Adani Exports Ltd, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2024/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9826 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VASUNDHARA UPMANYU
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 80HHC; 234B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 20 24 AND 2327 / AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD I BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : R P TOLANI AND PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. 2024/ AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002 - 03 ADANI EXPORTS LIMITED . .. ....... APPELLANT [PAN: AABCA2804L ] VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AHMEDABAD ......RESPONDENT I. T.A. NO. 2327/ AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002 - 03 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AHMEDABAD ..........APPELLANT VS ADANI EXPORTS LIMITED ......RESPONDE NT [PAN: AABCA2804L ] APPEARANCES BY S N SOPARKAR FOR THE ASSESSEE VASUNDHARA UPMANYU FOR THE RESPONDENT ORDER RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 21 , 2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 20 , 2016 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4 TH AUGUST 2005 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S PLEA THAT THE WHOLE SUM OF RS 87,30,790 WAS FULLY AL LOWABLE DEDUCTION IN COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THIS VERY YEAR. I.T.A. NO. 20 24 AND 2327 / AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 2 OF 5 (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED, AS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, THAT EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE AY 2002 - 03 BUT CL AIMED IN AY 2003 - 04 WERE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 4. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY AN ORDER DATED 1 ST JANUARY 2016, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WHICH NOW STANDS APPROVED BY HON BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT DATED 20 TH JULY 2016. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE LINE OF REASONING ADOPTED SEEMS TO BE THAT AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES, THE MERE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO AN EARLI ER YEAR, ON ACCOUNT OF BILLS ETC HAVING BEEN RECEIVED LATER IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE DEDUCTION FOR THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE DECLINED - PARTICULARLY AS THERE IS NO TAX ADVANTAGE ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE BY SO CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION LATER, AS THE BONAFIDES OF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT CH ALLENGED AND AS THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 87,30,790 5. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A0 SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION THAT IN QUANTIFICATION FOR DEDUCTI ON OF EXPORT PROFITS UNDER SECTION 80HHC ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT OF MARINE PRODUCTS, THE AMOUNT REFERABLE TO THE EXPORT INCENTIVES AND COMPUTED IN PURSUANCE OF PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC(3) WAS FULLY ALLOWABLE BY IGNORING COMPLETELY THE TRADING LOSS COMPUTED IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 80HHC(3)(B) 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL P OSITION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, STANDS CONFIRMED TO THAT EXTENT. 8. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 9. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B BUT THEN NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. IT IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. THE RELIEF, IF ANY, WILL ONLY BE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 10. WE NO TURN TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL PRESSED BEFORE US IS CIT(A) S NON ADJUDICATION OF THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D AMOUNTING TO RS 99,82,604 AND AGAINST WITHDRAWING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A AMOUNTING TO RS 68,54,001. THE ISSUES BEING RAISED ARE PURELY LEGAL, AND, AS SUCH, THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS ARE ADMITTED. HOWEVER, AS THERE IS NO ADJUDICATION ON THESE ASPECTS BY THE CIT(A), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS , PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 12. WE NOW TURN TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW BENEFI TS ON DEPB INCENTIVES OF RS 18,97,20,579 FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC . I.T.A. NO. 20 24 AND 2327 / AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 3 OF 5 14. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORT S VS CIT [(2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC)]. IN THIS VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED POSITION, WE CONFIRM THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 15. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 16. IN SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO TAKE THE NET INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS 3,02,88,343 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT . 17. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED, BY A DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COORDINATE BENCH, FOLLOWING HON BLE SUPREME COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES VS PCIT [(2012) 343 ITR 89 (SC)], HAS UPHELD SIMILAR RELI EF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTE R. 18. GROUND NO. 2 IS THUS DISMISSED. 19. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING THE INDIRECT COST BY 10% OF THE EXPORT INCENTIVES . 20. SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, IT IS ALSO COVERED, BY A DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS UPHELD SIMILAR RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 21. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 22. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO ADD FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AMOUNT OF RS 2,31,74,020 AS PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 80HHC 23. SO FAR AS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE RECEIPT OF RS 2,31,74,020 REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL RUPEES EQUIVALENT, ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION, OF EXPO RT PRICE. THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXPORT REALIZATION WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. AS A RESULT OF THIS ERROR, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION STOOD REDUCED BY RS 1,62,21,814. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT EVEN ADDITIONAL REALIZATION OF RUPEE AMOUNT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE EXPORT PRICE REALIZED AND ADMISSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AG GRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 24. THE SHORT POINT CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL POSITION NOW, THE ADDITIONAL RUPEE REALIZATION, ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION, IS TO BE TREATE D AS EXPORT PRICE, THE FACT OF SUCH RECEIPTS BEING RELATABLE TO EXPORTS DURING THE YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED, AND THAT NO SUCH VERIFICATION HAS TAKEN PLACE AT ANY STAGE. WE ARE THUS URGED TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR LIMITED VERI FICATION ON THIS ASPECT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS I.T.A. NO. 20 24 AND 2327 / AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 4 OF 5 PROPOSITION EITHER. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR LIMITED VERIFICATION ON THIS ASPECT. ORDER, ACCORDINGLY. 25. GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 26. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING NOT TO DEDUCT 10% OF EXPORT INCENTIVES FROM THE PROFIT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80HHC . 27. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY EXCLUDED 90% OF EXPORT INCENTIVES IN COMPUTATION OF TRADING PROFIT AS PER THE SAID CLAUSE. ON THIS FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCLUDING FURTHER 10% OF THE EXPORT INCENTIVES FROM THE TRADING PROFIT AND IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT HE WAS DIRECTED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AND RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTE NTIONS, AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN ANY EVENT, THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A) IS IN HARMONY WITH HON BLE SUPREME COURT S JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF ACG CAPSULES (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 29. GROUND NO. 5 IS THUS DISMISSED. 30. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS OF RS 13,39,180 . 31. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, A FEW MATERIAL FACTS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES, INCLUDING WITH RESPECT OF EXPORTS OF ITEMS LIKE CASTOR OIL, SOYABEEN CASTOR SEED MEAL AND DIAMONDS, DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE E XPORTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TO ITS AE, I.E. ADANI GLOBAL PTE LTD, SINGAPORE, IS FOR 100 MT OF CASTOR OIL @ US$ 530 PER MT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SUCH EXPORTS TO THE NON - AES, I.E. INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES, AND, AS NOTED BY THE TPO, THE MARKET PRICE STATISTICS, AS AVAILABLE FROM WWW.BRIDGE.COM SHOWED THE PRICE AT US $ 559.33 PER MT. ON THESE FACTS, THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTS CUP (COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND SINCE CUP IS 5.24% MORE THAN TRANSACTION VALUE, AN ALP ADJUSTMENT @ US $ 29.33 PER MT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TPO BRUSHED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PRICES VARY ON DAY TO DAY BASIS, THAT THESE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR INTEREST FACTOR AND THAT SINCE THERE WERE NO TRANSACTIONS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEPEND ON THE AVERAGE FIGURES. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT AN ALP ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS 13,49,180, WAS MADE BY THE TPO. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ALP ADJUSTMENT. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 18 TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES AND THE AVERAGE OF THESE TRANSACTI ONS WAS WITHIN 5% RANGE OF THE CUP PRICE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AE IS A TRADING CONCERN WHICH HAS SOLD THE THESE GOODS FURTHER AT A MARGIN OF .8%, AND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF SALE PRICE BY THE AE IS TAKEN AS A VALID CUP, THE TRANSACTION VALUE IS WI THIN PERMISSIBLE RANGE OF 5% VARIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 32. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT EITHER. IT IS SO FOR THE SHORT REASON THAT THE INTERNATIONAL PRICE AS PER THE BRIDGE SOFTWARE, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, IS I.T.A. NO. 20 24 AND 2327 / AHD /05 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 PAGE 5 OF 5 US $ 545 AND NOT US $ 559.33 AS QUOTED BY THE TPO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ADJUSTMENT OF US $ 14.33 , WHICH LEAD TO THE FIGURE OF US $ 559.33, IS A NOTIONAL INTEREST ADJUSTMENT @ 8% IN THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THEN IT IS ADHOCK IN NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THE VARIATION IN INTEREST FREE PERIOD IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS VIS - - VIS INTRA AE TRANSACTIONS HERE. IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE PUBLISHED CUP FIGURES ARE BEING ADOPTED, SUCH FIGURES ARE TO BE COMPARED WITH THE TRANSACTION VALUE AND IT IS ONLY WHEN THE TRANSACTION VALUE FALLS BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE THAT THE QUES TION OF ALP ADJUSTMENT CAN COME UP. THE ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE TO THE PUBLISHED FIGURES BUT THE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS CANNOT PROCEED ON SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS. IN ANY CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE END PRICE AT WHICH THE GOODS ARE SOLD BY THE AE CONCERNED YIELD ONLY .8% MARGIN WHICH, BY ITSELF, SHOWS THAT THE PRICES AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPORTED GOODS TO THE AE ARE WITHIN PERMISSIBLE RANGE IN CASE THE END SALE PRICE IS TO BE ADOPTED AS CUP. LOOKING TO THE SMALLNESS OF AMOU NT AND THE FACT THAT IT IS ONE OFF TRANSACTION WHICH HAS, EVEN AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT INTEREST ADJUSTMENT@ 8% - WHICH IS NOT A VERIFIED ADJUSTMENT VARIABLE ANYWAY, MARGINALLY GONE BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE, AND BEARING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE MARGIN EARNED BY THE AE ARE NOT DISPUTED, WE UPHOLD THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS COUNT AS WELL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO NEED TO ADDRESS OURSELVES TO T HE LARGE R QUESTION, I.E. WHETHER AVERAGING OF PRICES ON DIFFERENT DATES WITHIN A PREVIOUS YEAR AND IN THE CASES OF ITEMS WHERE PRICES VARY ON DAILY BASIS IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 10B, WHICH WAS STRENUOUSLY ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND WHICH, OF COU RSE, IS OF MUCH WIDER RAMIFICATIONS THAN THE NARROW COMPASS OF FACTS OF THIS CASE. 33. GROUND NO. 6 IS THUS DISMISSED. 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 35. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE PARTY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - R P TOLANI PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 20 TH DAY OF D ECEMBER , 2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD