Sanjivani Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT(OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

ITA 215/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4563 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts; Commercial expediency; Set aside; Fuel Charges
• Section: 37(1); 250; 13; 22; 32; 131

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORESHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSET. YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 215/AHD/2014 2008-09 SANJIVANI BIO TECH PVT. LTD. B-14, CLASSIC PALACE, JUDGES BUNGLOW CROSS ROAD, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD-380054 PAN NO. AAHCS5096A THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, AR. REVENUE BY : SHRI DILEEP KUMAR, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.10.2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09WHICH IS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.11.2013, IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3)OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 ON 12.11.2013 BY CIT( A)-XVI ABAD FOR A.Y. 2008-09 PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING FUL LY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH RE GARD TO THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES. 2 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: (I) DEPRECIATION RS. 45,36,884 (II) BUSINESS PROMOTION EXP (FOREIGN) RS. 16,72,746 (III) FOREIGN TRAVELING EXP. RS. 1,38,381 (IV) DAMAGE & WASTAGE RS. 25,57,779 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE SAID DISALLOWANCES. 2.3 THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSION REACHED BY CIT(A) TO UPHELD THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWA NCES MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED/REDUCED. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN PA RT FOR THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 45,368,84/- ONLY. 4. THE FACTS OF CASE ON HAND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF PHARMACEUTICALS ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 24 TH AUGUST 2010 SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND AT ROORKEE, UTTARKHAND IN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2006-07. ON SUCH PIECE OF LAND, A MANUFACTURING UNIT WAS SET UP WHIC H STARTED FUNCTIONING FROM THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007 AND COMMERCIAL SALES BEGU N IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2007. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE CHARGED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH MANUFACTURING UNIT AMOUNTING T O RS.51,31,747/- (ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION PLUS ACTUAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 45,36,884) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 4.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT HAS STARTED M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WITH THE HELP OF DG SET AND FILED THE LEDGER COPY OF THE POWER AND FUEL REFLECTING AN EXPENSE OF RS.5,99,900/- FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING F ROM SEPTEMBER 2007 TO MARCH 2008. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE OTHER EXPENSES AS DETAILED UNDER: I. FACTORY WAGES AND SALARIES JUNE 2007 TO MARCH 2 008 RS.5,26,194.00 II. PURCHASE OF LAB MATERIALS OCTOBER 2007 TO MARCH 2008 RS.1,62,475.00 III. FREIGHT IN PURCHASES APRIL 2007 TO MARCH 2008 RS.1,41,594.00 5. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OBSERVED CERTAIN FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE A PPROVED PLAN OF THE BUILDING AND PROOF TO THE EFFECT OF PUTTING TO USE THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. II. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS FOR RS.27,90,463/-IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2008 WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE FACTORY BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERIES WERE NOT PUT TO USE. III. THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS ONLY 1.3% OF TRADED GOODS PURCHASED. IV. THE ASSESSEE NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE WITH RE SPECT TO PRODUCTION OF MEDICINE. V. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL SHOWIN G THE SEPARATE GROSS PROFIT FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND SIMILARL Y THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO ITS TRADING ACTIVITIES. 4 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 VI. THERE WAS NO DETAIL MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BEARING COLUMN NO. 28(B) ABOUT THE TURNOVER, PURCHASES AND STOCK VIZ A VIZ QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING. VII. THERE WAS NO POWER CONNECTION FOR THE FACTORY BUILDING, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WA S DONE BY USING DG SET BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY BILLS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT OF FUEL CHARGES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.51,31,747/- IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOW ED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 7. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION FOR RS.51,31,747/- WHICH IS THE ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AS PER ACCOUNTING RECORD WHEREAS IT HA S CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR CONSIDERATION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE F OR RS.45,36,884/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY D EPRECIATION ON CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. 8. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT STARTED P RODUCTION ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOW ING DOCUMENTS: I. DECLARATION FOR CENTRAL EXCISE EXEMPTION, 5 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 II. AGREEMENT WITH DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER (HARI DWAR) DATED 05-07- 2008, III. ELECTRICITY BILL FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2008 SH OWING CONSUMPTION OF THE ELECTRICITY UNITS I.E. 10157 UNITS. IV. LICENSE DATED 02-09-2007 ISSUED BY DRUG LICENSI NG & CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UTTARAKHAND, V. POWER USAGE PERMISSION FROM UTTARAKHAND POWER CO RPORATION DATED 1- 5-2007 WITH THE COPY OF CHEQUES. VI. PURCHASE OF LABORATORY MATERIALS OF RS.1,62,475 /- VII. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED DG SET FOR PO WER CONSUMPTION BUT THE BILLS WERE NOT FILED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE DIESE LS AND VOUCHER DUE TO SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE. 9. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS MADE THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ITS PRODUCT MANUFACTURED IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2 007 WHICH ALSO EVIDENT FROM DECLARATION DATED 08-10-2007 FILED WITH THE CE NTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITY ROORKEE FOR EXEMPTION. 10. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGH T OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE BASIC QUERY RAISED BY THE AO OF PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF APPROVAL PLAN OF THE BUILDING AND PROVE DATE OF PUT TO USE OF PLANT & MACHINERY HAS N OT BEEN SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE. THIS HAPPENS TO BE A CR UCIAL INFORMATION SINCE APPROVAL PLAN OF THE BUILDING FOR USE OF A PROPERTY FOR MANUFACTURIN G PURPOSES ISSUED BY RESPECTIVE STATE AUTHORITIES LIES AT THE ROOT OF ANY MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE F OR CONSTRUCTION OF A MANUFACTURING BUILDING, ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE PRIMA FACIE FAILS. A S FAR AS THE ISSUE OF USE OF D G SETS FOR MANUFACTURING IS CONCERNED, THE SAME ALSO APPEARS T O BE TOTALLY UN- CONVINCING SINCE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES INVOLVING PRODUCTION OF MED ICINES REQUIRE HIGH SKID MACHINERIES WHICH CANNOT BE PERMANENTLY RUN ON D G SETS. THE A O HAS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT, BROUGHT OUT GLARING INCONS ISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT TH E HYPOTHESIS OF HAVING UNDERTAKEN ANY 6 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE AN ATT EMPT MADE WITH A SOLE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEPRECIATION SO AS TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION. NON PRODUCTION OF SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNT AND MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT IN RESPEC T OF MANUFACTURING ALSO ALLUDES THAT NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN. INCID ENTALLY, IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DT 14-10-2013, THE A R OF THE APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO FILE TRADING & P & L A/C. OF UTTARAKHAND UNIT WHICH IS NOT COMPL IED WITH. CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE A O IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE PREMISE THAT NO MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY WAS UNDERTAKEN BETWEEN THE IMPUGNED PERIOD IS A CORRECT AND IS BASED UPON ADEQ UATE APPRECIATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES. TO THE EXTENT, THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O IN PRINCIPLE IS CONFIRMED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT HOWEVER AP PEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED REGARDING THE ERROR IN COMMITTING THE MISTAKE AS FAR AS QUANTUM O F DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIA TION CLAIMED WAS ONLY RS. 45,36,884/- AND THAT RS. 51,31,747/- IS ACTUALLY ACCUMULATED DE PRECIATION. THE A O IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO VERIFY FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS COMPRI SING BALANCE SHEET, SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS ETC AS TO THE ACTUAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED PE RTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TO RESTRICT HIS ADDITION TO SUCH FIGURE ONLY. T HE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-A, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUN NING FROM PAGES 1 TO 126 AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.45,36,884 /-IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CAN AVA IL DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION, ONLY IF IT SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING CO NDITIONS: 1. THE ASSETS MUST BE OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY T HE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSETS MUST BE IN USE FOR THE BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION. 7 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 15. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DENI ED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR THE REASONS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THERE WAS NO APPROVAL PLAN OF THE FACTORY PREMIS ES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE DATE OF PUT TO USE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES. INDEED, THE AFORESAID INFORMATION IS VERY PERTINEN T TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION. FOR THIS P URPOSE, THE ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE ANNEXE D WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3 CD, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS THE ADDITION O F DIFFERENT FIXED ASSETS APPROXIMATELY OF RS.5.77 CRORES INCLUDING THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND FACTORY PREMISES WHICH ARE MAJOR ITEMS OF ADDITION IN THE F IXED ASSETS SCHEDULE. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AS DIS CUSSED ABOVE THOUGH THESE ARE VERY CRUCIAL TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE FACTORY PREMISES AND THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES WERE EITHER PUT TO USE OR REA DY TO USE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE SERIES OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE WHICH APPEARS IMPORTANT AND REASONABLE BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE USE D AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE FACTORY PREMISES AND PLANT AND MACHINERIES WERE EITHER PUT TO USE OR READY TO USE. 16. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE ARE OTHER IN FORMATIONS EMANATING FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN STORES CONSUMPTION, POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES, SALARY AND WA GES, LABORATORY MATERIALS AND MISCELLANEOUS FACTORY EXPENSES, PLACED ON PAGES 110 AND 111 OF THE PAPER 8 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 BOOK IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREAS IT WAS SHOWN NIL IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR ENDING AS ON 31-03-2007. B UT SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN HAND I N THE ABSENCE OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE REFLECTING THE SALES MADE BY IT THROUGH THE MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY VIZ A VIZ THE TRADING ACTIVITY SEPARATELY WHICH WAS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 18. HOWEVER, BEFORE PARTING WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNT ING TO RS.45,36,884/- IN THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AND ADDITION OF FIXE D ASSETS PUT TOGETHER WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). IN OUR CONSI DERED VIEW, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE CANNOT BE DENIED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS IT PER TAINS ON THE FIXED ASSETS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE DE PRECIATION WAS ALLOWED THEREON. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS BROUGHT FO RWARD FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.25,57,779/- ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE AND WASTAGE OF GOODS. 9 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 20. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA S CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.26,66,760/- ON ACCOUNT DAMAGE AND WASTAGE OF GOO DS DUE TO EXPIRY OF MEDICINES. THE AO, HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT: I. THERE WAS NOT ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT SU CH LOSSES IN VAT AUDIT REPORT. II. IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.10.99 CRORES WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE CURRENT TU RNOVER OF RS.9.84 CRORES. BUT ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAS CLAI MED LOSS ON EXPIRY OF MEDICINES FOR RS.1,11,972/- ONLY AS COMPARED TO CU RRENT YEAR LOSS OF RS.26,66,760/-. III. IN THE NORMAL PRACTICE EXPIRED MEDICINES ARE R ETURNED TOSUPPLIER. IV. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT DETAIL OF EXPIRED GOOD. THE AO IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE, RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RATIO OF TURNOV ER IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR DATA. ACCORDINGLY,THE AO DISALLOWED A N AMOUNT OF RS.25,57,779/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 21. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LEAR NED CIT(A). 22. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) FILED THE LE DGERS COPIES OF TWO PARTIES TO WHOM MEDICINES WERE SUPPLIED NAMELY SWIS S-SAN LIFE AND M/S TIRUPATI DISTRIBUTOR IN WHICH ACCOUNTS MAJOR MEDICI NES EXPIRY WERE REPORTED. IN REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT LEDGER FROM THE PARTIES AND CONTRA ACCOUNT IN ITS BOOKS CONFIRM THA T RETURN OF EXPIRED MEDICINE FROM PARTIES HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY IT. FURTHER THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE 10 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 WAS NOT ANY COLUMN IN VAT AUDIT REPORT WHICH REQUIR ED INFORMATION REGARDING THE DAMAGED GOODS RETURN TO IT. 23. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES SUBMISSION, REJOINDER AND REMAND REPORT FROM AO CONFIRMED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGH T OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE A O HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A S WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVIDE LIST OF EXPIRED GOODS A ND THEIR REASONS FOR NON INCLUSION IN VAT AUDIT REPORT. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS TO THESE QUERIES OF THE A O. IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT AT THIS STAGE THAT IN THE ACTIVITY CONCERNING BUSINESS OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS MAIN TENANCE OF RECORDS AND REGISTERS FOR DAMAGED AND EXPIRED GOODS IS A NECESSARY PRE-REQUIS ITE AS THE SAME COMES UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF DRUG CONTROL AUTHORITY. THE APPELLAN T THEREFORE CANNOT TAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EXPIRED GOODS ARE DISPOSED OFF JUST LIKE T HAT. INCIDENTALLY, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED A CO PY OF SAMPLE AGREEMENT MADE WITH ONE SUHANI MARKETING PVT. LTD OF GAUHATI. PAGE-5 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPELLANT FOR DAMAGE TO THE G OODS SHALL BE ONLY TILL IT IS RECEIVED BY THE AGENT AND NOT THEREAFTER AND THAT THE AGENT SHALL B E SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE. THERE IS NO OTHER CLAUSE IN THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH I S COMMON TO ALL THE AGENTS, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY EXPIRED GO ODS SHALL REST UPON THE APPELLANT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, NON AVAILABILITY OF THE COL UMN IN THE VAT AUDIT REPORT WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO ENTITLE THE APPELLANT NOT TO FILE SPECIF IC DETAILS OF DAMAGED, EXPIRED GOODS BEFORE THE A O. CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF NON PRODUCTION OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF DAMAGES AND AVAILABILITY OF OTHER CIRCUMST ANTIAL EVIDENCES INDICATING NO LIABILITY OF APPELLANT TOWARDS ANY DAMAGES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O OF RS. 25,57,779/- IS .CONFIRMED ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF GROUND OF APPE AL NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 24. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US REITE RATED THE CONTENTIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED AR I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE LEDGER AC COUNT OF THE DAMAGED GOODS AS WELL AS CONTRA ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY NAMELY M/S S WISS-SAN LIFE WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 37 TO 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 26. ON THE CONTRARY THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND HAS WRITTEN OFF THE DAMAGED GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.26,66,760/- WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO TWO PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW HAVE ADMITTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,08,981/ - ONLY OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM MADE BY IT FOR RS.26,66,760/- WITHOUT ANY COGENT MA TERIALS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE EITHER TO REJECT T HE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OR ADMIT THE SAME IN ENTIRETY BASED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AS SUCH, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE R EJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WHICH IS NOT DESIRABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO RATIONAL FO R THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IN PART. 28. BESIDES THE ABOVE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE FACTS OF SUPPLYING THE GOODS TO THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED/DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS IN SUCH A SITUATION IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OPTED TO CLAIM THE BAD DEBTS AGAINST THE SUPPLY OF GOODS INS TEAD OF WRITING OFF AS THE DAMAGED GOODS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(V III) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. IT IS BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE BY CL AIMING THE BAD DEBTS IS NOT UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO PROVE THE IR-RECOVERABILITY OF THE AMOUNT FROM THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO WRITE OFF SUCH AMOUNT AS THE DAMAGED GOODS WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE LEDGER COPY OF THE OTHER PARTY 12 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 PLACED ON PAGES 38 TO 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS,IN THE PRESENT SITUATION, WHAT WE TRY TO INFER IS THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. 29. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE ALSO NOT VERIFIED FROM THE CONCERN PARTIES WHETHER THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6)/ 131 OF THE ACT. 30. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE FOR IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THEREFORE, THE SAME CLAIM IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, THOUGH HIGH IN VALUE, CANNOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERI ALS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE MANNER IN W HICH THEY HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE TH E FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MA DE BY HIM. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 31. THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.1 6,72,746/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. 32. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.16,27,431/- AND RS.45,315/- AS BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES (FOREIGN) AND EXPORT EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY . HOWEVER, THE AO IN ABSENCE OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS.16,72,746/- (16,27 ,431 + 45,315) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 33. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON TOUR PACKAGE FO R SINGAPORE SPONSORED BY IT FOR DOCTORS. THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE TARGET SALES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SUC H EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DOCTORS WERE NOT RELATED TO IT. 34. IN REMAND REPORT, THE AO CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT SUCH EXPEN SES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ACCORDINGLY, HE PROPOSED TO SU STAIN THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 35. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES SUBMISSION AND REMAND REPORT HELD AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGH T OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT OF THE CASE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE IN CURRED FOR SPONSORING VISITS OF DOCTORS SO AS TO GET BUSINESS. THE ADMISSION OF THE APPELLANT SQUARELY POINTS OUT TOWARDS AN UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL PRACTICE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LA W. AY EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS ANY INFRACTION OF LAW CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. INCIDENTALLY, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE MEDICAL COUNSEL OF INDIA WHICH GOVERNS MEDICAL PROFESSION IN THE COUNTRY STRICTLY PROHIBITS DOCTORS TO TAKE ANY SUCH BENEFITS FROM CO MPANIES WHOSE PRODUCTS THEY PRESCRIBE TO THEIR PATIENTS. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD A O OF RS. 16,72,746/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 36. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 37. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE EXP ENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE S AME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 14 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 38. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES. 39. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSES TO SPONSOR THE TOUR OF THE DOCTORS TO SING APORE FOR ITS COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED TO FACILITATE THE DOCTORS ARE PRO HIBITEDIN TERMS OF CIRCULAR NO.5/2012 ISSUED BY CBDT DATED 01.08.2012.NOW THE F IRST ISSUE BEFORE US ARISES FOR OUR ADJUDICATION WHETHER THE CIRCULAR NO .5/2012 ISSUED BY CBDT IS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY OR PROSPECTIVELY. IN THI S REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y . 2008-09 DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CBDT CIRCULAR AS REFERRED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE BY BRANDING THE EXPENDITURE AS COVERED BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE FOUND THAT THE EXPENDI TURES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THEREF ORE, SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED BY APPLYING CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 01-08-20 12 IN RESPECT OF YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ITAT AHM EDABAD IN THE CASE OF TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 2458/AHD/2017 FOR THE AY 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 15-10-2019 INVOLVIN G IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 40. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LEARNED CIT (A)ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES IN PART RS.1,38,381/- ONLY. 15 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 41. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CL AIMED FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.1,53,757/- ONLY. HOWEVER, THE AO FOU ND THAT THAT THESE PAYMENT WERE MADE TO SOTC A COMPANY WHICH ORGANIZE PERSONAL TOUR AT ITS RESORTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT THIS EXPENS ES ARE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. 42. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A). 43. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED T HAT EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD WERE INCURRED ON TOUR OF SHRI DINESH KUMAR JAI N AND SHRI SANDIP BHARGAV MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY F OR ATTENDING EXHIBITION AT MILAN ITALY. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT ITS CONTEN TION FILED THE VISITING CARD ISSUED BY THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF EXHIBITION. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT HAD MADE EXPORT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS RESUL T OF SUCH TOUR. 44. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE MARKET ING DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ATTENDED THE EXHIBITION BUT THE EL EMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE DIRECTOR CANNOT BE IGNORED. THER EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES UP-TO 90% AND DISA LLOWED 10%. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT-A CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,38,38 1/- ONLY. 45. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 46. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF 9 0% BUT DIRECTED 16 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 INADVERTENTLY TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1, 38,381/- INSTEAD OF RS.15,376/- ONLY. 47. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING A BODY CORPORATE CANNOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE PE RSONAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR PRAYED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. 48. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 49. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING D ISCUSSION WE NOTE THAT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) TO THE TUNE OF 90% OF THE TOTAL FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE. BUT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS FINDING HAS INADVERTENTLY RES TRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.1,38,381/- INSTEAD OF RS.15,376/-. THUS, ACCORD INGLY WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,376 ONLY. FIRST O F ALL, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. AS SUCH WE DO NOT FIND ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON THE PART OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN PART. 50. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A BODY CORPORATE CANNOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE PERSONAL IN NATURE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IR ON &ENGG. CO. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 253 ITR 749 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R: THERE WAS ONE MORE ASPECT OF THE MATTER WHICH REQU IRED TO BE CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, WAS A DISTINCT ASSESSABLE ENTITY AS PER THE DEFINITION OF 'PERSON' UNDER SECTION 2(31) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, IT COULD NOT BE STATED THAT WHEN THE VEHICLES WERE USED BY THE DIRECTORS 'EVEN IF THEY W ERE PERSONALLY USED BY THE DIRECTORS', THE VEHICLES WERE PERSONALLY USED BY THE COMPANY, BECAU SE A LIMITED COMPANY BY ITS VERY 17 ITA NO. 215/AHD/2014 AY: 2008-09 NATURE CANNOT HAVE ANY 'PERSONAL USE'. THE LIMITED COMPANY IS AN INANIMATE PERSON AND THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING PERSONAL ABOUT SUCH AN ENT ITY. THE VIEW WAS SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(C) AND SECTION 40A(5) OF TH E ACT. ONCE THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS IN TERMS AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 309 AND 198 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY 'NON-BUSINESS' PURPOSE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS CONCERNED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE EXPORTS TO THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY IT (THE ASSESS EE) PLACED ON PAGES 57 TO 74A OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET A SIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADD ITION MADE BY HIM. 51. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND OCTOBER,2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/10/2020 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY / 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