M/s. Janak Dehydration Pvt.Ltd., Mahuva V. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2325/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9884 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K TIWARI SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 80IB; 143(1); 80IA; 80HH; 264

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:27.9.10 DRAFTED:27.9.10 M/S.JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. 34, KERI BAZAR, OLD DARBARGADH, MAHUVA 264 290 PAN NO.AAACK5403F V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI A.K. TIWARI, SR-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO.CI T(A)-XIX/AC.CIR.1/ BNR/19/06-07 DATED 31-08-2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17-03-2006 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WITHDRAW THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S.80IB OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,12,026/-, BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OR PRODU CTION OF ARTICLE OR THINGS AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 :- ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 A.Y 2003-04 M/S JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-1, AB D PAGE 2 (1) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO WI THDRAW THE DEDUCTION PARTLY ALLOWED U/S.80IB OF THE ACT (RS.6,12,026/- ALLOWED BY A.O. AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS.8,69,400/-). (2) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE /PR ODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEHYDRATION OF ONIONS, FRUITS VEGETABLES ETC. AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF DEHYDRATION OF ONION DOE S NOT INVOLVE ANY MANUFACTURING BUT IS ONLY A PROCESS. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), D EHYDRATION OF ONION CANNOT SAID TO BE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLES OR THINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION ALLOWE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER PARTLY TO THE EXTENT OF RSS.6,12,026/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY CIT(A ) AND ACCORDINGLY ENHANCEMENT WAS MADE. 4. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI M. K. PATEL STATED THAT THIS IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE C LAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 20 03-2004 AND WAS ALLOWED ALL THROUGH EXCEPT IN THIS LAST YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04 WHICH IS 10 TH YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. WE FIND THAT FOR AND FROM ASSES SMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AN D 80IA AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OR WHI LE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE CHART FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS, FROM WHICH IT IS NOTICED THAT IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OR 80IA OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHER DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THIS VERY YEAR HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEHYDRATION OF ONION AS MANUFACTURING U/S.80IA BY RESTRICTING DEDUCTION KEEPING IN VIEW T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80HHC AS WELL AS 80IA(9) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ENHANCED THE ADDITION AND NOT ALLOWED EVEN THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 A.Y 2003-04 M/S JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-1, AB D PAGE 3 AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTAN T CASE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAD RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING FROM THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AND ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.8 0HHC OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, AGAINST THIS ACTION, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY WITHDRAWING THE D EDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND T HAT THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF DEHYDRATED ONION FLAKERS AND POTATO CHIPS IS NOT MA NUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO INCENTIVE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BY FILING CHART NARRATING FACT THAT ALL TROUGH ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 2002-03 ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT YEAR BEING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND THAT THE CONDITIONS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF DEDUCTION AND NOT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, EACH YEAR IS SEPARATE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXABLE INCOME AS W ELL AS TAX LIABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THAT YEAR AND THE LAW AS APPLICABLE. FURTHER, RES-JUDICATE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN AN INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW BUT THE PRINCIP LE OF CONSISTENCY IS TO BE FOLLOWED. IN SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDI TIONS LIKE THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS SHOULD NOT BE FORMED BY RE-CONSTRUCTION OR SPLITTING UP OF AN EXISTING UNIT. THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE EXAMINED IN THE INITIAL YEAR OF THE CLAIM AND WHEN FOUND SATISFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INITIAL YEAR THE A.O IN THE ASSES SMENT OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR CANNOT IGNORE THAT AND TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 6. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRIBUNALS ORDER OF CHANDIGARH BENCH B IN THE CASE OF JAIN UDHAY HOSIERY (P) LTD. V. ACIT (2005) 1 SOT 193 (CHD), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS H ELD IN PARA-6 AS UNDER:- 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80-I ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISF IED IN THE INITIAL YEAR AND ONCE ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, ASSESSEE IS ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS SPECIFIED UNDER THE SAI D SECTION. IN THIS CONNECTION, HE REPLIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTDS CASE (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS:- ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 A.Y 2003-04 M/S JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-1, AB D PAGE 4 (I) CIT V. NIPPON ELECTRONICS (INDIA) P. LTD. [1990] 181 ITR 518 (KAR.); (II) SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (GUJ). IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT ONCE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR, REVENUE HAS NO POWER TO DENY THE DEDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE A CT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT WHEREAS THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 80-I ARE SAT ISFIED IN ANY YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THAT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. HOWEVER, ACCORDING T O THE LD. COUNSEL, THE REVERSE IS NOT TRUE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN ANY CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SET UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING AND IT HAD NOT BEEN FORMED BY TRANSFER OF OLD MACHINERY THE VALUE OF WH ICH EXCEEDED 20% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MACHINERY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY PL EADED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 MAY BE U PHELD AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE REVERSED AND DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ONCE THE DEDUCTION FOR THE VERY FIRST IS ALLOWED THEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE SAME GROUND. HE RELIED ON THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION I N THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (GUJ), WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT ONCE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR, REVENUE HAS NO POWER TO DENY THE DEDUCT ION IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FU RTHER POINTED OUT THAT WHEREAS THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT IF T HE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 80-I ARE SATISFIED IN ANY YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE YE AR OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESP ECT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THAT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. ACCORD INGLY, THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS DELETED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB AND U/S.80HHC BOTH INDEPENDENTLY ON GROSS AMOUNT OF PROFIT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3 :- (3) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS.8,69,400/- A S PRAYED FOR. ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 A.Y 2003-04 M/S JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-1, AB D PAGE 5 9. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRL Y CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. ROGINI GARMENTS (2007) 294 ITR 15 (AT), (CHENNAI) (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IF RESTRICTIVE CL AUSE NOT IN THE SAME SECTION BUT ION SOME OTHER PROVISION, IS CLEARLY SHOWING TH E MENS LEGIS IT HAS TO BE GIVEN FULL EFFECT. THEREFORE, IF RESTRICTION IS PL ACED ON THE CLAIM OF REPETITIVE DEDUCTION IN SECTION 80IA(9) AND IS MADE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ALL DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI-A, THEN THIS RESTRICTIO N IS TO BE APPLIED. SINCE THE WORDINGS USED ARE ANY OTHER DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPT ER VI-A FULL EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THIS PROVISION AND WHENEVER AN ASSESSEE WANTS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA(9) RESTRICTION IS TO BE READ IN EVERY OTHER PROVISION PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI- A. APROPOS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROVISION IS COUCHED WITH AMBIGUITIES, AND THEREFORE THE SPIRIT OF THE ACT IS TO BE SEEN AND J USTICE BE DONE WE FIND THAT THE FREEDOM FOR THE SEARCH OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ACT OR THE MISCHIEF AT WHICH IT IS AIMED OPENS THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATI ON. THIS FINER ASPECT CANNOT BE NARROWLY WATCHED. IT IS THAT DELICATE AND IMPORT ANT BRANCH OF JUDICIAL POWER, THE CONCESSION OF WHICH IS DANGEROUS BUT THE DENIAL IS DISASTROUS. AT ONE STREAM STANDS LORD DENNING WHO SAID: WE DO NOT SIT HERE TO PULL THE LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENT TO PIECES AND MAKE NON-SENSE OF IT. THAT IS AN EASY THING TO DO. WE SIT HERE TO FIND OUT THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT AND CARRY IT OUT. WE DO THIS BETTER BY FILLING IN THE GAPS AND MAKING SENSE OF THE ENACTMENT THAN BY OPENING TO DESTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS. VISCOUNT SIMONDS CALLED IT A NAKED USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION UNDER THE TH ING GUISE OF INTERPRETATION. IN OUR OPINION, THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE IS A V ERY SLIPPERY PHASE. WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS TRANSPARENTLY PLAIN, IT IS WRONG TO GIVE IT COLOUR ACCORDING TO THE TEMPER OF TIME. WHEN THE LANGUAGE IMPLIED BY THE ENACTMENT IS CLEAR, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS IN ANY MANNER EXCEPT BY GIVING THEM THEIR PLAIN AND OBVIOUS MEANI NG. NEBULOUS CONCEPT OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CANNOT BE USED TO CURTAIL TH E EXPLICIT PROVISIONS IN A STATUTE. A STATUTE OR ANY ENACTING PROVISIONS THERE IN MUST BE SO CONSTRUED SO AS TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE ON THE PRINCI PLE EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM, UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR IMPORTING INTO THE STATUTE IS THE EDICT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE DUT Y OF THE JUDICATURE IS TO ACT UPON THE SENTETIA LEGIS. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAIN ST THE STATUTE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CIRCULAR RELIED ON BY LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT MORE THAN 100 PE R CENT DEDUCTION ON THE SAME PROFIT CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER VA RIOUS SECTIONS ENUMERATED IN CHAPTER VI-A. SECTION 80HHC IS PART O F CHAPTER VI-A. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHARON VANEERS P. LTD.[2007] 294 ITR 18 (MAD.) (T.C.(A) NO.62 OF 2004 DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2007) , HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY T HAT SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IS A SELF-CONTAINED PROVISION. THE DEDUCTION CA NNOT BE ALLOWED IGNORING ITA NO.2325/AHD/2006 A.Y 2003-04 M/S JANAK DEHYDRATION P. LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-1, AB D PAGE 6 THE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IA(9 ). THE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE IN SECTION 80-IA MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WHEREV ER DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A(C) IS CLAIMED, THE C OMPUTATION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80-IA(9). IT PRECLUDES PRO TANTO, ALL THE DEDUCTIONS OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VI-A(C). SECTION 80HHC IS A PART OF CHAPTER VI-A(C). IT IS NOT A SEL F-CONTAINED PROVISION. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO AMBIGUITY ON THIS ASPECT. WE ARE T HEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80-IA SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS BEFORE COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80HH C OF THE ACT. 10. FURTHER WE FIND THAT A LARGER BENCH OF FIVE ME MBERS CONSTITUTED IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. HINDUSTAN MINT AND AGRO PRODUCTS P. LTD. (2009) 315 ITR (AT) 401 (DEL) (SB), HAS DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCM CREATIONS V. ACIT (2008) 304 ITR 319 (MAD), CONFIRMING THE VIEW OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN MINT AND AGRO PRODUCTS (SUPRA) AND ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/10/2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 01/10/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIX, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD