS. 6. WE NOW COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE SAME IN HIS ORDER DATED 28.03 .2014. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE STRONGLY CONTESTED THE IMPUGNED PEN ALTY SHOW CAUSE ALLEGING BOTH CONCEALMENT AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY FILING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER QUOTED THE ABOVE NARRATED QUANTUM DEVELOPMENTS TO CONCLUDE THA T THE ASSESSEES ACT AND CONDUCT IN ADOPTING MARKET VALUE OF ITS LAND SOLD A S ON 01.04.1981 IN QUESTION AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS RESULTING IN CONCEALMENT OF ITS INCOME IN THE NATURE OF CONSEQUE NTIAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO BE COMPUTED BY ADOPTING THE ABOVE RATE AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. HE THUS IMPOSED THE PENALTY UNDER CHALLENGE OF RS.5 ,33,00,000/- @ 100% OF THE ALLEGED CONCEALED INCOME. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER M ODIFIES THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF THIS TRIBUNALS QUANTUM FINDINGS (SUPRA). THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES S TRONGLY REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF T HE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADDIT ION BEING RE-COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCING ASSESSEES RATE FROM RS.2050/- PER SQ.MTR. TO RS.250/- PER SQ.MTR. ONLY AS ON 01.04.1981 AS MODIF IED IN QUANTUM LOWER APPEAL AS WELL AS IN THIS TRIBUNAL. THERE CAN HARD LY BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 6 - SETTLED LAW THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AR E SEPARATE WHEREIN EACH AND EVERY ADDITION MADE IN COURSE OF FORMER DOES NO T IPSO FACTO RESULT IN LEVY OF LATTER PENAL ACTION. HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISI ON IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS CASE 322 ITR 158 HAS VERY MUCH CLEAR ED THE AIR SO FAR AS THIS LEGAL ASPECT IS CONCERNED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ANY CASE HAS GROSSLY OVERRATED THE ABOVE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 IN ORDER TO DRAW MAXIM UM INDEXATION BENEFIT SO AS TO MINIMIZE ITS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT. HE THEN SEEKS TO REFER TO THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUERS REPORT IN QUESTION (SUPRA). THE SAID REPORT FORMS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM P AGE 462 TO 466. THE REVENUES ARGUMENT IN LINE WITH ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS IS THAT THE ASSESSEES VALUER INTENTIONALLY DID NOT HIGHLIGHT T HE FACT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION TO BE INDUSTRIAL AT PAGE 463 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THIS PLEA TO BE ENTIRELY MISCONCEIVED AS THE SAID VALUER MAKES I T CRYSTAL CLEAR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THAT ASSESSEES LAND SOLD IS SIT UATED IN MIXED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA. HE THEREAFTER CERTIFIES IN TH E NEXT PAGE THAT THERE ARE NO SALE INSTANCES COMMENSURATING WITH THE LAND SOLD ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATION, SIZE, SHAPE AND OTHER FACTORS. THIS REPORT VERY WE LL CONSIDERS ALL OTHER ADVANTAGEOUS FACTORS OF CIVIC AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL AMENITIES TO ARRIVE AT THE VALUATION IN QUESTION CLAIMED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER REDUCED THIS VALUA TION BY CITING SALE INSTANCES OF THE RELEVANT ERA I.E. IN THE YEARS 198 1 AND 1982 TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE ASSESSEES RATE OF RS.2050/- PER SQ.MTR. TO RS.250/- ONLY. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED EVEN A S INGLE SALE DEED PERTAINING TO ANY COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PLOT AS IS THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT LIS. WE FURTHER REPEAT THAT THE SAID REDUC ED RATE STANDS ENHANCED TO RS.550/- PER SQ.MTR. IN QUANTUM LOWER APPEAL AND TO THAT @RS.980/- PER SQ.MTR. IN THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). IT IS THUS CRYST AL CLEAR THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE AT EQUAL FAULT IN EVALUATING THE ITA NOS. 1859 & 1860/AHD/2016 (AMBALAL SARABHAI ENT ERPRISES LTD. VS. DCIT) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 7 - LAND IN QUESTION. WE THUS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR SUCH AN ACT AND CONDUC T OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY TERMING IT AS AN INSTANCE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY DI RECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.5.33CRORES AS PARTLY CONFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS IN MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.1859/AHD/20 16. 8. SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN ASSESSEES LATTER APPEAL ITA NO.1860/AHD/2016 INVOLVING PENALTY AMOUNT OF RS.15. 60CRORES AS PARTLY AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (SUPRA) . 9. THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 05/05/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0