Smt. Swetalben R.Vora, Bhavnagar V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 1969/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6395 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 201; 143(2); 207; 37; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA, PLOT NO. 669, BLOCK NO. 6, MAHAVIR TENAMENTS, DERI ROAD, OPP. DERI TEMPLE, KRISHNANAGAR, BHAVNAGAR PAN: AELPV1512R (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT , CIRCLE - 1 , BHAVNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI MUDIT NAGPAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.B. PARMAR , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 09 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 10 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT S INGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 23 - 05 - 2 012 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,26,151/ - BEING 75% OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENDIT URE OF RS.9,68,201/ - MADE BY L D. AO. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE / COMMISSION OF I T A NO . 1969 / A HD/20 12 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 2 RS.9,35,000/ - PAID TO SMT. PADMABEN M. VORA MADE BY L D. AO. 3. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS C LAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE ACE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN DISALLOWING SALARY EXPENDITURE OF RS.8,00,000/ - . 5. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN INVESTOR AND NOT A TRADER IN SHARES AND THEREFORE CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 6. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ACCORDINGLY ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDIN G THAT THE GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES HELD FOR LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS CAPITAL GAIN. 7. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 8. THE LEARNED C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C/D OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 5 , 01 , 080/ - WAS FILED ON 29 TH SEP, 2008. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2001. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 25 TH MARCH, 2010 AND TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 32 , 04 , 281/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS . THE REMAINING FACT S OF THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: - GROUND NO. 1 ( C ONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7 , 26 , 151/ - BEING 75% OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9 , 68 ,2 01/ - ) 4. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9 , 68 , 201/ - IN CASH TOWARDS COMMISSION PAID TO 7 7 4 PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY ADDRESS AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS O F THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WERE PAID , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 3 COULD NOT VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED THE ADDRESSES OF THE 774 PARTIES NOR PRODUCED ANY PARTY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION/ VERIFICATION . CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXPENS ES OF RS. 9 , 68 , 201/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ( C ONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 9 , 35 , 000/ - BEING COMMISSION PAID TO SMT. P ADMAVEN M. VORA) 5. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED PAYMENT OF RS. 9,35 ,000/ - AS COMMISSION TO SMT. PADMAVEN M. VORA. ON Q UERY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE COMMISSION OF RS. 9,35,000/ - WAS PAID TO HER MOTHER IN LAW SMT P. M. VORA FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW CLIENTS . I N ORDER TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AGAINST THE HUGE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE TO HER MOTHER IN LAW SMT. P. M. VORA , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES RENDERED . HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O SUBSTANTIATE THE RENDERING OF SERVICES WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE S . THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SMT. P. M. VORA, MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 131(1) AND NOTICED THAT SHE WAS IGNORANT ABOUT THE S TOCK MARKET AND HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE IPO AND STOCK BROKING BUSINESS. SHE HA S ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS NEVER GONE OUT OF THE HOUSE AND NOT HAVING HER OWN OFFICE . SMT. P.M. VORA, MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE RENDERING OF SE RVICES AGAINST COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 9, 35,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY , THE CLAIM I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 4 OF COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIS ALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 4 ( CONFIRMING DISALL OWANCE OF SALARY EXPENSES OF RS. 8 LACS) 6. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DE BITED SALARY EXPENSES OF RS. 1 1,93,300/ - AND SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LACS AS SALARY PAYABLE UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS. ON QUERY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAIL S OF EMPLOYEES TO WHOM AMOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE A ND STATED THAT THE SAME WAS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF PERFORMANCE BONUS PAYABLE TO EMPLOYEES IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC SALARY. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE EMPLOYEES FOR VERIFICATION, HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE LEFT THE JOB AND THERE WHEREABOUTS AT PRESENT WAS NOT KNOWN. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAIL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE THE SAME WERE NOT TRACEABLE. CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LACS U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. 7. GROUND NO. 5 & 6 IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF L D. CIT(A) TREATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPI TAL G AIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, H OWEVER, AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STOCK MARKET. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 5 ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TE RM CA PITAL GAIN NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IN THE AUDIT REPORT WAS S HOWN AS TRADING, SPECULATION AND BROKING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH W AS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT ONLY, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TR EATED AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT FEW TRANSACTIONS ALMOST OF PURCHASES AND SALES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHI N 30 DAYS OF ITS PURCHASE AND ASSESSEE HA D MADE THESE TRANSACTIONS WITH T H E INTENTION OF EARING A PROFIT . T HEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CA PIT AL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 9 , 68 , 201/ - TO 7 7 4 PARTIES . T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT , RENDERING OF SERVICES , THE WHOLE PAY MENT WAS MADE IN CASH AND THE ADDRESSES OF TH E RECIPIENTS WERE NOT FURNISHED. H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT 75% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING TH E AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 7, 26,151/ - . 10. I N RESPECT OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 9,35,000/ - TO THE MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, SMT. PADMABEN M . VORA, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THAT ASESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT H ER MOTHER IN LAW HAS RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION . I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 6 11. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF OUTSTANDING SALARY EXPENSES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LACS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STA T ED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF SALAR Y EXPENSES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS , THEREFORE , THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. 12. REGARDING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF TREAT ING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 7 , 47 , 900/ - AS BUSINESS INCOME , T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE GAIN FROM SALE OF SHA R ERS WITHIN 30 DAYS AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF AL T ER NATIVE CONTENTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) . 13 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 9 , 68 , 201/ - TO 774 PARTIES , I T IS NOTICED TH A T ALL THE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE IN CASH AND ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSE E HAS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATE D THE SERVICES RENDERED BY T HE RECIPIENT OF THE COMMISSION NOR FURNISHED THE ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION PARTIES AS A RESULT THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE CONSIDER THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REASONABLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 75% OF THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9 , 69 , 201/ - CLAIMED TO BE MADE TO 774 PARTIES , THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). 14. REGARDING CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF RS. 9,35,000/ - TO SMT. PADMABEN M. VORA WHO WAS TH E MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, I T IS I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 7 OBSERVED THAT IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HER MOTHER IN LAW AGAINST WHICH SUCH HUGE COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED SMT. PADMA BEN M. VORA MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED HER STATEMENT U/S. 131(1) OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT SMT. PADMA BEN M. VORA WAS NOT HAVING ANY EXPERIENCE IN STOCK BROKING BUSINESS AND S HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT WHAT WERE SERVICES SHE HAD RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO HER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE COMMISSION COULD NOT ESTABLISH RENDERING OF SERVICES TO T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY EXPENSES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LACS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EMPLOYE ES FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT S OF SIX EMPLOYEES AND FOUND DISCREPANCIES IN THE AMOUNT OF SALARY RECEIVED BY TH EM. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS REFERRED PAGE NO. 188 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING BREAK UP OF OUTSTANDING SALARY OF 8 LACS AND ALSO REFERRED PAGE NO. 189 TO 206 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWI NG THE IDENTITY PROOF OF EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED WITH T H E ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO REF ERRED PAGE NO. 207 TO 209 AS COPIES OF STATEMENT S OF EMPLOYEES OBTAINED DURING REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 8 THEY HAVE AD MITTED THAT THEY HAVE WOR KED FOR THE ASSESSEE AS PER ASSIGNMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE A BOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OBSERVE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY SUBSTANTIATE D THE CLAIM OF OUTSTANDING SALARY EXPENSES WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES NOR THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS FULLY DISPROVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS NOT DEPLOYED ANY EMPLOYEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WILL BE REASONABLE TO RE STRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 50 % OF THE OUTSTANDING SALARY TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. REGARDING G ROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME, WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHARE HELD FOR LESS THAN 30 DAY S BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 17 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 22 - 10 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 22 /10 /2019 I.T.A NO. 1969 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO SMT. SWETALBEN R. VORA VS. DCIT 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,