Maitri Real Estate Developer, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2395/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80237 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2395 /AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S. MAITRI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, UTSAV, FIRST FLOOR, OPP, RAJIVBHAI TOWER, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD V/S THE I.T.O., WARD-9(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAIFM 3770B APPELLANT BY : SMT URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 31-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 08.08.2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPER OF LAND AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES . ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 07-08 ON 31.10.2007 SHOWING TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 6,23,020/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 2 WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 24,99,600/-. AGGRIEVED BY ORD ER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) . LD. CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2012 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE U S AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCISE GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF RS. 11, 69, 023/- ELECTRICITY CHARGES PAID TO TORRENT POWER AEC LTD. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN TREATING E XPENSES CRYSTALLIZED AND WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR AS PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENSE. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF EX PENDITURE RELATED TO YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE POWER WAS CONNECTED ONLY ON OBTAINING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS RESPECTFU LLY SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF EXPENDITURE IS HELD TO BE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITU RE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE SINCE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF RS. 2, 51, 072/- OF BOREWELL EXPENSES. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT BE SO HOLD NOW. 4. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED AND ARE IN RESP ECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEB ITED RS. 13,24,750/- AS ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED PAYMENT OF RS. 11,69,023/- MADE IN EARLIER YEARS BUT CLAIMED AS EXPENSE IN THE YEAR UN DER REVIEW. A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERC ANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,69,023/- WHICH WAS PAID IN EARLIER YEAR PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWAB LE IN THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 3 CONSIDERATION. A.O ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR. HE ACCO RDINGLY DISALLOWED RS. 11,69,023/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O BY HO LDING AS UNDER:- IN RESPECT OF GROUND RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,69,023 ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. IN TOTALITY. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IF ANY ASSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEN HE SHOULD CLAIM EXPENSES IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME ARE INCURRED. BUT, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, A.O. H AS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT IN THIS REGARD. THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS NOT PUT FORW ARD THE FACTS PROPERLY. AS CONTENDED BY APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO TORRENT POWER AEC LTD. FOR OBTAINING ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND IT IS IN THIS REGARD VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS ARE TREATED AS ADVAN CE AND ONLY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SUCH SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY WAS DONE H ENCE ALL THESE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT TO LOOK INTO THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BEFORE ALLOWING THE SAME. THE DETA ILS FURNISHED BY APPELLANT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE THEREFOR E REQUIRE CONSIDERATION. THE SOME OF IMPORTANT DETAILS CAN BE MENTIONED AS F OLLOWS: (I) LETTER DATED 7.12.2004 FROM M/S. THE AHMEDABAD ELEC TRICITY CO.LTD. (PAGE 18 TO 21) OF SUBMISSION-ILL SHOWS THA T THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY FOR I TS PROJECT 'RADHAKISHAN VILLA' , JAYMALA ISANPUR RING ROAD, NR .BHAGWAN NAGAR, ISANPUR VIDE APPLICATION NO.Q/04/14744 TO Q/ 04/14784. AS PER THIS APPLICATION BEING DEVELOPER AND BUILDER TH E APPELLANT HAS TO MADE CERTAIN PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDO OR SUBSTATION IN THE PROJECT TO SUPPLY ELECTRICITY TO 41 NOS. OF CONNECTION. FOR THIS AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,51,464 WAS TO BE PAID. FOR SERVIC E LINE CONNECTION IN THIS REGARD RS.2,83,300 HAS TO BE PAI D. (II) (II) THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TORRENT POWER AEC LTD. ( PAGE 22 OF THE SUBMISSION-ILL) IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT SHOWS THA T RS,8,51,464 WAS PAID VIDE CHEQUE NO.706043 OF THE BANK OF.BAROD A CURRENT A/C.NO.100019 WHILE RS. 2,83,300 WAS PAID VIDE CHEQ UE NO. 706644 OF THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON 12.04.2005. CORR ESPONDING RECEIPTS COPIES ARE ALSO ATTACHED FROM PAGE NO. 23 TO 30 OF THE SUBMISSION. FURTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,14,64 0 WAS PAID ON 16.12.2005 FOR WHICH RECEIPTS COPIES ARE PLACED AT PAGE 31 TO 52 OF THIS SUBMISSION. A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.34,800 W AS PAID ON 26.12.2005 FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR WHICH COPIES OF RECEIPT ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 4 SUBMITTED ON PAGE NO. 53 & 54. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,1 5, 221 WAS SHOWN AS RECEIPT ON 26.12.2005 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 7121 44 U.T.I. BANK LTD. IT IS THEREFORE AS ON 31.3.2005 THE APPEL LANT PAID RS. 11 ,69,023. AGAIN ON 23.02.2007 (COPY OF RECEIPT ON PA GE 53) AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,55, 731 WAS PAID VIDE CHEQUE NO. 93 3599 OF BANK OF BARODA CURRENT A/C.NO.100019, IT IS THEREFORE TO TAL AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,754 (RS.1 1,69,023 + 1,55,731) WAS DEBITE D IN P&L ACCOUNT AS ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. (III) A CERTIFICATE DATED 25.1.2007 FROM THE ASSTT, ELECT RICAL ENGG. AHMEDABAD (COPY AT PAGE 48 OF SUBMISSION-L) STATING THAT- : ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION OF MAITRI REAL ESTATE DEV ELOPERS, 'RADHEKISHN VILLA' BLOCK A&B, 132 'RING ROAD, NEAR JAYMALA BUS STOP, ISANPUR, AHMEDABAD WHICH IS MULTISTORIED BUILDING (HEIGHT MORE THAN 15 MT.) HAS BEEN INSPECTED ON DAT ED 25.1.2007 BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND FOUND IN COMPLIANCE WITH RUL E 50-A OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY RULE 1956 AND AS PER THE APPROVE D PLAN NO. 2846 DATED 7.6.2005. NECESSARY PERMISSION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE I.E. RUL ES 50-A IS HEREBY GIVEN TO COMMENCE THE SUPPLY OF ENERGY: SERVICE NO. 1417020 TO 1417048 & 1415235 (TOTAL 30 SERVICE)' ALL THESE EVIDENCES SHOWS THAT THE EXPENSES SO DEBI TED WAS RELATED TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES TO '30 SERVICE' I.E . CONNECTION AT 'RADHE KISHAN VILLA', ISANPUR, AHMEDABAD. IT IS IN THIS REGARD THE EXPENDITURE IS RELATABLE TO SALE OF FLAT/DWELLING U NIT AT 'RADHE KISHAN VILLA'. THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT SHO WS ONLY SALES OF RS. 1,29,19,487 IN PREVIOUS YEAR AS AGAINST SALE OF RS.4,87,70,318 IN EARLIER YEAR BUT THIS SALE IS NOT IDENTIFIED TO WHICH SCHEME OF APPELLANT IT BELONGS. FURTHER, IN T HE BALANCE SHEET ALSO UNDER THE HEAD 'CURRENT LIABILITIES' THE 'ADVA NCES FROM MEMBERS' WERE SHOWN AS RS.29,62,000 AS ON 31.3.2007 AS AGAINST RS.35,82,878 AS ON 31.3.2006. IN THE NOTES FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS UNDER SCHEDULE H OF AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCO UNTS FOR PREVIOUS YEAR IT IS MENTIONED THAT '1.3. RECOGNITION OF REVENUE:- (A)REVENUE IN CASE OF COMPLETED UNIT IS ACCOUNTED O N COMPLETION AND SALE OF UNIT. (B)REVENUE IN CASE OF CONTRACT IS ACCOUNTED ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETED.' IT IS THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES HAVE TO BOOKED WITH RESPECT TO SALE SHOWN (REVENUE RECOGNIZED) FROM THE 'RADHE KISHAN V ILLA' SCHEME ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 5 TO ARRIVE AT PROPER COMPUTATION OF PROFIT. IN THE A BSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS, IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR 30 SERVICE CONNECTION HOW MUCH RATE HAD ALREADY EFFECT ED AND HOW MUCH IS THERE IN WORK IN PROGRESS. FURTHER IT IS AL SO NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER THIS EXPENSES HAS TO MEET OUT INDEPENDENTLY BY EACH MEMBER OF THE SCHEME 'RADHE KISHAN VILLA' O R BY APPELLANT I.E. WHETHER SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY APPELLANT INCLUDES EXPENDITURE FOR 'DEPOSIT AND SERVICE LINE' TO THAT INDIVIDUAL UNIT OR NOT LIKE STAMP DUTY AND MUNICIPA L TAX EXPENDITURE BORN BY PURCHASER OF UNIT. IN OTHER EVE NTUALITY THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE A.O. 'S CONTENTION HAS WEIGHT THAT APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BOOKED THESE EXPE NDITURE CORRESPONDING TO SALE SHOWN OUT OF 'RADHE KISHAN VI LLA' SCHEME SO TO REFLECT CORRECT PROFIT FROM BUSINESS AND AS PER ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING OF INCOME AND CORRESPONDING E XPENDITURE. EACH ASSTT. YEAR IS DIFFERENT AND TOTAL INCOME IS T O BE WORKED OUT INDEPENDENTLY FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR SO TO ASCERTAIN CORRECT TAX LIABILITY. ALLOWING THIS EXPENDITURE IN TOTALITY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEREFORE RESULT INTO INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCO ME WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF ASCERTAINING CORRECT TAX LIABILITY. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS,11,69,023 IS JUSTIFIED AND ADDITION SO MADE IS C ONFIRMED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND CIT(A). LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE WORK OF ELECTRICAL CONNECTION WAS COMPLETED ON 25.01.2007 AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE PA YMENT WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENSE IN ACCOUNTING YEAR 06-07. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCURRING OF EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY REVEN UE. SHE ALSO POINTED TO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMEN T PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION THAT THE PERMIS SION WAS GRANTED ON ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 6 25.01.2007 AND THEREFORE THE WORK WAS COMPLETED IN A.Y. 07-08AND THUS ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE AMOUNT AS EXPENDIT URE AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ELECTRICAL INS TALLATION WAS OBTAINED FOR ITS PROJECT RADHE KISHAN VILLA WHICH WAS A MULTI STOR EYED BUILDING THE PERMISSIONS FOR ELECTRICITY WAS RECEIVED ON 25.01.2 007 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 07-08 WHICH WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY T HE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICITY INSPECTOR. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CON TRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. FURTHER THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND MORE SO IN THE LIGHT OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUPPLY OF ENERGY STARTED ON 25.01.2 007 AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE DELETION MADE BY THE A.O. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,51,072/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOREWELL EXPENSES. 10. A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 2,51,072/ - AS BORE WELL EXPENSES. HE NOTICED THAT THE EXPENSES WAS INCURRED IN PREVIO US YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 04-05 AND THE WORK OF BORE WELL WAS ALSO COMPLETED IN THAT YEAR. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PERTAIN TO EA RLIER YEARS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING HE DISALLOWED THE ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 7 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A. O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER O F A.O BY HOLDING AS UNDER: (C) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BORE-WELL EXPENSE S OF RS.2,51,072 RELATED TO A.Y. 2004-05 BUT WRITTEN OFF IN THE PREVIOUS YEA R, I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAM E WAS AN ADVANCE AND SINCE BORE WELL STARTED WORKING IN PREVIOUS YEAR, T HE SAME IS WRITTEN OFF AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBSTANT IATED THE FACT THAT (I) THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN A.Y. 2004-05 WERE CARRIED FORWARD AS ADVANCES. (II) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF BILLS & CERTI FICATE FROM ANY ENGG. OF SUPPLIER THAT THE SAME BORE WELL PUT RIGHT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. (III) THE LOCATION OF BORE WELL WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS S CHEMES DEVELOPED BY APPELLANT IS NOT SUBMITTED. AS DISCUSS ED IN PREVIOUS PARA (B) THAT APPELLANT FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLE TION METHOD HENCE THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO A PARTICULAR PROJE CT HAS TO BE APPORTIONED OR WRITTEN OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF SU CH PROJECT FOLLOWING THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE SO TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT INCOME. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). SHE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND CI T(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE HAS NOTED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN A.Y. 04-05 AND W ERE CARRIED FORWARD AS ADVANCES AND FURTHER NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BORE WELL WAS PUT TO USE DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR AND THE LOCATION OF THE BOREWELL. BEFORE US ALSO NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACE D ON RECORD TO ITA NO 2395/ AHD/2012 . A.Y.2007- 08 8 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BORE WELL WAS PUT TO USE DURIN G THE YEAR. FURTHER LD. A.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A ). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 -08 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. 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,AH MEDABAD