The DCITBharuch Circle, Bharuch V. Shri Ashokkumar V.Soni, Bharuch

ITA 2288/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76677 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: R M VEPARI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2288 /AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH. VS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI, PROP. OF OM MARKANDESHWAR JEWELLERS, CHAUTA BAZAR, ANKLESHWAR, BHARUCH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI R.M. VEPARI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 07/04/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/04/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-VI, BARODA, DATED 30.04.2010 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1(I)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,97,326/- BE ING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.13 3A AND THE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER SU RVEY. 1(II). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY U/S.133A HAS A DMITTED TO HAVE EARNED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1,05,44,766/- OUT OF UNACC OUNTED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER AND INVESTMENT IN I NVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER AND INVESTMENT IN RENOVATION OF SHO W ROOM. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE FACTS ADMITTED NEED NOT BE PROVED. THE ADMISSION MADE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT TH E STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER PRESSURE OR COERCION, THE VALIDITY OF STATEME NT EXISTS, WHICH IS THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF KUNHAMBU VS. CIT (1996) 86 TAXMANN 477 ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 2 - (KERALA). FURTHER, THE SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVIT/RETRACT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY NOT TENABLE AND LACK EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 2(I). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,01,360/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 2(II). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AFTER SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PURCHASE BILLS A MOUNTING RS.72,01,360/- TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT HIS STO CK TO THAT EXTENT IS ACCOUNT. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THESE BILLS, A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM SUCH BILLS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS GATHERED THAT THE SAID PARTIES HAD NOT MADE ANY SALES TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO DELIVERY OF GOLD AND SILVER ART ICLES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE GR OUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE ARE INTERCONNECTED. WE HAVE NOTED THAT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED DATED 05.12.2008 ACCORDIN G TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS STATED TO BE ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY/ ORNAMENTS. A SURVEY U/S.133A WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24 TH OF JANUARY, 2006. THEREAFTER, ON 29 TH OF DECEMBER, 2006 ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2006-07 DECLARING GROSS INCOME AT RS .97,87,407/-. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY FOLLOWIN G STOCKS AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND. I) UNEXPLAINED EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD JEWELLERY RS.8 7,18,500/- II) UNEXPLAINED EXCESS STOCK OF SILVER ARTICLES RS .16,26,266/- III) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RENOVATION OF SHOP RS. 2,00,000/- RS.1,05,44,766/- 2.1 THE AOS MAIN OBJECTION WAS THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1, 05,44,766/-, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN THE AS SESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ONLY A SUM OF RS.83,47,440/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO I.E., RS.21,97,326/- ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 3 - ,I.E., (RS.1,05,44,766 RS.83,47,440/-) WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ON ONE HAND THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS VALUED THE GOLD ORNAMENTS AT RS.7,780/- PER 10 GMS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED AVERAGE COST AT RS.5,740/- PER 10 GMS. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION WAS THAT THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE AO AT MARKET VALUE BUT IT OUGHT TO BE AT AVERAGE COST METHOD. LIKEWISE , IN RESPECT OF SILVER ORNAMENTS, THE AO HAD ADOPTED THE VALUATION AT RS. 91/- PER 10 GMS, ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE RATE AT RS.86 PER 10 GMS. IT WAS ALSO OBJECTED THAT NO MAKING CHARGES WERE PAID AS ALLEGED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THOSE ARGUMENTS AND THEREAFTE R ALLOWED THE GROUND IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS ADDITION TO GOLD ORNAMENTS, THE DIFFERENCE IS BOTH IN QUANTITY AND RATE. AS REGARDS QUANTITY, PARA 3 OF LETTER OF 27-04-2010 IS REPRODU CED. (3) AS REGARDS GOLD ORNAMENTS, AS NOTED IN Q. 21 AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE-6 OF TH E ORDER THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS PHYSICALLY FOUND WERE 11,481.39 GMS AND A T THAT TIME STOCK AS PER BOOKS WAS 1,540.126 AS PER PAGE-2 FILED WITH LETTER OF 11.04.09. DIFFERENCE FOUND WAS (11,481.39 1,540.126) I.E. 9,941.13 AND NOT 10,925 WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY A MISTAKE. THAT EXPLAINS DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY. VALUATION HAS TO BE AT RATE OF RS.720 ONLY (11,08,891 / 1,540). THERE IS MISTAKE IN TAKING EXCESS GOLD AT 10925 INS TEAD OF 9941.264 GMS. THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE RATE CANNOT BE RS .780/- BUT RS.720/- AS PER THE VALUATION F CLOSING STOCK TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIM SELF IN TRADING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TAKEN THE PLEA THAT IN FACT THE V ALUATION SHOULD BE RS.574/- BECAUSE THE VALUATION OF STOCK IS GENERALLY DONE AT WEIGHTE D AVERAGE AS PER PARA 6 OF LETTER DATED 11.04.2009, HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF HAS TAKEN THE VALUATION AT RS.720/- NO FURTHER REDUCTION IS GRANTED. THE AO HA S WRONGLY WORKED OUT EXCESS VALUE BOTH AS REGARDS PENALTY AND RATE. ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS TO BE DELETED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DRS VEHEM ENT CONTENTION WAS THAT THE AO HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED DUE OPPORTUNIT Y TO SUBMIT REMAND ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 4 - REPORT TO LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDING TO HIM, SINCE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO AO TO EXAMINE THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE; HENCE, INFRINGED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT A CT. HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE AO WERE CALLED FOR BY 8 TH OF MARCH, 2010 BUT THE SAID LETTER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE AO ON 10 TH OF MARCH, 2010. THE AO WAS THEREFORE PREVENTED IN NOT FILING THE REMAND REPORT WITHIN THE TIME GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED DR HAS ALSO P LACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF FACTS PLACED IN THE COMPILATION. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, LEARNE D AR HAS INFORMED THAT THE AO WAS ASKED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS BY LEA RNED CIT(A) TO FILE THE REMAND REPORT BUT HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO; HENCE , LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NO OPTION BUT TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGL Y AS PER LAW. ON MERITS HE HAS PLEADED THAT ANY STATEMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS THE DECLARATION WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY TH E AO WAS NOT AS PER THE ASSESSEES REGULAR RECORDS; HENCE, ONLY THE RAT E WAS CHALLENGED BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WEIGHT OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS NOT CHALLENGED. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION THAT CONSEQ UENT UPON A SURVEY A RETURN WAS FILED WHEREIN A SUBSTANTIVE AMOUNT OF RS .83,47,440/- WAS OFFERED TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN FEW LETTERS WERE WRIT TEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE AO TO SUBMIT THE REMAND REPORT BUT NO COMPLI ANCE WAS MADE ALTHOUGH A FINAL DATE WAS GIVEN THEN ACCORDING TO U S LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINALIZING THE PENDING APPEAL. FURTHER , IT HAS ALSO BEEN DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS REFE RENCE OF ADDITIONAL ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 5 - EVIDENCE BUT IN FACT IN TRUE SENSE THERE WAS NO ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WA S THAT THE CORRECT RATE OF VALUATION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIO NS OF RULE 46A OF IT ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6.1 AS FAR AS THE VALUATION IS CONCERNED, THE AOS ACTION TO ADOPT THE MARKET VALUE APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT BEING IN CONTR AST TO THE CONSISTENT METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., WEIGHTED AVER AGE COST METHOD. GENERALLY, IN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS, WHEN THE VALUA TION OF THE GOLD IS REQUIRED A WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST IS BEING TAKEN BEC AUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE RATE OF THE GOLD KEEPS ON FLUCTUATING FREQ UENTLY. AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WEIGHT AS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY WAS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXC ESS WEIGHT WAS FOUND AT 9935.264 GMS ON WHICH THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE A O AT RS.7780/- WHICH WAS FOUND BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS EXCESSIVE AND IN CONTRADICTION OF THE AVERAGE COST METHOD CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE SAID JUDGMENT OF LEARNED CIT(A) AFTE R CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THERE FORE AFFIRM THE SAID VIEW. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSE D. 7. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.2, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT CE RTAIN PURCHASE BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE FOLLOWI NG PARTIES. 1) MANSI JEWELLERS (GOLD) RS.13,12,444/- 2) AVEDH JEWELLERS (GOLD) RS.38,70,508/- 3) BABULAL LAKSHMICHAND (GOLD) RS. 3,78,555/- 4) SILVER FROM MANSI JEWELLERS RS.16,39,853/- RS.72,01,360/- ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 6 - 7.1 TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THOSE PURCHASES, A SUR VEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S.133A ON THOSE PARTIES. ON SURVEY OF THOSE PARTI ES, IT WAS NOTED THAT ONLY BILLS WERE PROCURED AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SA LES OR DELIVERY OF THE GOLD/SILVER ORNAMENTS. DUE TO THAT REASON, AO HAS H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGED IN BOGUS PURCHASES. THE BILLS WERE PRO CURED ONLY TO EXPLAIN UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS HELD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS WERE DETECTED AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.72,01,360/- WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS CONTESTED THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE WAS A CONTRA ENTRY OF THE SAID AMOUNT ; HENCE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS ARGUED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE GOLD TRADING ACCOUNT ON DEBIT SIDE THERE WAS AN ENTRY OF PURCHASE OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY THERE WAS A CREDIT ENTRY OF PURCHASE RETURN OF THE SAME A MOUNT AND WEIGHT OF GOLD ORNAMENT. IN THIS MANNER, THE PURCHASE WAS NUL LIFIED AND THERE WAS NO EFFECT ON THE TRADING ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MA NNER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AN D FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH HE HAD DEBITED PURCHASES, HE HAD CREDITED IDENTICAL AMOUNT AS PER PAGES 25 AND 26 OF THE GOLD TRADING A/C. AND SILVER TRADING A/C. BOTH THE ACCOUNTS SHOW IDEN TICAL DEBIT AND CREDIT AS UNDER: GOLD TRADING A/C. PURCHASE OF RAJKOT 7906.070 5561579 (DEBIT IN TRADI NG A/C.) PURCHASE RETURN RAJKOT 7906.070 1639853 SILVER TRADING A/C. PURCHASE OF RAJKOT 167.760 1639853 (DEBIT IN TRADIN G A/C.) RAJKOT PURCHASE RETURN 167.760 1639853 (CREDIT IN TRADING A/C.) ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 7 - THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAD POINTED OUT THAT EFFECTIVELY THERE IS NO DEBIT OF RS.72,01,360/- AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS R EQUIRED TO BE DELETED. HERE IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IF SAME AMOUNTS ARE FOUND DEBITED TO THE PURCHASES ACCOUNT AND IN TURN FOUND CREDITED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT B OTH FOR THE ITEMS OF GOLD AND SILVER, THE NET EFFECT WOULD BE ZERO. THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.72,01,360/- M ADE BY HIM. 9. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R., M R. O.P. BATHEJA HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONDUC T WAS NOT RELIABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EVADE THE TAX BY PROCURIN G BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS BUT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CAUGHT DURING SURVEY PROC EEDINGS HE HAS REVERSED THE ENTRY. SINCE, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT W ERE NOT BASED UPON THE GENUINE EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY TA XED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, LEARN ED AR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 11. BEFORE US A CHART HAS BEEN PLACED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PHYSICAL STOCK OF GOLD WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WEIGH ING 11481.390 GMS. AS AGAINST THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE GOLD AS PER BOOKS WAS ONLY 1540.126 GMS; HENCE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 9941.264 GMS. IT APPEARS THAT TO COVER UP THE DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO PROCURE THE PURCHASE BILLS FROM THOSE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THAT ATTEMPT HAD FAILED BECAUSE AFTER SURVEY IT WAS DETECTED THAT THOSE PUR CHASE BILLS WERE BOGUS BILLS AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOLD ORNA MENTS. THEREUPON, THE ASSESSEE HAD THOUGHT PROPER TO REVERSE THE ENTRY IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY OFFERED THE VALUE OF THE WEIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. ONCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE MISTAKE AND PAID THE TAX ON THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT THEN IT IS NOT REA SONABLE ON THE PART OF ITA NO.2288/AHD/2010 DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR V. SONI A.Y.2006-07 - 8 - THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO TAX THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE SAME AMOUN T WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONCE THE CORR ESPONDING CONTRA ENTRY HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE. RESULTANTLY, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE; HENCE DISMISS. 12. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/04/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD