Smt. Ushaben Atulbhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 197/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8020 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, ,LK ,LK,LK ,LK- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 197/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH, C/O. JOHRI & SONS GENERAL BANK CHAMBERS BUILDINGS, OPP: MUNICIPAL MARKET, C.G. ROAD, AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAAB 0580 D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 08 /06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/ 06 /2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-10/ACIT.CIR-2(2)/721/14-15 DATED 25/10/20 16 ARISING IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 1961 (HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATE D 24/09/2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 25-10-2016 FOR A. Y. 2012-13 BY CIT(A)-10, ABAD, UPHOLDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE INCOME OF RS.8,19,964/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THE AO HAD IMPOSED PENALTY ALLEGING BOTH THE DEFAULTS OF CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THOUGH THE SAME IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE DEFAULTS. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY IS ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL A S HELD IN CASE OF NEW SORATHIYA ENGINEERING (243 ITR -----)(G UJ). 1.3 THE LD. AO HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FUR NISHED AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD WILLFULLY AND DELI BERATELY NOT SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE EXTENT OF CAPIT AL GAINS OF RS. 8,19,964/-AND THEREBY CONFIRMING PENALTY TO THA T EXTENT. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COMMITTED DEFAULT U/S. 271(1)(C) IN R ESPECT OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,19,96 4/- AND THEREBY LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.5,42,107/-. 3.1 THE LD. AO HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED, IN NOT APPRE CIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY AND BEFORE DETECTION OFFE RED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SO THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT U/S. 271(1)(C). IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.5,42, 107/- MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE DELETED. ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPOSITION OF TH E PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING HER INCOME FROM REMUNERA TION AS DIRECTOR IN JOHRI SONS JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. AS WELL AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS SOLD A PROPERTY FO R THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,00,000/- ONLY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 22-03- 2012. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY WA S VALUED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE AT RS.44,89,249/- ONLY. ACCORDIN GLY, THE AO WORKED OUT A LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.28,09,213 /- AFTER TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.44,89,249/- ONLY. AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN, T HEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR RS.28,09,213/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN ITS ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 19-03- 2015 ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO SHOW-CAUSED THE ASSESSEE U/S 2 74 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) VIDE DATED 19-03-2015 FOR LEVYING THE PEN ALTY. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO IT SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEAL ED HER INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - AND LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR RS.5,42,107/- BEING 100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED . 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARN ED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE, I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR INACCURATE FURNISHING PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THERE WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR WILLFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL THE CAPITAL GAIN. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR TREATING THE STAMP VALUE AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SH E HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS.25,00,000/- AND CAPITAL GAIN NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT BY SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,00,000/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS DESIROUS OF INVESTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,00,000/- IN THE BONDS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM THE AO AGREES TO OFFER THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO IN PART BY OBSERVING AS U NDER: DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BE EN STATED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CAPITAL GAINS IS ON ACCOUNT ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - OF SALES CONSIDERATION AND THE VALUATION AS PER 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF 50C VALUATION IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,89,249/- A ND NOT RS.28,09,213/- AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT . ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ARE ON THE ISSUE OF VALUATION AS PER SE CTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSIONS WHATSOEV ER FOR NON- DISCLOSURE OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,19,964/- IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT WOULD NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE PENALTY LEVI ED BY THE AO ON AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,19,964/- IS CONFIRMED. THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO CALCULATE THE PENALTY OF RS.8,19,964/- WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE PENALTY ON BALANCE AMOUNT IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ARGUMENT THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY HOLDING THE DEFAULT ON BOTH THE COU NTS I.E. FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SAME IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON BOTH THE COUNTS. MOREOVER, THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY ONLY ON ONE COUNT I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS B EEN LEVIED BY THE AO ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF NOT OFFERING THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 8, 19,964/- AND THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.8,250/- WHEREAS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON RS. 19,8 9,249/-BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND THE SALES CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED I N THIS ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF 50C VALUATION AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS, THE PENALTY IS SUSTAINED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT IN NOT OFFERING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE CONSI DERATION OF RS. 25.00 LAKHS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HAS GIVEN A C LEAR CUT FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME DESPITE THE VE RY-WELL FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CAPITAL ASSET DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY AND DELIB ERATELY DID NOT SHOW LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN INCOME 'WITH AN INTENTION TO CONCEAL I NCOME ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - ONLY'. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CLEAR CUT FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE PENALTY IS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME A S FAR AS THE INCOME OF RS. 8,19 , 964/- FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ORIGINAL S ALE CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY IS CONFIRMED TO E XTENT OF RS.8,19,964/-. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE PENALTY AMOUNT ACCORDINGLY. THE PENALTY IS DELETED ON AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,89,249/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS PRE SECTIO N 50C OF THE ACT AND SALES CONSIDERATION AND CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 8,2 50/- AS DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE GROUN D OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS LEVI ED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY SPE CIFIC CHARGE. AS SUCH THE AO IN PARA NO.4 HAS DRAWN ITS CONCLUSION B Y LEVYING BOTH THE CHARGES I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT PEN ALTY WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE CANNOT BE LEVIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED FROM THE PENALTY EVEN THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER BOTH THE CHARGES IN HIS PENALTY ORDER . THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AU THORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271 (1)(C) W ITHOUT MENTIONING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE IN ITS PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/12/2015, WHETHER, IT WAS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PENALTY ORDER I S REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY WAY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS W ELL AS CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NO T LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AS MANDATED U/S 271 (1)(C) O F THE ACT. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SNITA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. ASSISTANT CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 42 TAXMANN.COM 54 HAS HELD T HAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SPECIFIC C HARGE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 9. REGARDING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS AMBIVALENT REGARDING UNDER WHICH HEAD THE PENALTY W AS BEING IMPOSED NAMELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, WE MAY RECORD TH AT THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID ORDER IN ITIATION OF PENALTY ON BOTH COUNTS, IN THE ULTIMATE ORDER OF PENALTY TH AT HE PASSED, HE CLEARLY HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS SUSTAINED IN V IEW OF THE FACT THAT ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 8 - THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. THUS INSOFAR AS FINAL ORDER OF PENALTY WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CLEAR AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN LIGHT OF THIS, WE MAY PERUSE THE DECISION OF THIS C OURT IN CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING WORKS (SUPRA). IN THE SAID DECISION, TH E DIVISION BENCH CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' MA Y BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE FOR PENALTY, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETH ER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER AN Y INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY TH EM. IF NO SUCH CLEAR CUT FINDING IS REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY, PENA LTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH IN FINAL CONCLUSION THE AUTH ORITY HAD RECORDED THAT 'I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL HAVE TO BE S AID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND/OR THAT IT HAD FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME.' IT WAS IN THIS RESPECT THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT 'NOW THE LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' MAY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE AS TO PENALTY ORDER OR FRAMING OF CHARGE IN A CRIMI NAL CASE OR A QUASI- CRIMINAL CASE, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE IAC TO COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF S UCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH CLEAR CUT F INDING WAS REACHED BY THE IAC AND, ON THAT GROUND ALONE, THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE IAC WAS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN.' 7. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC CHARGE IN ITS PENALTY ORDERS WHETHER IT WAS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND C ONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.197/AHD/2017 SMT. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 9 - AS WE HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO & CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT-A ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND, I.E. NO SPEC IFIC CHARGE HAS BEEN INVOKED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLIN ED TO REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F ASSESSEE RAISED ON MERITS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/06/2018 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/06/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD