The ACIT,(OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Greendiam Exim Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1880/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0608 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD VS M/S. GREENDIAM EXIM LTD, 303-305, SETU COMPLEX, OFF C G ROAD, NR SHILP BUILDING, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-9 PAN : AACCG 0439 S / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.S. BHATI WITH SHRI A.S. BHATI, ARS / DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/09/2016 / O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABA D DATED 23.05.2011 FOR AY 2008-2009. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,18,088/- MADE U/S 68 BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BORROWED FUND FROM DEPOSITOR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN S AMOUNTING TO RS.2,08,18,088/- FROM ONE M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE, AN ALLEGED ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 2 PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF ONE MR. VINAY KASHIRAM AG ARWAL. TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE C REDITOR, SUMMONS U/S 131 DATED 10.08.2010 WERE ISSUED. ON PERUSAL OF P&L A/C., BALANCE SHEET AND TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE SAID M/S. HANUMAN ENTER PRISE, LD. AO FOUND THAT IT DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO ADVANCE SU CH HUGE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 MR. VIN AY DEPOSED THAT PAYMENTS OWED TO HIS CREDITOR NAMELY GOHIL PACKAGIN G WAS STOPPED IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSE E. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THIS REPLY AND AGAIN ISSUED A SHOW-C AUSE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2010 IN THIS BEHALF. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED TH AT IT HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN TERMS OF SEC. 68 INASMUCH AS THE IDENTITY O F M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE WAS ESTABLISHED, GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE PROPRIETOR AND THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED THROUG H BANKING CHANNEL FROM THE SAID CONCERN. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION U/S 68 WA S CALLED FOR. THE LD. AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES REPLY ON FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS:- I) THE INCOME OF M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE WAS MERELY RS .4.28 LACS AND THE CAPITAL OF THE PROPRIETOR WAS RS.8.25 LACS. II) THE TRANSACTIONS ABOUT THE TURNOVER OF M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE DID NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE INASMUCH AS EVEN THE ROU TINE EXPENSES LIKE LABOUR CHARGES, GODOWN RENT, FREIGHT ETC., WHICH WE RE ESSENTIAL FOR TRADE OF GOODS, WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE RELEVANT A /C STATEMENTS AND IT WAS A CREATION OF PAPER WORK. III) IN THE STATEMENT, MR. VINAY K. AGARWAL HAS DEPOSED THAT THE PAYMENTS OF HIS CREDITOR NAMELY GOHIL PACKAGING WAS STOPPED AND THAT AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUN T, TILL DATE OF ASSESSMENT, WAS NOT PAID TO GOHIL PACKAGING. THIS WAS FOUND TO BE UNBELIEVABLE TO REASONING, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH S URROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HUMAN CONDUCT AND PREPONDERANCE O F POSSIBILITIES ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 3 INASMUCH AS NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WILL STOP THE PA YMENT OF A SUPPLIER TO ADVANCE SUCH LOAN TO THE PARTY WITH WHO M HE DID NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT ASSOCIATION OR EARLIER ACQUAINTANCE. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT WAS HELD THAT M/S. HANUMAN ENTE RPRISE DID NOT HAVE THE GENUINE CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE IMPUGN ED LOAN, WHICH WAS BASED ON UNRELIABLE EXPLANATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL W HERE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT:- I) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. NO DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS WERE OBSERVED BY THE AUD ITORS; II) M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND IT ALSO MAINTAINS THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT HAD CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE FACT OF GIVING THE LOAN AND THE EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PA ID BY STOPPING THE PAYMENT TO GOHIL PACKAGING; III) NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO C ONTROVERT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE BASED ON DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- ROHINI BUILDERS VS. DCIT, (2002) 76 TTJ 521 CIT VS. SHAILESH RASIKLAL MEHTA, (2009) 176 TA XMAN 270 (GUJ.) VTR MARKETING VS. ACIT, (2005) 1 SOT 205 (KOL) SK JAIN VS. ITO, (2004) 2 SOT 579 (AGRA) CIT VS. DIAMOND PRODUCTS LTD, (2009) 21 DTR (DE L) 9 MOGI PRINTING WORKS VS. ITO, (2005) 97 TTJ (JD) 5 73 ITO VS. ARIHANT X-RAY & SONOGRAPHY CLINIC (P) L TD, (2007) 111 TTJ (AHD) 528 5. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 4 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS, ASSESSMEN T ORDER AS WELL AS WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I AM INCLIN ED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT APPELLANT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SHOW SO URCE OF SOURCE. IT IS THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED COPY OF ACCOU NT SHOWING NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DEPOSITOR SO ALSO CONFIRMAT ION AND PAN OF SUCH DEPOSITOR. THE A.O. HAD ALSO SUMMONED THE DEPOSITOR AND THE DEPOSITOR HAD ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE AO TO GIVE STATEMENT AND TO FURNISH REQUIRED DETAILS. IT IS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITOR IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED HAD ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. T HE DEPOSITOR HAD ALSO SHOWN THE SOURCE OF GIVING SUCH LOAN. IN NUTSHELL, THE DEPOSITOR HAD ACCEPTED TO HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE APPELLANT AND CONFIRMED A LL THE TRANSACTION, WHICH WERE ENTERED INTO THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. TH E A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO COUNTER THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLA NT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WAS NOT GEN UINE. ONCE THE DEPOSITOR HAD ACCEPTED THE GIVING OF LOAN, IT WAS FOR THE A.O. TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GENUINE BY BRINGI NG ON RECORD COGENT ADVERSE MATERIAL IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HA S NOT DONE ANY FURTHER IN THE MATTER. AS REGARDS SOURCE, THE DEPOSITOR HAD CLEARLY SHOWN THE SOURCE AND THE A.O. FAILED TO COUNTER THE CONTENTION. IT IS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEREFORE IF THE D EPOSITOR HAD CARRIED OUT ANY UNLAWFUL ACT, THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO TAKE ANY AC TION AGAINST HIM BUT THE PERSON WHO HAS ACCEPTED LOAN CAN NOT BE PENALIZED. THE VARIOUS DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ALSO SUPPORT ITS CASE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL DECISIONS, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MA DE OF RS.2,08,18,088/-. THE APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY GETS RELIEF OF RS.2,08,18,088 /- 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT LD. AO HAS DEMON STRATED THAT THE SAID CREDITOR NAMELY M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE WAS A PAPER-BOOK ENTITY AND THERE WAS NO VERACITY IN ITS ALLEGED BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, DEALINGS OR CREDITWORTHINESS. ONCE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DID N OT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE EST ABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. 7.1 WITH SUCH A BUSINESS WHERE THERE IS NEITHER ANY OPENING STOCK NOR CLOSING STOCK, IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT M/S. HANUMAN ENTERPRISE WILL STOP THE PAYMENT TO ITS SUPPLIER IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE MON EY TO AN UNKNOWN PERSON, I.E., THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS GROSSLY AGAINS T THE SURROUNDING ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 5 CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT AND PREPONDERANCE OF P OSSIBILITIES AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL, 241 ITR 801 (SC). 7.2 LD. CIT(A) HAS SOLELY RELIED ON THE PAN OF THE DEPOSITOR AND IT DETAILS AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED H IS ONUS BY FURNISHING THESE SCRATCHY DETAILS AND THE AO CANNOT EXAMINE SO URCE OF SOURCE. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE AO IS AN INVESTIGATION OFFICER A ND WHEN SOME DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THE AO HAS AMPLE POWERS TO ENQUIRE AND EXAMINE WHETHER THE PAPERS REFLECT CORRECTNESS OR NOT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF NAVODAYA CASTLE (P) LTD VS. CIT, [2015] 230 TAXMAN 268 (SC), HOLDIN G THAT PAN, CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, ETC. WERE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE CREDITOR WHEN THERE WAS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT IT WAS A PAPER- BOOK COMPANY AND NOT A GENUINE INVESTOR. 7.3 FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HONBLE SUPREME C OURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA, [2007] 210 CTR 20 (S C), HOLDING AS UNDER:- THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARRIVED AT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DOUBTFUL NATURE OF T HE TRANSACTION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SUMS WERE FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE TRANSACTIONS THOUGH APPARENT WERE HELD TO BE NOT REAL ONE. MAY BE THE MONEY CAME BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUES A ND PAID THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTION BUT THAT ITSELF IS O F NO CONSEQUENCE. [PARA 23] 7.4 IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO WAS EXAMINI NG THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON ITS OWN EXAM INING SOURCE OF SOURCE. IF THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE PARTICULAR SOURCE AND THE EVIDENCE ABOUT ITS CLAIM OF GENUINENESS, IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT THE AO SHOULD S TOP HIS INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF EXAMINING SOURCE OF SOURCE AS HELD BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS CONTENDED BY LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 6 ITS BURDEN AND THE MERE SHAKY PAPER WORK HAS NO LEG S TO STAND. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA CASTL E HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT MERE FILING OF PAPERS WILL NOT AMOUNT TO DISCH ARGE OF ONUS, IF ON RECORD THERE IS MATERIAL LEADING TO ADVERSE INFERENCE. THE PAPERS CANNOT BE RELIED ON FACE VALUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION DID NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE HELD HE HAS DISCHARGED ONUS IN TERMS OF S EC. 68. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REJOINDER, RELI ED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- A) HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. APEX THERM PACKAGING P. LTD IN TAX APPEAL NO.1070 OF 201 3, HOLDING THAT IF THE PARTICULARS OF THE CREDITORS IN TERMS OF ADD RESS, NAME, PAN NUMBER, COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE SHE ET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AND COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME I N RESPECT OF ALL THE CREDITORS ARE FURNISHED, THEN THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF LAW ARISES IF THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED BY ITAT. B) CIT VS. DIAMOND PRODUCTS LTD, (2009) 21 DTR 009 (DELHI), HOLDING THAT IF THE CREDITORS ARE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME -TAX AND COPIES OF RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ARE FILED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN IN TERMS OF SECT ION 68. C) DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF A CIT VS. M/S. DISHA CONSTRUCTION IN ITA NO.5055/MUM/2011 & 4992/MUM/201 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THUS, CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS AND THE AO HAS NOT BROU GHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA VING DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 7 ONUS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PER FECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 9. THE LD. DR, IN REPLY, CONTENDS THAT THE LD. AO R AISED VARIOUS ISSUES ON THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, THE PRIMARY ONUS WAS EFFECTIVELY REBUTTED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE NEITH ER BEFORE THE LD. AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE ITAT HAS ADDRESSED THE SERIOUS CONCERNS RAISED BY THE LD. AO ABOUT THE VERACITY AND GENUINE NESS OF THE DOCUMENTS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA C ASTLE (P) LTD (SUPRA) HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT MERE FILING OF THE PAPER WIL L NOT AMOUNT TO DISCHARGE OF BURDEN; THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF AO MAY BE RESTOR ED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. AS THE FACTS EMERGE FROM THE RECORD, THE LD. AO RAISED VARIOUS I SSUES, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREON IS CONTRARY TO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, NORMAL BUSINESS CONDUCT AND PREPONDERANCE OF POSSIBILITIES AS PROPOUNDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL, 241 ITR 801 (SC). FROM THE RECORD, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE, EXCEP T FILING SOME PAPERS AND IT RECORD, DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ADDRESS THE SERIOUS FLAWS RAISED BY THE LD. AO ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF CLAIM. SECTI ON 68 CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE INITIAL ONUS TO BE ON ASSESSEE AND IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED, SAME IS CONVEYED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE ONUS SH IFT ON ASSESSEE TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO. IN THIS CASE, AFTER DISCHARGING OF INITIAL ONUS, LD. AO RAISED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, ITS VERACITY AND GENUINENESS. THESE C ONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ADVERT ING TO THESE CRUCIAL FACTS HAS GONE ON A TANDEM TO HOLD THAT THE SOURCE OF SOU RCE CANNOT BE EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE AO IN TENDED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM CANVASSED THE ASSESSEE HIM SELF. THE ASSESSEE DID ITA NO. 1880/AHD/2011 ACIT VS. GEENDIRAM EXIM PVT LTD AY : 2008-09 8 NOT ENDEAVOUR TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE ON IT S OWN. THE LD. AO IS AN INVESTIGATION OFFICER AND IF THE ASSESSEE FILES SOM E DOCUMENTS, IT IS WITHIN THE INVESTIGATION POWER OF THE AO TO RAISE QUESTION S ON THOSE DOCUMENTS. IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AMOUNTING TO EXPLORING THE SOU RCE OF SOURCE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MEET WITH THE REBUTTAL OF THE LD. AO AS ENSHRINED IN SECTION 68 THUS THE O NUS WHICH SHIFTED TO ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA CAST LE (P) LTD (SUPRA) AND P. MOHANAKALA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO THE APPRECIATE THE ISSUE PROPERLY AND GAVE THE RELIEF ON UN JUSTIFIED REASONING WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. CONS EQUENTLY, HIS ORDER IS REVERSED AND THAT OF AO IS RESTORED. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/09/2016 *BIJU T. / 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