M/s. S & K Diamonds, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2515/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8225 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2515/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S. S. K. DIAMONDS, 12, SARYU FLATS, MITHAKHALI SIX ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABFFS 3397 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. SANKAR, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 10/05/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/05/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- 5/DCIT CIR.5(2)/323/2015-16 DATED 24/08/2016 ARISIN G IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 31/12 /2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,58,800/- MADE U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT, BY TREATING IT AS EXCESSIVE R EMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNERS. (2) THAT ON FACTS, EVIDENCE ON RECORD, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE AS PR AYED FOR. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THI S APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,58,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNE RATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS IN EXCESS TO THE AMOUNT ELIGIBLE AS SPECIF IED U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE MANUF ACTURING BUSINESS OF DIAMOND STUDDED DESIGNER JEWELLERY AND TRADING IN L OOSE DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS INCURRED AN EXPENSE OF RS.65,96,302/- ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS FORMED DA TED 10-04-2006 AND THERE WAS NO CLAUSE OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DE ED WAS MADE DATED 18-10-2013 MENTIONING THE CLAUSE FOR REMUNERATION T O BE PAID TO THE PARTNERS. IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP, DEED WA S MADE ON 18-10- 2013 AND THE SAME WAS EFFECTIVE FROM 01-04-2013. TH EREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I .E. F.Y. 2012-13. ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 3 - ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 11-12-2015 FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION PAI D TO THE PARTNERS. 5. IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29-12-2015 SUBMITTED THAT A SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS MADE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 18-05 -2006 AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REMUNERATIO N PAID TO THE PARTNERS IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24-08 -2015. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS ALSO RE LIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL HARDWARE STORE REPORTED IN 323 ITR 368. 8. HOWEVER, THE AO REFERRED THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTN ERSHIP DEED MADE ON 18-05-2006, WHICH READS AS UNDER: REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS: - MR. PARAG DINESHBHAI SHAH SHALL DEVOTE HIS FULL TIME AN D MS. RUPALI TUSHAR KOTHORI SHALL DEVOTE HER TIME FOR THE BUSINE SS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IN CONSIDERATION, BOTH PARTNERS ARE ENTITL ED TO THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF 'BOOK PROFIT' CALCULAT ED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V)(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT READ WI TH EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 40(B)(V) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 05 UNDER: ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 4 - ON THE FIRST RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 90% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE NEXT RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 60% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE BALANCE OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 40% OF THE BOOK WORKING PARTNERS SHALL BE PAID REMUNERATION IN THE FOLLOWING PROPORTION:- % OF BOOK PROFIT 1. MR. PARAG DINESHBHAI SHAH 50% 2. MR. RUPALI TUSHARBHAI KOTHARI 5 0% 100% THE REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNER SHALL BE CR EDITED TO HIS/HER RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNT YEAR O N THE ASCERTAINMENT OF 'BOOK PROFIT' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OR ANY STATUTORY MODIFICATION OR RE-ENACTMENT, THEREOF FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. THE PARTNERS ARE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT AG AINST REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THEM FROM TIME TO TIME AND DIFFERENCE OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE AND ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE TO PARTNERS DURING THE YEAR TOWARDS REMUNERATION SHALL BE ADJUSTED AT THE END OF THE YE AR. THE REMUNERATION SHALL BE PAYABLE TO PARTNERS WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2006... FROM THE ABOVE CLAUSE MENTIONED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAR Y PARTNERSHIP DEED THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE CLAUSE RELATES TO TH E DETERMINATION OF BOOK PROFIT AND IT IS SILENT FOR DETERMINING THE RE MUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS. MOREOVER, THE PARTNERSHIP DEEDS REFER S TO DETERMINE THE BOOK PROFIT IN SPECIFIC MANNER I.E. 90% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE FIRST RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT, 60% OF THE BOOK PRO FIT ON THE NEXT RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT AND 40% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE REMAINING AMOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FO R THE REMUNERATION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: BOOK PROFIT 1,32,12,505 RATE ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 5 - FIRST 75,000 67,500 90% NEXT 75,000 45,000 60% BALANCE 1,30,62,505 52,25,002 40% REMUNERATION 53,37,502 THUS, THE AO WORKED OUT THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF REM UNERATION FOR RS.53,37,502/- AND DISALLOWED THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.12,58,800/- (65,96,302-53,37,502) AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IT WA S CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 18-05-2 006 THAT THE WORKING PARTNERS SHALL DRAW THE REMUNERATION AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATUTORY M ODIFICATION OR RE- ENACTMENT THERETO FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED OUT THE REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF REVISED LIMITS MENTIONED IN THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.3. