The DCIT(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad V. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2576/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2345 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H V GUJJAR SHRI B L MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 14A; 80IB; 80IA; 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1196/AHD/2015 ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 ITA NO.13/AHD/2015 ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 AND ITA NO.818/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2004-05 ATUL LIMITED 3 RD FLOOR, ASHOKA CHAMBERS RASALA MARG, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD 380 009. PAN : AABCA 2390 M VS. DCIT (OSD), RANGE - 1 AHMEDABAD. ITA NO.1310/AHD/2015 ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 AND ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 ACIT (OSD), RANGE - 1 AHMEDABAD. VS. ATUL LIMITED 3 RD FLOOR, ASHOKA CHAMBERS RASALA MARG, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD 380 009. PAN : AABCA 2390 M ( APP ELLANT ) ( RESPONENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI H.V. GUJJAR, CIT-DR SHRI B.L. MEENA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AND SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/06/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/06/2019 )*/ O R D E R ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 2 PER BENCH: IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04, THE AS SESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN CROSS-APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 16.2.2015 AND 10.7.2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2002-03 AN D 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05 ASSESSEE ALONE IS IN APPE AL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 8.1.2015. COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLV ED IN ALL THESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THA T THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,56,205/ -; RS.1,80,32,866/- AND RS.1,71,98,885/- (RS.1,65,41,873/-) IN THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF TPO SUGGESTING ADJUSTMENT IN ARM S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ONS WITH ITS AE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05, ORIGINAL UPWARD ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE OF RS.1,71,98,885/- IN T HE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION, BUT AFTER AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THIS HAS BEEN SCALED DOWN TO RS.1,65,41,873/-. THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE ASSESSM ENT YEARS THE DISPUTE HAS TRAVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL IN FIRST ROUND OF LITIG ATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO HAS DIRECTED TO HAVE FRESH OPINION FROM THE TPO ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMEND ED IN ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE ORIGINAL ROUND OF ASSESSMENT AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2, 02,39,798/- WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TPO. ON SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, HE HAS REDUCED THE ADJUSTMENT AT RS.1,59,56,205/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 20 02-03. SIMILARLY, ORIGINAL ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDED BY THE TPO IN THE FIRST ROUN D OF PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN SCALED DOWN. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS STILL DISSA TISFIED WITH THE FINDING OF ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 3 THE TPO WHICH HAS BECOME PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DISSATISFIED WI TH THE THIS ADJUSTMENT IN ALL THESE THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 HAS JUST FOLLOW ED ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR PASSED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 AND DI D NOT DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREAFTER TO OK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 WHICH IS AL SO SILENT IN CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT T HIS VERY ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05. THUS, ALL THRE E ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE NON-SPEAKING ORDER S. SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD. SINCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN OTHER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO T AKE NOTE OF THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04. IT READS AS UNDER: 3.2 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 0 7-03-2006, TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,80,62,067/- WAS MADE CI T(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ITAT VIDE PARA-30 OF THE OR DER ORDER DTD. 24- 07-2009 IN ITANO.157/AND/2007, RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TPO/AO. THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE SALE PRICE OF THE CONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS WAS AT ARMS LENGTH. IF THERE WERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT FOR SUCH DIFFERENCES UNDER THE TP RULES. CONSEQUENT UPON THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER, VIDE THE ORDER DTD. 28-10-2011 THE TPO REDU CED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,80,32,866/-, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE TP O DEALT WITH VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. AS SEEN FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPRODUCED ABOVE, APPELLANT ONCE AGAIN R E-ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE TPO. I HAVE CAREFULL Y CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. KEEPING IN VIEW DETAILED REA SONING GIVEN BY THE TPO AND THE APPELLANT'S INABILITY TO CONTROVERT THE TPO'S ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 4 OBSERVATIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. IMPUGNED ADDITION IS SUSTAINED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. AT THIS STAGE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NO TE OF THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 ALSO, WHICH REA DS AS UNDER: (A) GROUND NO. 1 TO 7 ARE INTERLINKED AND AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,59, 56,205/-. THE APPELLANT ITSELF SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WITH SIMILAR FACTS WAS THERE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 03-04 HENCE THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING APPEAL FOR THAT YEAR BE CONSIDERED HERE. MY PREDECE SSOR IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR A.Y. 03-04 ALREADY ADJUDICATED MATTER AGAINST APPELLANT AS ALREADY DISCUSSED AT PARA 4D ABOVE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT (I) HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'D1 BENCH VIDE ORDER DT . 24.07.09 IN ITA NO. 846/AHD/2006 & ITA NO. 253/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 02 -03 AS WELL AS IN ITA NO. 157/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 03-04 AND ITA NO. 951/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 02-03 AT PARA 30 AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS SUB MISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS SETASIDED THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE & TRANSFER PRICE ADJUSTMENT BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. & TPO. (II) IN THE SETASIDE PROCEEDINGS AFTER CONSIDERING APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS AND LEGAL PROPOSITION WITH DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT, THE TPO MADE THE ADJUSTMENT AT RS. 1, 59,56,205/-. THE ORIGINAL T.P. ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 2,02,39,798/- WAS R EDUCED BY RS. 42,83,593/-. (III) ON SIMILAR FACTS AND ISSUE, MY P REDECESSOR ALREADY HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS DISCUSSED AT PARA 4D ABOVE. IT IS THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF SIMILARITY OF FACTS & I SSUE AND THERE BEEN NO CHANGE IN SUBMISSION & CONTENTION, I AM INCLINED WI TH A.O. AS WELL AS TPO FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,59,56,205/-. THE SA ME ARE MADE ON PROPER FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND LEGAL PREPOSITION AFT ER CONSIDERING APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIREC TION OF HON'BLE ITAT. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY THING CONT RARY TO THE RATIO OF MY PREDECESSOR IN ITS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 03-04 ON SI MILAR FACTS. IT IS THEREFORE ALL THE GROUNDS 1 TO 7 ARE DISMISSED. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS UPHELD AND CONFIRMED. ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 5 5. THIS ORDER WAS RUNNING INTO 54 PAGES AND THE ISS UE RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED IN FIRST 46 PAGES. THE LD.CIT(A) REPRODUCED GROUNDS O F APPEAL ON PAGE NO.1 AND 2, AND THEREAFTER REPRODUCED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE UPTO PAGE NO.44. IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS REPRODUCED 40 PAGES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER CONCLUDED THE FINDING IN F IVE-SIX LINES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BLINDLY IN OTHER YEARS WITHOUT ANY AP PLICATION OF MIND. THUS, IT IS A JUST NON-SPEAKING ORDER AT THE END OF THE LD.C IT(A). FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA P.LTD. VS. ACIT, 303 ITR 138 (P&H) HAS CON SIDERED LARGE NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS AT THE END OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS AT THE END OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN ORDER TO PROPOUND WHY REASON S ARE NECESSARY IN SUPPORT OF CONCLUSIONS OF ANY ADJUDICATING AUTHORIT Y. IN ORDER TO APPRAISE OURSELVES AS WELL AS TO THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSIGNING REASONS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAK E NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING FINDING FROM THIS JUDGMENT: 4. ON A PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, EVEN THE COUNSE L FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH COULD STAND IN JUDICIAL S CRUTINY. AS TO WHETHER IN EXERCISE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS, THE A UTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED TO PASS ORDERS BY GIVING REASONS IN SUPPOR T THEREOF IS WELL- SETTLED BY A SERIES OF JUDGMENTS BY THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT OF INDIA. 5. IN HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. SHYAM SUNDER JH UNJHUNWALA AIR 1961 SC 1669, WHILE DEALING WITH AN ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE POWERS UNDE R SECTION 111(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, IN THE MATTER OF REFUSAL O F A COMPANY TO REGISTER THE TRANSFER OF SHARES, HON'BLE THE SUPREM E COURT OBSERVED : '. . . IF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACTS AS A TRIBUNAL EXERCISING [QUASI] JUDICIAL POWERS AND THE EXERCISE OF THAT PO WER IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDIC- TION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 1 36 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THE POWER OF THIS COURT CAN BE ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 6 EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED IF REASONS ARE NOT GIVEN BY T HE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS ORDER. . . .' (P. 1678 ) 6. ANOTHER CONSTITUTION BENCH OF HON'BLE THE SUPREM E COURT IN BHAGAT RAJA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1967 SC 1606 CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER WHILE EXERCISING REVISIONAL POWER UNDER SEC TION 30 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT , 1957 READ WITH RULES 54 AND 55 OF THE MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 19 60, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION AND HELD : '. . . THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA ARE SUBJ ECT TO THE SUPERVISORY POWERS OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF APPELLATE POWERS OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT BOTH THE HIGH COUR T AND THIS COURT ARE PLACED UNDER A GREAT DISADVANTAGE IF NO R EASONS ARE GIVEN AND THE REVISION IS DISMISSED CURTLY BY THE U SE OF THE SINGLE WORD 'REJECTED' OR 'DISMISSED'. IN SUCH A CASE, THI S COURT CAN PROBABLY ONLY EXERCISE ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION S ATISFACTORILY BY EXAMINING THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE AND AFTER GIVING A HEARING COME TO ITS CONCLUSION ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. THIS WILL CERTAINLY BE A VERY UNSATISFACTORY METHOD OF D EALING WITH THE APPEAL. . . .' (P. 1610) 7. IN TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1971 SC 862, HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED : '. . .THE COURT INSISTS UPON DISCLOSURE OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER ON TWO GROUNDS: ONE, THAT THE PARTY AGGRI EVED IN A PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR THIS COURT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REASONS WHICH P ERSUADED THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT HIS CASE WERE ERRONEOUS; THE OT HER, THAT THE OBLIGATION TO RECORD REASONS OPERATES AS A DETERREN T AGAINST POSSIBLE ARBITRARY ACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORIT Y INVESTED WITH THE JUDICIAL POWER.' (P. 866) 8. IN MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR V. STATE OF UP A IR 1970 SC 1302, HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT WHILE QUASHING THE CANCELLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S LICENCE BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , OBSERVED : '. . . RECORDING OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A DECISIO N ON A DISPUTED CLAIM BY A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ENSURES THAT TH E DECISION IS REACHED ACCORDING TO LAW AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF C APRICE, WHIM OR FANCY OR REACHED ON GROUNDS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIE NCY. A PARTY TO THE DISPUTE IS ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO KNOW THE G ROUNDS ON WHICH ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 7 THE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED HIS CLAIM. IF THE ORDER IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL, THE NECESSITY TO RECORD REASONS IS GREATER, FOR WITHOUT RECORDED REASONS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NO MAT ERIAL ON WHICH IT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE FACTS WERE PROPE RLY ASCERTAINED, THE RELEVANT LAW WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED AND THE DECISION WAS JUST.' (P. 1304) 9. IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. V. WOOLCOMBERS WORK ERS' UNION AIR 1973 SC 2758, HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WA S NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONS AND OBSERVED : '. . .THE GIVING OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CON CLUSIONS BY JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WHEN EXERCI SING INITIAL JURISDICTION IS ESSENTIAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS. FIRS T, IT IS CALCULATED TO PREVENT UNCONSCIOUS, UNFAIRNESS OR ARBITRARINESS IN REACHING THE CONCLUSIONS. THE VERY SEARCH FOR REASONS WILL P UT THE AUTHORITY ON THE ALERT AND MINIMISE THE CHANCES OF UNCONSCIOUS INFILTRATION OF PERSONAL BIAS OR UNFAIRNESS IN THE CONCLUSION. THE AUTHORITY WILL ADDUCE REASONS WHICH WILL BE REGARDE D AS FAIR AND LEGITIMATE BY A REASONABLE MAN AND WILL DISCARD IRR ELEVANT OR EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. SECOND, IT IS A WELL-KNO WN PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT SHOULD ALS O APPEAR TO BE DONE. UNREASONED CONCLUSIONS MAY BE JUST BUT THEY M AY NOT APPEAR TO BE JUST TO THOSE WHO READ THEM. REASONED CONCLUSIONS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL HAVE ALSO THE APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE. THIRD, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT AN APPEAL GENER ALLY LIES FROM THE DECISION OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AU THORITIES TO THIS COURT BY SPECIAL LEAVE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 136. A JUDGMENT WHICH DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE REASONS WILL BE OF LITT LE ASSISTANCE TO THE COURT. . . .' (P. 2761) 10. THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATED IN AJANTHA INDUSTR IES V. CBDT AIR 1976 SC 437 AND SIEMENS ENGG. & MFG. CO. OF INDIA L TD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1976 SC 1785. 11. IN S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1990 SC 1984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH REVIEWED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS ON THE SUBJECT AND OBSERVED: '34. THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE INDICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS TH E APPROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMERICA N COURTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH THE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 8 FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION O F THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS TH E SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 O F THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE REASONS, IF RECORDED, WOU LD ENABLE THIS COURT OR THE HIGH COURT TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY POWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDE RATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH T HE COURT IN TAKING THIS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORD ING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTEE CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLARITY IN THE DECISIONS; AND (III) MINIMISE CHANCE S OF ARBITRARINESS IN DECISION-MAKING. IN THIS REGARD A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN ORDINARY COURTS OF LAW AND TRIBU NALS AND AUTHORITIES EXERCISING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS ON THE GR OUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVELY UNIN FLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY WHEREAS AN E XECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND PO INT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENCY. 35. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUT HORITY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURIS DICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. BUT THE OTHER C ONSIDERATIONS, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THI S COURT IN HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECOR D REASONS FOR ITS DECISIONS ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THESE CO NSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE RECORDING OF REASONS BY AN ADMINISTRA TIVE AUTHORITY SERVES A SALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT EXC LUDES CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS AND ENSURES A DEGREE OF FAIRNESS I N THE PROCESS OF DECISIONS-MAKING. THE SAID PURPOSE WOULD APPLY E QUALLY TO ALL DECISIONS AND ITS APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL R EVIEW. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOVERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AU THORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE ADDED THAT IT IS NOT RE QUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORATE AS IN THE DECISION O F A COURT OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE REASONS WOULD DEP END ON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSA RY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SO AS TO INDICATE TH AT THE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE POINTS IN CONTRO VERSY. THE NEED FOR RECORDING OF REASONS IS GREATER IN A CASE WHERE THE ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 9 ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLAT E OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SUCH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GI VE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AG REES WITH THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE.' [E MPHASIS SUPPLIED] (P. 1995) 12. IN TESTEELS LTD. V. N.M. DESAI, CONCILIATION OF FICER AIR 1970 GUJ. 1, A FULL BENCH OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT SPEAKING THRO UGH P.N. BHAGWATI, J. (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS) MADE A LUCI D ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 'THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESSA RY COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE B ASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET UP. THE ADMINISTRA TIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DECIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. T HEY MUST DECIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTIC ULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTR ANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT J UDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTR ANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY R ATE, MINIMISES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDE R IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS POSSESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE COURTS HAVE THE POWER UN DER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIORARI A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THIS POWER OF REVIEW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY IF THE ORDER IS A SPEAKI NG ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE SAID COURTS CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER R EVIEW. THE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO INTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW. THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF J UDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE STULTIFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZEN, THERE WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ARBITRARI NESS AND CAPRICE. IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS INSISTED UPON, THEN , THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND CORRECTION.' (P. 1 ) 13. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND APPLYING THE SAME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE, WE ARE OF ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 10 THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT DOES NOT SATISFY THE PRE- REQUISITES OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AS THE SAME DOES NO T CONTAIN REASONS TO SUPPORT THE ORDER. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IF WE VISUALIZE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AND FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A), THEN IT IS APPARENT THAT SUCH FINDING DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ADJUDICATION ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WE SET SIDE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ALL THREE YEARS. WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILI NG OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SUBJECT TO TWO ROUNDS OF LITIGATIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL KEEP IN MIND JUDGMENT OF FULL BENCH OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHILE RE-ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THERE IS NO OTHER GROUN D IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 EXCEPT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A/B/C & D AND PERIPHERAL ARGUMENT OF 80IA. THUS, THIS APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.2576/AHD/201 4, SOLE GROUND RAISED IS, THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF RS.4,26,6 4,066/-. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECI SION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF A VANI EXPORTS VS. CIT, 348 ITR 391. 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.8,15,75,736/-. THE LD.AO HAS DISALLOWED DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,26,64,066/- ON THE BASIS OF THREE REASONING VIZ. ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 11 (A) DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS TO BE COMPUTED AFTER REDUCING DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80IA AND 80IB OF TH E ACT, (B) EXCISE DUTY AND SALES-TAX ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNO VER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING 80HHC AS REQUIRED UNDER THE FORMULA, AN D (C) SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB LICENCE IS TO BE REDUCED FROM PROFIT OF THE BU SINESS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,89,81,959/-. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE AO HAS REL IED UPON THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN FINANCE ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFF ECT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNCONSTITUTION AL BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVANI EXPORTS (SUPRA). T HE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUT E THE DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT BY THE TAXATION LAW. THE AO HAS PASSED A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.12.2011. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGN IZANCE OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH WAS RENDERE D ON 2.7.2012. THUS, THE SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB LICENCE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO B E EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS FOR CALCULATING 80HHC. THE LD.CIT( A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AND THERE IS NO ERROR IN APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREFOR E, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04 IS DISMISSED. 12. NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2002-03 REL ATES TO QUANTIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE REQUIRES TO BE DISALLOWED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. 13. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE H AVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,73,50,995/- WHICH IS CLAIME D AS EXEMPT. IN ORDER TO ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 12 FIND OUT EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED UNDE R SECTION14A, THE LD.AO TOOK HELP OF RULE 8D AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANC E AT RS.2,00,34,000/-. DISSATISFIED WITH THE DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF DIVIDEND RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR AND INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE. THE LD.CIT(A) RE STRICTED THIS DISALLOWANCE TO RS.12.30 LAKHS AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,87, 83,000/-. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE READS ASUND ER: THE APPELLANT IN APPEAL CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH CCOURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYEE MFG . CO. (SUPRA), RULE 8D IS PROSPECTIVE AND APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.04.08 AN D IN THE IMPUGNED PREVIOUS YEAR, AS PER RATIO OF THIS ORDER A REASONA BLE DISALLOWANCES CAN BE MADE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT APPELLAN T'S INVESTMENT ARE VERY OLD AND MADE OUT OF SURPLUS & INTEREST FREE FU ND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCES OUT OF INTEREST ARE CALLED FOR. THE A PPELLANT RELIED ON HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF RELI ANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (SUPRA), MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION (SUPRA ) AND HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF TORRENT FINANCI ERS LTD. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CONTENTION. IN REFERENCE TO DISAL LOWANCE OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DIVI DEND RECEIVED THROUGH 6 CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED WITH NO EXPENDITUR E. THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER INVOKED RULE 8D AND MADE DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 2,00,34,000/-. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT APPELLANT WAS IN RECEIPT OF D IVIDEND OF RS.1,73,50,995/- WHICH IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT APPELLANT HAD NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR DISALLOWED ANY EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS ALSO UNDISPU TED THAT AS PER THE ESTABLISHED RATIO, RULE 8D HAS TO BE INVOKED W.E.F. 01.04.2008 AND FOR EARLIER YEAR A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCES HAS TO BE M ADE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT (WITHOUT PREJUDICED) HAS WORKE D OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 71,28,862/-. THE A.O. HAS NOT D ISCUSSED IN IMPUGNED ORDER WHY HE HAD NOT ACCEPTED THIS COMPUTA TION OR WHETHER ANY DISCREPANCY OF FIGURE IS THERE. I AM INCLINED WITH APPELLANT THAT THE DISALLOWANCES U/S 14A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE REASONABLE AND NOT AS PER RULE 8D. FURTHE R AS FAR AS INTEREST DISALLOWANCES, I AM INCLINED THAT IN VIEW OF SUFFIC IENT INTEREST FREE FUND, RESERVES AS WELL AS INVESTMENT MADE IN EARLIER YEAR , NO SUCH DISALLOWANCES ARE WARRANTED. HOWEVER, I AM NOT INCL INED WITH ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 13 APPELLANT THAT NO INDIRECT EXPENSE RELATABLE TO EXE MPT INCOME CAN BE ASSIGNED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE ONLY SIX CHEQ UES OF DIVIDEND. IN VIEW OF CONSIDERABLE INVESTMENT IN SHARES & SECURIT IES A CONSIDERABLE TIME OF TOP LEVEL MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE DEVO TED FOR MONITORING OF SUCH INVESTMENT. THIS ALSO INVOLVED EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. AS PER A.O.'S WORKING, THE DISALLOWANCES OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ARE OF RS. 12.51 LAC WHI LE AS PER APPELLANT THE SAME IS AT RS. 5,91,630/-. IN MY VIEW TO ADJUDI CATE THIS ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF REASONABILITY, ABOUT 10% OF TOTAL EXEMPT I NCOME CAN BE HELD AS REASONABLE. THIS REASONABILITY IS BASED ON THE LEGI SLATION'S INTENTION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS EVIDENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF 80HHC, 80IA ETC. WHERE OUT OF THE RECEIPT LIKE INTEREST, BROKERAGE, DEPB ETC., 90% IS REDUCED TREATING 10% OF SUCH RECEIPT IS TREATED AS EXPENSES INCURRED TO HAVE SUCH RECEIPT. THE 10% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCO ME OF RS. 1,73,50,999/- WORKED OUT TO RS. 17,35,099/- I.E. 17 ,35,100/-. THE A.O'S DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D (2)(III) IS AT RS. 12.5 1 LAC. IT IS THEREFORE A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12.51 LAC AS PER A.O . CAN BE HELD JUSTIFIED WHICH INCORPORATE THE OBJECTION FROM APPE LLANT ALSO .IT IS THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12.51 LAC ARE UPHELD. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE & ADDITION OF RS . 1,87,83,000/- (20034000- 1251000). THE APPELLANT GETS PART RELIEF . THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. AS FAR AS THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) THA T DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE WITH HELP OF RULE 8D IS CONCERNED, WE DO NOT F IND ANY ERROR IN HIS ORDER, BECAUSE RULE 8D HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4 .1981 [HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE V S. CIT, 328 ITR 81]. THE SECOND ISSUE IS WHETHER THE INTEREST EXPENSES C OULD BE ALLOCATED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD.C IT(A) MADE AN ANALYSIS AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE SURPLUS FUN DS OUT OF WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE. THE LD.CIT( A) HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR PLACING THIS RELIANCE AS WELL AS FOR HOLD ING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MORE INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THEN THE INTER EST EXPENSES CANNOT BE ITA NO.2576/AHD/2014 AND 4 OTHERS ATUL LD. VS. ACIT (OSD) 14 CARVED OUT WITH HELP OF FORMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8D. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO THE INTERES T EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT AT RS.12.51 L AKHS BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT ON SOUND FOOTING. THE DETAILS OF DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN PLACED IN TABULAR FORM AND REPRODUCED ON PAGE NO.13 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THESE ARE OLD INVESTMENTS, AND THIS YEAR ONLY ACTIVITY RELATING TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIPT OF SIX CHEQUES. THERE IS NO OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH REQUIRES INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE AT RS.12.51 LA KHS IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. WE SCALE DOWN IT TO RS.1,50,000/- WHICH CAN TAKE CA RE OF ALL OTHER NECESSARY EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY TH E REVENUE. IT IS REJECTED. 15. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RAISED IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,50,000/- AS AGAI NST RS.12.51 LAKHS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/06/2019