The DCIT,TDS Circle, Ahmedabad V. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 2216/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9750 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) DCIT TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. NIRMA LIMITED, NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009 RESPONDENT PAN: AAACN5350K / BY REVENUE : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.12.2016 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 13.06.2013, IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- XXI/387/2012-13, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201(1 )/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE PLEADS FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,23,687/- RAISED U/S. 201 (1) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,71,464/- RAISED U/S. 201 (1 A) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT WHICH ARE APPLICABLE 'ON THE INTEREST' OTHER THAN 'INTEREST ON SECURITIES'. THE INTEREST RELATABLE TO DEEP DISCOUNT BOND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 19 4A OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT RE DEMPTION AND REPURCHASE STAND FOR THE SAME IN BUSINESS/PARLANCE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE AO'S FINDI NG THAT INTEREST ON DEEP DISCOUNT BOND WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 193 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 04 DT. 13.05.2004 (267 ITR ST.) WHICH LAID DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON DEEP DISCOUNT BOND U/S 193 OR 195 AS THE CASE MAY BE ON REDEMPTION. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON CBDT 'S LETTER DATED 23 RD MAY 1996 IN THE CASE OF TISCO GROSSLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT WAS PECULIAR TO TH E FACTS OF THAT CASE, NAMELY THE PAYEE WAS NOT KNOWN. 3. WE COME TO RELEVANT FACTS. THIS ASSESSEE MANUFA CTURES CHEMICALS. ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S.NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. HAD ISSUED 400 DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS OF RS.1CRORE ON 29.03.2001. THE ASSESSEE TOO K OVER THE SAME BY VIRTUE OF A DEMERGER SCHEME AS APPROVED IN HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON 13.08.2003. IT THEREAFTER RE-PURCHASED 225 OF T HE DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS BY MAKING PAYMENTS TO M/S. HDFC BANK I.E. 75 EACH O N 17.05.2006, 13.06.2006 AND 16.10.2006 INVOLVING PAYMENTS INCLUD ING INTEREST OF RS.943, 500,254/-, RS.948,888,425/- & RS.965,953,147/-; RES PECTIVELY WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS THEREUPON U/S.193 OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1 ) AND (1A) OF THE ACT TO RAISE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND OF RS.1,08,95,151/-. HE REJECTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION INTER ALIA STATING THAT THE ABOVE PAYME NTS WERE U/S.194A AND NOT U/S. 193 OF THE ACT SINCE INTEREST ON SECURITIES STOOD WELL DEFINED ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - U/S.2(28B), THE CASE IN QUESTION WAS THAT OF RE-PUR CHASE OF DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS MUCH BEFORE REDEMPTION DATE, ITS PAYEE HAD AL READY DECLARED THE PAYMENT SUMS IN QUESTION AS ITS INCOME IN VIEW OF R ETURN SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO TDS DEDUCTION AT DEDUCTOR ASSESSEES BEHEST. THE ASSESSEES FURTHE R CASE WAS THAT THE PAYEE BANK HAD ALSO FILED THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATE TO T HE EFFECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE CBDT CIRCULA R NO.2 DATED 20.03.2002 MADE IT CLEAR THAT ONLY SECTION 193 OF THE ACT WAS ATTRACTED IN FACTS OF THE CASE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN RE-PURCHASE OR REDEMPTION OF THE DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS IN QUESTION A S PER THEIR DICTIONARY MEANING. HIS FURTHER OPINION WAS THAT THE CRUCIAL EXPRESSION OTHER SECURITIES USED IN SECTION 2(28B) WOULD INCLUDE D EEP DISCOUNT BONDS AS WELL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS RAISED THE IMPUGN ED DEMAND. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CIT(A) REVER SES ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AS FOLLOWS: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND VARIOUS ALTERNATE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE RELEVANT CIRCU LARS ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND THE ( ANNEXURE-M, N & O RESPECTIVELY ). THE FOLLOWING FURTHER SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 11-2-2013 MAY BE NO TED. 'HDFC BANK LTD. IS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AT PAN: A AACH2702 UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. SR. NO. INFORMATION SOUGHT BY YOUR GOODSELF INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY BANK DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. A COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF HDFC BANK LTD. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME. SUBMITTED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ALONGWITH LETTER DT. 28-11-2012. B COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK LTD. FOR F.Y. 2006-07 INCLUDING SCHEDULES AND COPY OF AUDIT REPORT UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND INCOME-TAX ACT. COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALONGWITH SCHEDULES AND AUDIT REPORT UNDER COMPANIES ACT WAS FURNISHED VIDE LETTER DT. 28-11- ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - 2012. C COPY OF ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK LTD. IN WHICH INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS HAS BEEN CREDITED. DETAILS OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE DDES WERE FURNISHED VIDE ANNEXURE - A ALONGWITH LETTER DT. 28-11-2012. PLEASE REFER LETTER DTD.28-11-2012 OF HDF C BANK LTD. AND FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, PLEASE REFER LETTER DTD.28-11-2012 . 1. HDFC BANK LTD. IS A LISTED COMPANY WITH MARKET CAPITALIZATION OF MORE THAN RS.1,50,000 CRORES. IT IS ONE OF THE LEADING B ANKS IN INDIA. 2. THE SAID BANK IS NOT 'RELATIVE' TO NIRMA LIMITE D. 3. IT IS MENTIONED ON SECOND PAGE OF THE LETTER D ATED 06-02-2013 THAT YOU REQUIRED FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM HDFC BANK LTD. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY BANK ARE GIVEN IN SECOND COLUMN. 4. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOM E OF BANK WAS FURNISHED VIDE LETTER DTD. 29-01-2013. HDFC BANK LTD. FILED R ETURN OF INCOME ON 29-10- 2007 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.582,13,81,757. THE ACKNOW LEDGEMENT ALSO SHOWS THAT ON THE RETURNED INCOME, DUE TAXES WERE PAID BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX AND TDS. AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE WAS REFUND DUE OF RS.86,71,025. WE MAY ALSO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT HDFC BAN K LTD. HAS ISSUED CERTIFICATE STATING THAT INCOME EARNED FROM DDES WA S ASSESSED TO TAX. THE CITATIONS RELIED UPON IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CBDT VIDE PARA-8 HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE REDEMPTION PRICE IS THE PRICE WHICH IS ACTUALLY PAID AT THE TIME OF MATURITY. FROM THE READING OF PARA-8 OF CIRCULAR NU MBER 2, IT IS CLEAR THAT REDEMPTION IS RE-ACQUIRING OF DDES AT THE TIME OF M ATURITY INDICATED ON THE BONDS ITSELF AND CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH REPURCHASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS NOT CORRECT TO CONCLUDE THAT REDEMPTION AND REPURCHASE OF BOND WHICH MAY HAPPEN, AS IT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE MUCH BEFORE THE REDEMPTION DATE. 1 AM ALSO INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT SECT ION 2(28B) CLEARLY DEFINED 'INTEREST ON SECURITIES' WHICH IS ELABORATED SUPRA WHICH IS COVERED FOR TDS U/S 193A. THIS DEFINITION OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES MAK ES IT VERY CLEAR THE TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS WHICH WOULD ATTRACT SECTION 193A.I ALSO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT 'BONDS' AND DEBENTURE ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND DI STINCT FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND THE TERM 'OTHER SECURITIES IS USED FOR THE TERM AKIN TO THE SECURITIES SIMILAR TO DEBENTURES. 9. THE AO HAS ALSO REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THE CASE OF T1SCO WAS ELABORATED BY THE APPELLANT. SUCH REJECTION IS WITHOUT ANY REASON OR ELABORATION ON THIS COUNT. 1 MAY POINT OUT THAT IN THE RECENT JUDGEMENT IN THE C ASE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA VS. ITO 107 1TD 45 (MUMBA I), THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI HAS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED THE SIMILAR LET TER ISSUED BY THE CBDT ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - AND THE SAME FINDS PLACE IN PARA-18 OF HON'BLE ITAT 'S ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN AS UNDER, FOR READY REFERENCE: 'PARA 18. IT IS INDEED CORRECT THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 193 LAYS DOWN THAT EVEN WHEN AN INCOME IS CREDITED TO ANY ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON LIABLE TO PAY SUCH INCOME, SU CH CREDITING SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT O F THE PAYEE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY, BUT THE FACT THAT THE CREDIT TO ANY ACCOUNT IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE CREDIT TO THE PAYEE'S ACCOUNT ALSO PRESUPPOSES THAT PAYEE CAN BE ASCERTAINED. THE REFORE, THIS DEEMING FICTION CAN ONLY BE ACTIVATED WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE CAN BE ASCERTAINED. TO ILLUSTRATE, IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WE HAD TAKEN IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE, AS LONG AS ASSESSEE KNOWS THE ID ENTITY OF LENDERS, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CREDITS THE 'INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE' IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN SOME OTHER ACCOUNT, T AX WOULD CONTINUE TO BE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 193 BY THE VIRTUE OF DE EMING FICTION SET OUT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 193. THE LIABILITY TO PAY IN SUCH A CASE WOULD CRYSTALLIZE LATER, I.E. ON DUE DATE OF 31ST D ECEMBER, AND THE CORRESPONDING CREDIT TO THE LENDER'S ACCOUNT WILL A LSO BE GIVEN ON 31ST DECEMBER, BUT THE ASSESSEE WILL STILL HAVE TAX DEDU CTION LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF 'INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE' AS ON 31S T MARCH. HOWEVER, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THIS EXPLANATION CAN NOT BE PUT INTO PRACTICE BECAUSE THE PAYEE IS NOT KNOWN AT THE STAG E OF'PROVISION FOR 'INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE' BEING MADE. IT IS NO T DIFFICULT TO VISUALIZE THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 193, WHICH WAS INTRODUC ED WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE, 1989, WAS APPARENTLY TO TAKE CARE OF A SI TUATION IN WHICH INSTEAD OF CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE, SOME OTHER PROXY ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED, TO AVOID THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE LIABILITY BEING INVOKED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTI NG YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS TO MAKE A PROVISION FOR INTEREST OF RS. 10,000 P AYABLE TO MR. X, BUT HE CREATES THE PROVISION BY WAY OF CREDIT TO 'INTEREST PAYABLE ACCOUNT'. IN SUCH A SITUATION, 'INTEREST PAYABLE ACCOUNT' IS DE FACTO A PROXY ACCOUNT FOR MR. X EITHER FULLY OR TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOU NT PAYABLE TO MR. X. HOWEVER, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ARGUED, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 193, THAT SINCE THE CREDIT IS NOT TO THE ACCOUNT OF MR. X, THE TAX DEDUCTION LIABILITY CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE EXPL ANATION ITSELF MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EVEN WHEN SUCH A PRACTICE IS ADOPTED THE CREDIT WILL BE DEEMED TO BE CREDIT TO THE PAYEE'S ACCOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, FICTION EMBODIED IN THE EXPLANATION IS ONLY APPLICA BLE IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH TAX DEDUCTION LIABILITY IS SOUGHT TO BE ESCAP ED BY CREDITING INTEREST TO SOME OTHER ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THAT OF R ECIPIENT OF INTEREST. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 193 CAN NOT BE INVOKED IN A CASE WHERE THE PERSON WHO IS TO RECEIVE THE INTERES T CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED AT THE STAGE AT WHICH THE PROVISION FOR INTEREST AC CRUED BUT NOT DUE IS MADE. THIS POSITION IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE CBDT AS EVIDENT FROM ITS LETTER DATED 5TH JULY, 1996 ADDRESSED TO THE TATA I RON & STEEL CO. LTD. [LETTER NO. 275/126/96 IT (B)], WHICH, INTER ALIA, STATES AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 6 - 'I AM DIRECTED TO REFER TO YOUR LETTER REF. 3A 13-2 1/1460 DATED 23RD MAY, 1996, ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT, AND TO SAY TH AT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ISSUE PRICE OF RS. 5,000 AND FACE VALUE OF RS. 25,500 IS IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 193/193A. ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WOULD BE MAKING PROV ISIONS FOR INTEREST ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS IN THEIR BOOKS O F ACCOUNT, THERE WILL BE NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN EACH SUCH YEAR AS THE PAYEE IS NOT KNOWN.' [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 11. FURTHER I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS ALSO DEMONSTR ATED VIDE LETTER DATED 04-12- 2009 THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY PROVISION DURI NG THE YEAR FOR THE INTEREST PAYMENT. THE COPY OF THIS LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE M E ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CORRECTLY CONTENDED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY P ROVISION THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCT THE TDS. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT THE AO IS NOT RIGHT FOR REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT IN THE CA PTIONED MATTER. 1 ALSO FIND MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT THAT CIRCULARS DATED 15.02.2 002 AND 20.03.2002 CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES THAT TDS SHOULD BE MADE AT THE TIME OF REDEMPTION. SINCE, AS IS ALREADY CONCLUDED ABOVE, REDEMPTION AN D REPURCHASE ARE DIFFERENT, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT AFOR ESAID TRANSACTION IS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED FORTDS. 13. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE I NTEREST PAYMENT MADE TO HDFC BANK ON REPURCHASE OF DDBS COMES WITHIN THE PU RVIEW OF SECTION 194A AND NOT SECTION 193 OF THE IT. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, TH E GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. THE AO IS THEREFORE D IRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,23,687/- AND RS.96,71,464/- RAISED U/S. 20 1(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL ARE D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF ARGUMENT 1 TO 4 IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SPECIFICALLY COMMENT ON ARGUMENT 5 WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAS SPE CIFICALLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA PASSED BY THE HON'B LE APEX COURT REPORTED VIDED 293 ITR 226. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE ST ANDS. SUFFICE TO SAY, IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THE DEDUCTEE ASSESS EE M/S. HDFC BANK LTD HAS PAID ALL ITS TAXES ON ASSESSEES PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE DEEP DISCOUNT BONDS IN QUESTION. PAGE 9 OF THE CIT(A) S ORDER D EMONSTRATES DEDUCTEE BANKS CLARIFICATION TO HAVE DULY INCLUDED THE IMPU GNED PAYMENTS IN BALANCE SHEET, P&L ACCOUNT, SCHEDULES & AUDIT REPORT. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. WE NOTICE IN THIS BACKDROP THAT HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA CASE ( SUPRA) TAKES NOTE OF THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 275 DATED 29.01.1997 TO HOLD T HAT SECTION 201(1) ITA NO. 2216/AHD/2013 (DCIT TDS VS. NIRMA LTD.) A.Y. 2007-08 - 7 - DEMAND WOULD NOT BE FASTENED ON A DEDUCTOR ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A) S ORDER EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. THE REVENUES SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS RAI SED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE DECLINED. 6. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.] SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/12/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ()*+ ,--. ./0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1+23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // ./0