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT NO REMUNERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE QUANTUM OF THE REMUNERATION HAS ALREA DY SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT INITIALLY THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DI D NOT PROVIDE FOR GIVING REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS BUT THE PARTNERS IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER MUTUALLY DECIDED AND AGREED TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH REMUNERATION AND EXECUTED A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED OF P ARTNERSHIP ON ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 6 - 18.05.2006. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE S UPPLEMENTARY DEED WAS EXECUTED MANNER OF THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROF IT AS THEN PRESCRIBED U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT WAS INITIALLY DESCR IBED BUT IMMEDIATELY IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPHS IT WAS DISTINCTLY PROVIDED T HAT THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE FIRM SHALL BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT IN FORCE AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD. I T IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 FRAMED U/S .143(3) OF THE ACT THE REMUNERATION WAS ALLOWED. 3.5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION ARE C ONSIDERED. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO W ORKING PARTNERS AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS SUP PORTED BY THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED EXECUTED BY THE FIRM AND WAS ALS O WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFIED THE AMOUNT OF REMUN ERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS AND IT HAS FURTHER INSERTED A CLAUSE T HAT THE REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNER SHALL BE CREDITED TO HIS RES PECTIVE ACCOUNT AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF BOOK PROFIT AS DEFINED U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT OR ANY STATUTORY MODIF ICATION OR REENACTMENT THEREOF FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE ABOVE CLAUSE RELATES TO ASCERTAINMENT OF B OOK PROFIT AND NOT THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS. A PERUSAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY DEED SHOWS THAT AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION WAS SPECIFIED IN THE DEED THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS D ISMISSED 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASS ESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD.AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THA T REMUNERATION WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF WORKING PARTNERS AS PER THE CLAUSE OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, WHICH INTER ALIA CONTAINS THE CLAUSE THAT PROFIT SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SU PPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSEE TO DETERMINE THE REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED PROVISIONS ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 7 - OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE R EMUNERATION AS PER THE CLAUSE OF SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 18-0 5-2006, WHICH READS AS UNDER: REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS:- MR. PARAG DINESHBHAI SHAH SHALL DEVOTE HIS FULL TIM E AND MS. RUPALI TUSHAR KOTHARI SHALL DEVOTE HER TIME FOR THE BUSINE SS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IN CONSIDERATION, BOTH PARTNERS ARE ENTITL ED TO THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF 'BOOK PROFIT' CALCULAT ED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V)(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT READ WI TH EXPLANATION -3 TO SECTION 40(B)(V) OF INCOME TAX ACT., AS UNDER : ON THE FIRST RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 90% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE NEXT RS.75,000/- OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 60% OF THE BOOK PROFIT ON THE BALANCE OF THE BOOK PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 40% OF THE BOOK WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE LIMIT FOR THE REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS UNDER CLAUSE 40(B) HAS BEEN ENHANCED FROM RS.75,000 TO RS.3,00,000 W.E.F. 01-04-2010 AND THE FIRM WAS AUTH ORIZED TO DETERMINE THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS IN PURSUAN CE TO THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS RELIED ON THE CLAUSE OF THE PARTNERSHIP D EED WHICH READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 8 - THE REMUNERATION TO THE WORKING PARTNERS SHALL BE CREDITED TO HIS/HER RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT TO THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEA R ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF BOOK PROFIT AS DEFINED IN SECTIO N 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OR ANY STATUTORY MODIFICATION OR RE- ENACTMENT, THEREOF FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE DISPUTE BEFORE U S ARISES OUR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS AS PER THE AME NDED PROVISION OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED HAS CLEARLY MENTIONE D THAT THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) WILL BE APPLIED AS APPL ICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DETERMINED THE REMUNERATION IN THE INSTANT CASE AS PER THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. 12. IN HOLDING SO WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. ANIL HARDWARE STORE REPORTED IN 323 ITR 368 WHEREIN IT W AS HELD AS UNDER : 7. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS SUBMISSION. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CIRCULAR REFERRED TO ABOVE LAYS DOWN T WO CONDITIONS. EITHER THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE SHOULD BE SPECIFIED OR THE MANNER OF QUANTIFYING THE REMUNERATION SHOULD BE SP ECIFIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MANNER OF FIXING THE REMUNERATION OF THE PARTNERS HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. IN A GIVEN YEAR, THE PARTNERS MAY D ECIDE TO INVEST CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF THE PROFITS INTO OTHER VENTURE A ND RECEIVE LESS REMUNERATION THAN THAT WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER T HE PARTNERSHIP DEED, BUT THERE IS NOTHING WHICH DEBARS THEM FROM C LAIMING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. THE METHOD OF REMUNERATION HAVING BEEN LAID D OWN, THE ASSESSEE- FIRM IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS UNDER ITA NO.2515/AHD/2016 M/S.S&K DIAMOND S VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 9 - SECTION 40(B)( V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. QUESTION N O. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 13. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/05/2018 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/05/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD