M/s. Anjalee Exim Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2386/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 238620514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETA
• Keywords: Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Earning of tax free income; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] I.T.A. NO. : 2 386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ANJALEE EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED .APPELLANT 3 RD FLOOR, ANJALEE HOUSE OPP LAL BUNGALOW ROAD, C G ROAD AHMEDABAD 380 009 [PAN: AABCA3012A] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AHMEDABAD . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: S N DIVETA FOR THE APPELLANT SONIA KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUL Y 3 , 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 29 TH , 2014 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH AUGUST 2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SHORT, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DI SALLOWANCES: - (A) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A - RS 42,97,650; (B) ALLOCATION OF STT - RS 10,12,199;AND (C) ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES - RS 27,57,751 . WE WILL TAKE UP THESE THREE ISSUES ONE BY ONE. I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 7 3. AS FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF RS 42,97,650 UNDER SECT ION 14A IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES. IT HAD A CLOSING STOCK OF SHARES AT RS 8,36,57,556 AS AGAINST THE OPENING STOCK OF SHARES AT RS 2,99,59,113. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED A DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS 5,28,274 WHICH IS TAX EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS, AND RELYING ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT LTD [ 117 ITD SB 169 (MUM)], THE AS SESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THIS CASE. HE THUS PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE BY TAKING THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART O F THE TOTAL INCOME . ON THIS BASIS, AS AGAINST A DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS 5,28,274, A DISALLOWANCE OF RS 42,97,650 WAS COMPUTED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG CO LTD VS DCIT [ 328 ITR 81 (BOM)] AND AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED IS POST INSERTION OF RULE 8 D, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RIGHTLY COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY A COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS GULSHAN INVESTMENT CO L TD [ (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 113 (KOL. - TRIB.) ] INASMUCH AS EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE TO BE HELD APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE - AS WAS HELD THEREIN, COMPUTATION PROVISIONS UNDER RULE 8D2 (II) AND (III) WILL FAIL BECAUSE THE DIVIDEND YIELDING SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AND NOT AS INVESTMENTS, AND THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) WILL BE CONFINED TO ONLY DIRECT EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MAY BE REFERRED TO: 5. WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIAT E TO BEGIN WITH REPRODUCING RULE 8 D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 3 OF 7 'METHOD FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. 8D(1) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE OF A PREVIOUS YEAR, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH - ( A ) THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; OR ( B ) THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR, HE SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - RULE (2). (2) THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF FOLLOWING AMOUNTS, NAMELY: - ( I ) THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATING TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME; ( II ) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT, AN AMOUNT COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING FORMULA, NAMELY: - A X B C WHERE A = AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF INTERES T INCLUDED IN CLAUSE (I) INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR; B = THE AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; C = THE AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; ( III ) AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE - HALF PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT , INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR.' 3. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RULE, THE 'TOTAL ASSETS' SHALL MEAN, TOTAL ASS ETS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET EXCLUDING THE INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF ASSETS BUT INCLUDING THE DECREASE ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF ASSETS.' I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 4 OF 7 6. A PLAIN LOOK AT THE ABOVE RULE SHOWS THAT 8 D(2)(II) AND (III) CAN ONLY BE APPLIED IN THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH SHARES ARE HELD AS INVESTMENTS, AND THAT THIS RULE WILL NOT HAVE ANY APPLICATION WHEN THE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. IT IS SO FOR THE ELEMENTARY REASON THAT THE ONE OF THE VARIABLES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULES 8D(2)(II) AND (III) IS TO BE COMPUTED IS THE VALUE OF 'INVESTMENTS, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME', AND, WHEN THERE ARE NO SUCH INVESTMENTS, THE RULE CANNOT HAVE ANY APPLICATION. WHEN NO AMOUNT CAN BE COMPUTED IN THE LI GHT OF THE FORMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8 D(II) AND (III), NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D (2)(II) AND (III) EITHER. AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B C SRINIVASA SETTY [1981] 128 ITR 294 , WHEN COMPUTATION PROVISIONS FAIL, THE CHA RGING PROVISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED, AND BY THE SAME LOGIC, WHEN THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS UNDER RULE 8 D (2) (II) AND (III) FAIL, DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS CANNOT BE MADE EITHER AS THE SAID PROVISION IS RENDERED UNWORKABLE. 5. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE INDEED DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. WE DO SO, AND HAVING NOTED THAT THERE ARE ADMITTEDLY NO DIRECTION EXPENSES INCURRED IN EARNING THE DIVIDENDS WHICH COULD QUALIFY FOR BEING COVERED BY RULE 8D2(I), WE DELETE THE IMP UGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 42,97,650 . THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE NEXT GRIEVANCE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED OF ALLOCATION OF STT AMOUNTING TO RS 10,12,199. HOWEVER, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANISH D INNAI [370 ITR 679 (BOM)] AND IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH OTHER BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS MAY BE AVAILABLE A T THAT POINT OF TIME. AS WE DO SO, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE REFRAINED FROM ADJUDICATION ON MERITS FOR THE REASON THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS EMBEDDED IN LEARNED COUNSEL S ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD BE FORE US. 7. COMING TO THE THIRD AND LAST ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.E. ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES BETWEEN SPECULATION AND NON - PECULATION BUSINESS, AMOUNTING TO R S 27,57,751 , WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY TRIBUNAL S DECISION DATED 18 TH MAY 2 013 ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 5 OF 7 YEAR. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE O RDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. REGARDING THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER ALLOCATION IS TO BE MADE OR NOT, WE FIND THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT CITED BY LD. D.R. COVERS THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS ASPECT, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. REGARDING QUANTUM OF ALLOCATION, WE FEEL THAT THE A.O. HAS ALLOCATED THESE EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF LOSS FROM SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION IN C OMMODITY AND INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES BUT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SALE OF SHARES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P & L ACCOUNT OF RS.1437.85 LACS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE TOTAL EXPENSES CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. FOR ALLOCATION OF RS.13,76,995/ - SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO ALL THE THREE ACTIVITIES I.E. PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, HAVING TURNOVER OF RS.1437.85 LACS, SPECULATIVE LOSS OF COMMODITY TRANSACTION OF RS.21.40 LACS AND INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF RS.50.43 LAC S. IF THESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED TO THESE THREE ACTIVITIES IN THE RATIO OF THE TURNOVER OF THESE THREE ACTIVITIES THEN, THE AMOUNT TO BE ALLOCATED TO SPECULATION BUSINESS OF COMMODITY SHOULD BE 21.40 /1509.68 OF TOTAL EXPENSES, WHICH COMES TO I.T.A.NO. 1 330 /AHD/2011 ROUGHLY 1.5%. THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF ACTIVITIES OF SHARES BY WAY OF DELIVERY TO THE EXTENT OF 1437.85 / 1509.68 ROUGHLY 95% AND THE REMAINING EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES. SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE ALLOCATED TO SPECULATION BUSINESS OF COMMODITY WORKS OUT TO RS.20655/ - AND THE SAME FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY WAY OF DELIVERY RS.13,08,145 AND THE REMAINING EXPENSES OF RS.48195/ - IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED TO INCOM E FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THESE THREE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE AS UNDER: A. PROFIT & LOSS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY DELIVERY: SALE OF SHARES RS.14,37,85,465 ADD: CLOSING STOCK RS. 2,99,59,113 RS.17,37,44,578 LESS: PURCHASE SE OF SHARES RS.17,37,34,136 LESS DMAT CHARGES RS.95,496 LESS: SERVICE TAX RS. 2,361 LESS SHARE TRADING EXP. RS.1,70,958 LESS EXPENSES ALLOCATED RS.13,08,145 RS.17,53,11,096 NET LOSS: RS. 15,66,518 B PROFIT & LOSS ON SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIO N IN COMMODITY: NET LOSS AS PER P & L ACCOUNT RS.21,40,013 ADD: ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AS ABOVE RS. 20,655 TOTAL LOSS RS.21,60,668 C INCOME/LOSS FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES: I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 6 OF 7 INCOME AS CREDITED IN P & L A/C RS.50,43,318 LESS : FUTURE TRADING EXPENSES RS.16,22,141 LESS: EXPENSES ALLOCATED AS ABOVE RS. 48,195 TOTAL EXPENSES RS.16,70,336 NET INCOME RS.33,72, 982 I.T.A.NO. 1330 /AHD/2011 10. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE THIRD ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE LOSS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING BY DELIVERY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION LOSS BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1). FOR THIS ISSUE, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R. ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DARSHAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING AS TO WHETHER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1) IS APPLICABLE OR NOT, BUSINESS INCOME SHOULD BE WORKED OUT WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1) AND THEN, SUCH BUSINESS LOSS OR INCOME SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH THE INCOME UNDER THE OTHER HEADS. IF WE DO SO IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS INCOME OF RS.33,72,982/ - FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF SHARES AND THERE IS LOSS OF RS.15,66,518/ - FROM BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING AND THERE IS LOSS OF RS .21,60,668/ - FROM BUSINESS OF COMMODITY. AFTER ADJUSTING THESE TWO LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION, THERE IS NET LOSS OF RS.3,54,204/ - AND INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS ASSESSED BY THE A.O. IS RS.5,46,854/ - AND HE NCE, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS MORE THAN THE BUSINESS LOSS AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. BUT THERE IS ONE LACUNA. LOSS OF RS.( - )21,60,668/ - FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS OF COMMODITY CANNOT BE REDUCED FROM BUSINESS INCOME. EVEN IF THE SPECULATION LOSS FROM THE BUSINESS OF COMMODITY TRANSACTION OF RS.21,60,668/ - IS NOT REDUCED FROM THE INCOME FORM DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION OF RS.33,72,982/ - , SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.19,91,409/ - AS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM BUSINESS PROFIT AND WHEN WE DO SO, THE I.T.A.NO. 1330 /AHD/2011 BUSINESS INCOME ASSESSABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN GROSS TOTAL INCOME COMES TO RS. 'NIL' AND GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ONLY OF RS.5,46,845/ - AND, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD. A.R., WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, LOSS OF RS.15,66,518/ - FROM BUSIN ESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON DELIVERY BASIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION LOSS AND ONLY THE LOSS FROM COMMODITY TRANSACTION BUSINESS OF RS.21,60,668/ - HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION LOSS. WE DIRECT THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY. 8. WE SEE NO R EASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. I.T.A. NO.: 2386/AHD/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 008 - 09 PAGE 7 OF 7 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE GRIEV ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS UPHELD IN PRINCIPLE BUT THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ABOVE. 10. NO OTHER ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE US. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 5 . COPI ES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD