Shri Raj Kishorbhai Yadav, Jamnagar V. The ITO-Ward, 3(2), Jamnagar

ITA 230/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0966 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUHAS MISTRY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 230/RJT/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) RAJ KISHORBACHU YADAV OFFICE NO. S-33, CITY ARCATE, NR. DSP BUNGLOW, JAMNAGAR V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2), JAMNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABTPY0826E APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, AR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUHAS MISTRY, SR. DR. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 27 -02-202 0 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-06 -2020 PER BENCH, 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), JAMNAGAR DATED 26.08.2019 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2015-1 6. ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1.THE LD. CIT(A), JAMNAGAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 13,51,300/-. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L EARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.13,51 ,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE VIZ A VIZ TURNOVER REPORTED IN FORM 26 AS. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACTS. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TURNOVER IN HIS B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,72,94,735/- WHEREAS THE TURNOVER REPORTED IN FORM 26AS STANDS AT RS. 2,86,46,035/- LEADING TO A DIFFERENCE OF RS.13,51,3 00/- AS UNDER REPORTING OF SALES. ON QUESTION BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE AMONG OT HER SUBMISSIONS CONTENDED THAT ONLY THE ELEMENT OF PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH TU RNOVER CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 5. HOWEVER THE AO DISAGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,51,300/- BEING REPRESENTING THE AMOUNT OF UNDER REPORTING OF SALES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARN ED CIT (A). 7. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED T HAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR. HOWEVER HE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE RECONCILIATION DUE TO COMPLEXIT Y INVOLVED IN THE ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ONLY THE PROF IT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTION FILED A CHART OF DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS SHOWING THE RAT E OF NET PROFIT DECLARED BY ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 3 HIM. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX THE IMPUGN ED AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF 3.25% OF RS. 13,51,300/-. 8. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT (A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 13,51,500/- BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS PER RETURN OF INCOME A ND THE RECEIPT AS REFLECTED AS PER 26AS. THUS THIS PART OF RECEIPT OF RS. 13,51,500/- WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AGAIN THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE AND MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES RELATED TO THIS DIFFERENT IAL RECEIPT OF RS. 13,51,500/- WERE NOT DEBITED TO THE P & L ' ACCOUNT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES RELATED TO SUCH RECEIPT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN MY OPINION THE NET PROFIT OF THIS RECEIPT OF RS. 13,,51,500/-CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY WHEN THE EXPENSES RELATED TO SUCH RECEIPT ARE NOT C LAIMED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF THIS DETAILS AND EVIDENCE, T HE PLEA OF AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT ONLY NET PROFIT BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION CANNOT B E ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY MADE ADDITION OF THI S AMOUNT OF RS. 13,51,500/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS REPRODUCED IN INITIAL PA RAGRAPH OF THIS APPEAL ORDER IS DISMISSED. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED D IFFERENCE REPRESENTS THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THEREFORE ONLY THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT EMBEDDED THEREIN CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY , THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE BETWEEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND R EPORTED IN 26AS REPRESENTS THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHET HER THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 4 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE REPRESENTS THE INCOME IN ITS ENT IRETY OR PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE T HAT IT IS THE ONLY PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS THAT IT REPRESENTS THE BUS INESS RECEIPTS. IN HOLDING SO, WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILL REPORTED IN 326 ITR 410 WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: AS A RESULT OF SEARCH BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO RECONCILE THE PRODUCTION, SALES AND THE CLOSING STOCK ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION TO THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSIO N OF SALE CONSIDERATION. HELD THAT, THE ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE CONSIDERATION BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PROFIT. 13. WE FURTHER DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURUBACHHAN SINGH J JU NEJA REPORTED IN 302 ITR 63. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THERE WAS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS REFLECTED BY THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT ONLY THE GROSS PRO FIT ON THE SAID AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE TRIB UNAL WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,85,003 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN ACCOUNTED CASH SALES. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT S IN TOTALITY WE HOLD THAT IT IS THE ONLY ELEMENT OF PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH BUSINES S RECEIPTS WHICH CAN BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. NOW THE NEXT CONTROVERSY ARISES WHAT RATE OF PROFIT SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A CHART SHOWING TH E AMOUNT OF PROFIT FOR EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE AVERAGE P ROFIT WAS SHOWN AT 3.25% OF THE TURNOVER.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO TAX THE ELEMENT OF PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH BUSINESS ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 5 RECEIPTS AT THE RATE OF 3.25% BY TREATING THE SAME A S NET PROFIT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF IN PART. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE ISSUE/APPEAL AS DISCUSSED A BOVE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CLAUSE (C) OF RULE 34 OF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RULES 1963 REQUIRES THE BENCH TO MAKE ENDEAVOUR TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITH IN 60 DAYS FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS CAN BE EXTENDED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE SAME SHOULD NOT O RDINARILY BE FURTHER EXTENDED BEYOND ANOTHER 30 DAYS. IN SIMPLE WORDS TH E TOTAL TIME AVAILABLE TO THE BENCH IS OF 90 DAYS UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER, DURING THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ENTIRE WORLD IS FACING THE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE OF COVID 2019 OUTBREAK, RESULTING THE LOCKDOWN IN THE COUNTRY, THE ORDERS THOUGH SUBSTANTIALLY PREPAR ED BUT COULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED FOR THE UNAVOIDABLE REASONS WITHIN THE M AXIMUM PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE MUMB AI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JSW LIMITED VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 6103/MUM/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 14-5-2020 EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PRONOUNCING THE ORDER WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TIME BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER: 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HONBLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TOOK THE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COV ID 19 EPIDEMIC, AND THIS LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT , EVEN BEFORE THIS FORMAL NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN BY THE MAHARASHTR A GOVERNMENT, AND ON ACCOUNT OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH ADVISORIES WITH A VIEW OF CHECKING SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE EPIDEMIC SITUATION IN MUMBAI BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS U NPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT H AS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ORDER I N THE HISTORY OF INDIA AND VIDE ORDER DATED 6.5.2020 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXT ENDED THE LIMITATION TO EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LOCKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO A FEW MORE DAYS PRIOR TO, AND AFTER, THE LOCKDOWN BY OBSERVING THAT IN CASE THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED AFTER 15.03.2020 THEN THE PERIOD FROM 15.03.2020 TILL THE DATE ON WHICH THE L OCKDOWN IS LIFTED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA WHERE THE DISPUTE LIES OR WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 6 SHALL BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN . HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER DATED 15TH APRIL 202 0, HAS, BESIDES EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS ALSO OBSERVED T HAT, IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT WHILE CALCULATING TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME- BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CO NTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY , AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30TH APRIL 2020 SHALL CONTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020 . IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE ST AND THAT, THE CORONAVIRUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AND FMC (I.E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAYBE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TERM FORCE MAJEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, AS AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLLED WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITION, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA A ND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005, AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING PRONOU NCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COU NTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALIT IES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. TH E TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQ UIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US IS NOT ONLY IN CON SONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TI ME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPRECEDEN TED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBTEDLY, IN THE CA SE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)] , HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDE R BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTE NDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOC KDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY , IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONO UNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDE RS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN , IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACT S OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE B OARD. ITA NOS. 230 /RJT/2018 . A.Y. 2015-1 6 7 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE EXPRESS TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE THE O RDER AS ON DATE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01 - 06 - 20 20 SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 01/06/2020 TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD