Shailee Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-5(1), Baroda

ITA 1949/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6232 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Income from undisclosed sources; Question of law; Block assessment; Retraction; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO. 1949 / AHD /201 4 / ASSTT. YEAR: 20 0 6 - 20 07 M/S.SHAILEE DEVELOPERS, 19 - A, PANGHAT, GOVINDRAO PARK SOCIETY, AJWA ROAD, BARODA PAN : AAZFS 4117R VS . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1) BARODA. (APPLICANT) (RESPONENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL R SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03 / 04 / 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 / 04 /201 7 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR ASST.YEAR 2006 - 2007 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - V , BARODA , DATED 11 / 0 3 / 201 4 VIDE APPEAL NO.CAB/(A)V/287/11 - 12 ARISING OUT OF ORDER U/S 143( 3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 15/12/2011 BY ITO WARD - 5, BARODA. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 2 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN HOLDING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 AS VALID AND PER LAW . IT IS SUBMITTED BY YOUR APPELLANT THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VARIOUS APPELLATE JUDGEMENTS, SEC.147 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/ - AS THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL . IT IS SUBMITTED BY YOUR APPELLANT THAT THE SAID INCOME HAS NOT ARISEN OR ACCRUED OR RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THEREF ORE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT BOTH ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAID INCOME HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED AND TAXED IN A.Y.09 - 10 THE SAME BE DELETED. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT , ASSE SSE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS DEVELOPERS AND CIVIL CONTRACT OR . ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 96,590/ - WAS FURNISHED ON 05 /09/20 06. A SURVEY U/S . 133A OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED ON AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25/03/2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , PARTNER SHRI HEMAL K. PATEL OFFERED RS.6 LACS AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS FROM THE S ALE OF ADIT I BUNGALOWS. ASSESSMENT IN T HE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2007 - 08 WAS COMPLETED ON 31/12/2009, WHEREIN LD.ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS ALONG WITH OTHER ADDITION S . IN APPEAL, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SCHEME OF ADITI BUNGALOWS WAS COMPLETED IN A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND BASED ON THESE CONTENTIONS LD.CIT(A) DEL E TED THE ADDITION IN A.Y.2007 - 08 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER , TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y .2006 - 07. ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 3 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S . 148 OF TH E ACT. IN THE COURSE OF RE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS LD.ASSESSING OFFICER INTENDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ADITI BUNGALOWS. ASSESSEE APART FROM CHALLENGING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAIM ED TO RETRACT THE DISCLOSURE. H OWEVER, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS AND INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.6,97,590/ - 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS, BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS BO TH THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE OUTSET , LD.COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1, CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT. 7. LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A), COMPLETELY IGNORED THE ASSESSEE PLEA THAT A TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.7 6 LACS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2009 - 2010 WHICH , INTER - ALIA, INCLUDED ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS ALSO. LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME INCOME IN TH E FORM OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF ADITI BUNGALOWS AT RS.6 LACS HAS BEEN TAXED TWICE AS IT HAS ALREADY FORM ED PART OF THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX FOR A.Y.2009 - 2010 . 8. LD.COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS 2005 - 2006,2007 - 2008 & 2008 - 2009 ADJUDICATING RELATED ISSUE S IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO. 1909/ AHD/2010, PRONOUNCED ON 12/01/2017, WHEREIN ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 4 ALLEGED ADDITION FOR A.YS 2007 - 2008,2008 - 2009 & 2009 - 2010 HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THEY ARE MERELY BIFURCA TION OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.DR, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND P ERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THROUGH THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS. FIRSTLY, CHALLENGING REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT. S ECONDLY, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS CO NFIRMED BY CIT(A)S 11. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1 AND WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT PRESSED. 12. AS REGARD S TO GROUND NO.2, CHALLENGING CIT(A)S ORDER CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS MADE BY LD.ASSESSING OFFICER, WE OBSERVE THAT SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT , WERE CARRIED ON AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25/03/2009 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ASSESSEE SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.76 LACS WHICH I NCLUDED INCOME EARNED FROM PROJECTS COMPLETED IN A.Y.200 9 - 2010. LD.COUNSEL HAS C ONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A N INCOME OF RS.6 LACS DURING THE A.Y. 2006 - 2007, BUT AS PER THE RETRACTION/MODIFIED STATEMENT FILE D BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THE ALLEGED INCOME OF RS .6 LACS WAS DECLARED AS INCOME PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010, AND DUE TAXES WERE PAID THERE ON. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THEIR ORDER DATED 12/0 1/2017 FOR A.Y.2005 - 2006, 2007 - 2008 & 2008 - 2009. 13. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS REFERRED DETAILS OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.76 LAC S MADE DURING THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 WHICH HAS BEEN BIFURCATED BY ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 5 DEPARTMENT IN THREE YEARS I.E RS.54 LACS FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08, RS.6 LACS FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 AND RS.15 LACS FOR A.Y.2009 - 10. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS TOWARDS RECEIPTS FROM ADITI BUNGALOWS FORM PART OF THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.76 LAC S MADE DURING A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND THIS FACTS HAS BEEN WELL SETTLED BY TRIBUNAL ORDER, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HE LD AS FOLLOWS: 10 WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. 11. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE TWO APPELL ANTS HAS BEEN EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY OPERATIONS. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO OTHER COR ROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF S. KHADER KHAN SON HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH READS AS UNDER: - THE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, ARE AS FOLLOWS : (I) AN ADMISSI ON IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT CORRECTLY DISCLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF FACTS ; (II) IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE POWER UNDER SECTION 133A, SECTION 132(4) ENABLES THE AUTHORISED OFFICER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH EXAMINATI ON CAN ALSO BE USED IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHATEVER STATE MENT IS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A IS NOT GIVEN ANY ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 6 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFICER IS NOT AUTHORISED TO ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE ANY SWORN STA TEMENT WHICH ALONE HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS CON TEMPLATED UNDER LAW ; (IN) THE EXPRESSION 'SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMA TION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER' CONTAINED IN SECTION 158BB WOULD INCLUDE THE MATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE SURVEY O PERATION UNDER SEC TION 133 A ; (IV) THE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PRO CEEDING COULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ; AND (V) THE WORD 'MAY' USED IN SECTION 133A(3)(III) OF THE ACT, VIZ., 'RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE USEFUL FOR, OR RELEVANT TO, ANY PRO CEEDING UNDER THIS ACT' MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE MATERIALS COLLECTED AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE BY ITSELF. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 20 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 AND RS. 30 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. HOWEVER, THE SAID STATEM ENT WAS RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 2001, STATING THAT THE PARTNER FROM WHOM A STATE - MENT WAS RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A, WAS NEW TO THE MANAGEMENT AND HE COULD NOT ANSWER THE ENQUIRIES MADE AND AS SUCH, HE AGREED TO AN AD HOC ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE ADMIS - SIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE DEFECTS NOTICED DURING THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, RECOMPUTED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER WAS S ET ASIDE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND THIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE MATERIALS COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A SHALL NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. IT COULD NOT BE SAID SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE - FI RM THAT THE DIS CLOSED INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE AS LAWFUL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 7 12. THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN 352 ITR 480. 13. ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RADHE ASSOCIATES 218 TAXMANN.COM 97 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 3. WE HAVE HEARD MS. PAURAMI SHETH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AND CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ITAT AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE AO. AT THE OUTSET IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED THAT THOUGH IN THE ORDER, THE AO HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE IS CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF 'ON - MONEY ', THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED AS TO WHAT WERE THOSE CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. BY MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO HAS COME TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1,45,37,500/ - AS 'ON - MONEY' WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE - CUM - SHOP AS WELL AS THE SHOPS IN 'GANESH PLAZA'. IT APPEARS THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS SOLELY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE AS SESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED AND THE QUESTION ANSWERS RECORDED WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF THE WORKING PARTNER ON 01.05.1996. 3.1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. BHUVANENDRAN (SUPRA); THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALAJI WIRE (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAULIKKUMAR K. SHAH [2008] 307 ITR 137 4. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ITAT AND THE AFORESAID THREE DECISIONS, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ITAT IN DELETING ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 8 THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,3 7,500/ - AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS 'ON - MONEY' ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IS ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ON FACTS. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, PRESENT TAX APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 14. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORE - STATED DECISIONS SHOW THAT ANY DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CA SES OF THE AFOREMENTIONED TWO APPELLANTS DO NOT STAND AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE DISCLOSED AMOUNT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND HAVE PAID TAXES ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THESE RETURNS SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FAIRLY CONCEDED TO THIS. SETTING ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS FROM A.Y. 2006 - 07,2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAIL EE DEVELOPERS AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS FROM A.Y. 2005 - 06, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SWARAJ CONSTRUCTION. THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN A.Y. 2009 - 10 OF RS. 76 LACS IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAILEE DEVELOPERS AND RS. 50 LACS IN THE CASE OF M/S. SWARAJ CONSTR UCTION WILL STAND. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 15. BEFORE CLOSING THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING OTHER GROUNDS IN THE IMPUGNED APPEALS, THEREFORE, ALL OTHER GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED ITA NO.1949 /AHD/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2006 - 07 9 14 . RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDI NATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, DIRECTING LD.ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELE TE ADDITION FOR A.YS 2006 - 07 TO 2008 - 09 AS THE DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE IN A.Y.2009 - 10 AT RS.76 LACS. W E AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS STANDS DULY DECLARED BEING PART OF THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE FOR A.Y.2009 - 10, AND WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS. 15 . IN T HE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4TH APRIL , 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORA D ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY AHMEDABAD; DATED 04 / 04 /2017 MANISH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , / DR, ITAT, 6. / GUARD FILE .