Shri Ajaykumar R. Jain, Bhavnagar V. The Jt. CIT, Range-2, Bhavnagar

ITA 2591/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6237 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN, 348/349, MADHAV DARSHAN, WAGHAWAD ROAD, BHAVNAGAR PAN: ABMPJ5656Q (APPELLANT) VS THE JCIT, RANGE - 2, BHAVNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI MUDIT NAGPAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE B Y: S H RI B.R. POPAT , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 11 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 01 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 20 10 - 11 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XX , AHM EDABAD DATED 28 - 08 - 2014 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - THE LEARNED CIT(A) - XX AHMEDABAD HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN - I T A NO . 2591 / A HD/20 14 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 2 1. CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE REASONS AS STATED IN THE ORDER; 2. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19,00,000/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE AO BY TREA TING THE SHORTAGE AS EXCESSIVE AND BY ATTRIBUTING THE SAME TO THE ALLEGED SALE OF CERTAIN MACHINERY ITEMS OUT OF BOOKS; 3. CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN OBSERVING AND HOLDING ABOUT THE APPELLANT HAVING INCURRED AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,00,000 / - ON MARRIAGE OF SH RI AKSHAY, HIS SON (RS.3,00,000/ - FOR JEWELRY, RS. 1,00,000/ - FOR CLOTHING AND RS. 1,00,000/ - FOR OTHER REMAINING EXPENSES) IN ADDITIO N TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,46,269/ - VERY MUCH DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT ON THIS OCCASION (THOUGH TE LESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - , WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19,00,000/ - , WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2, SO AS NOT TO RESULT IN A SEPARATE ADDITION). 3. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING IN C OME OF RS. 2 , 36 , 06340 / - WAS FILED ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. THEREAFTER, THE C ASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHIP BREAKING AND DEALING IN COMMODITY AND SHARE TRANSACTION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE H AS DISCLOSED TOTAL SALE OF RS. 5 5 , 82 , 92 , 204/ - ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 3 , 69 , 2 5 , 472/ - @ 6.61% WAS DECLARED. T HE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED D URI NG THE YEAR WAS AT 3.15% AS AGAINST LAST YEAR S NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.86%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE SHORTAGE OF 10.53% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON HIGHER SIDE AS COMPARED T O LAST YEAR S SHORTAGE 9.10%. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING SUCH ACCOUNTS WHICH MAY SHOW THE CORRECT POSITION OF RAW MATERIAL /PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS/REMAINING STOCK/SHORTAGE ETC. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING DETAIL OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAIL OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS PRODUCTION OF THE RAW I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 3 MATERIAL/F I NISHED GOODS THE SHORTAGE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SHORTAGE WAS SHOW N WITHOUT DISCLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS . AFTER OBSERVING VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN NON - MAINTENANCE OF RELEVANT RECORDS IN THE BOOKS OF AQCCOUNTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PROVISION OF SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THREE SHIPS. EVERY SHIP CONTAINS VARIOUS TYPE OF MACHINERIES WHICH MAINLY INCLUDES AT LEAST ONE MAIN ENGINE,2 DG SETS, SO MANY MOTORS, PANELS, ELECTRONIC ITEMS, COMPRESSORS, HYDRAULIC PUMPS, FRESH WATER EQUIPMENT WORK SHOP MACHINERIES, LIFE BOATS ETC. T HE REFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE SHORTAGE THEN THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS ONLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HA D N OT DISCLOSED PROPER SALES OF ITEMS RECOVERED AFTER CUTT ING THE SHIPS AND FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WERE SOLD WITHOUT ENT E R ING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF 1 DG SET WHER E AS A FTER CONSIDERING THE FACT T HE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECOVERED AT LEAST 7 DG SETS FROM M.V . EURASION ALLIANCE AND C RYSTAL LILLY THROUGH M.V. EURASION ALLIANCE AS PER DETAIL AVAILABLE IN RECORD B ESIDE S OTHER MACHINERY. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 8 LACS FOR DG SETS AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF DG SET ON 14 TH FEB, 2009 FOR RS. 40 0000/ AND TWO SETS OF OTHER TYPE OF MACHINIES FOR RS. 10 LACS. I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 4 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - DECISION : 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLA NT. THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA - 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D MADE ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - BEING UNACCOUNTED SALES OF 7 DG SETS AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF ONE DG SET ON 14.4.2009 FOR RS.4 LAKHS AND FOR TWO SET OF OTHER TYPE OF MACHINERIES OF RS.10 LAKHS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS SUMMARIZED THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND WHILE VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: - ' I. THE ASSESSEE NOT MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS WHICH MAY SHOW THE CORRECT POSITION OF CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL / PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS / REMAINING STOCK/ SHORTAGE. II. PRODUCTION OF THE FINISHED GOODS IS ONLY DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS WHEN IT WAS SOLD III. NO DETAIL OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION OF THE RAW MATERIAL IS MAINTAINED. IV. NO DETAIL OF SHORTAGE IS MAINTAINED. FOR A GIVEN DAY NEITHER THE CONSUMPTION OF THE RAW MATERIAL CAN BE ASCERTAINED NOR THE SHORTAGE OCCURR ED CAN BE ASCERTAINED. V. THE SHORTAGE IS BEING TAKEN AS BALANCING FIGURE. VI. STOCK OF REMAINING RAW MATERIAL I.E. UNCUT SHIP IS BEING ESTIMATED. VII. REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF THE UNCUT SHIP AS WELL AS SHORTAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO HAVING IN DI RECT ACCEPTANCE IN VIEW OF HIS SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT.' 3.4. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE YEAR ALTHOUGH THE G.P. RATE WAS AT 6.61% ON THE TOTAL SALES AS AGAINST THE LAST YEAR G.P. RATE AT RS.2.76%. FURTHER THE N.P. RATE WAS AT 3.15% AS AGAINST THE 0.86% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. HOWEVER, THE SHORTAGE CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AT 10.53% AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR'S CLAIM OF SHORTAGE AT 9.10%. THUS, THERE WAS HIGHER CLAIM OF SHORTAGE I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE IT WAS 9.10% IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, 8.57% IN 2008 - 09. THE AO HAS HOWEVER OBSERVED IN PARA - 4 & 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN DAY - TO - DAY RECORDS OF CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND DAY - TO - DAY PRODUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE AO, WHATEVER SOLD IS SHOWN AS PRODUCTION AND NO STOCK OF FINISHED OR SEMI - FINISHED ' GOODS IS SHOWN AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF NON - MAINTENANCE OF DAY - TO - DAY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RECORDS AND ALSO FOR THE REASONS OF SU PPRESSION OF SALES OF ENGINE, D.G. SET AND OTHER MACHINERIES ETC, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.38 LAKHS AS ABOVE. 3.5. I HAVE PURSUED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE ME. IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT IN THIS PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN QUANTITATIVE D ETAILS IN THE DESIRED MANNER. THIS IS LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WHEN A SHIP IS PURCHASED, ITS ACTUAL WEIGHT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE IS NOT AT ALL EITHER TA KEN PHYSICALLY OR OTHERWISE CORRECTLY ASCERTAINABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD PRACTICE TO I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 5 SHOW THE WEIGHT OF THE SHIP TO BE DISMANTLED AS THE ONE AS MENTIONED IN THE SHIP REGISTRY DOCUMENTS AND IT REFERS TO THE ACTUAL WEIGHT WHEN THE SHIP WAS BUILT, MOSTLY 3 TO 4 DECADES BACK. THE SHIP REGISTRY PAPERS SHOW THIS WEIGHT AND THE SHIP BREAKER AGREES TO PURCHASE SUCH SHIP FOR DISMANTLING AND THE FIGURE OF TONNAGE SHOWN IN SUCH REGISTERED DOCUMENT IS NOT ACTUALLY RELEV ANT WITH THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIP. IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT DURING THE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF 3 TO 4 DECADES, THERE WOULD BE HUGE CORROSION OF THE OUTER SURFACE OF THE SHIP AND THEREFORE THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIP, AFTER SUCH LONG PERIO D, WOULD BE LESS. THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT A DETAILED STUDY WAS MADE BY GROUP OF METALLURGICAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FORMED BY THE FERROUS SCRAP COMMITTEE OF MINISTRY OF STEELS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE REPORT OF THE CONSULTANTS KNOWN AS 'M ECON REPORT' IS AVAILABLE ON THE NET. IN PARA 2.4 OF THE SAID REPORT, RANGE OF SHORTAGE IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHIPS COMING FOR BREAKING IS MENTIONED. THE SAME IS AS UNDER: 'TABLE 2.4: PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS OBTAINED ON BREAKING DIFFERENT TYPES OF S HIPS: SI. NO. TYPE OF VESSEL WEIGHT LOSS (%) 1. GENERAL CARGO 9 - 15 2. BULK CARRIERS 10 - 16 3. ORE CARRIERS 10 - 15 4. PASSENGER SHIPS 11 - 17 5. OIL TANKERS 10 - 12 6. ORE BULK ORE CARRIERS 10 - 13 7. NAVAL SHIPS 15 - 22 8. CONTAINER VESSELS 10 - 13 9. FISHING TRAWLER/ 12 - 18 FISH FACTORY THE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE AS THE PERCENTAGE VARIES WITH SIZE OF THE SHIPS. OF THE WEIGHT LOSS SHOWN ABOVE, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE WEIGHT LOSS AT YARD IS ONLY 2 - 3%. THE REST IS THE WEIGH T LOSS DUE TO CORROSION IN 20 - 25 YEARS OF THE SHIP'S ACTIVE LIFE. ' I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 6 THE AO HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED SUCH TECHNICAL REPORT BY SIMPLY OBSERVING THAT THE RANGE GIVEN IN SUCH REPORT IS ON VERY HIGHER SIDE. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT SUCH SHORTAGE HAS EXCEEDED THE OUTER LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID REPORT. ONE MORE REASON STATED BY THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED DAY - TO - DAY PRODUCTION RECORDS AND WHATEVER PRODUCED IS SHOWN AS SOLD. FIRST OF ALL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY STAN DARD FORMULA FOR RECORDING THE PRODUCTION. THE SHIP BREAKING ACTIVITY RESULTS INTO PLATES/SCRAP ETC AND THERE IS NO ANY STANDARD INPUT AND OUTPUT FORMULA. IN THIS SENSE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE OF DAY - TO - DAY PRODUCTION WHICH, IF REQUIRED, WOULD ONLY INVOLVE HUGE LABOUR AND TRANSPORT COST I.E. FIRST UPLOADING THE SCRAP AND PLATES CUT FROM THE SHIP TO A TRANSPORT VEHICLE AND SENDING THE SAME TO A WEIGH BRIDGE AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE PLOT ONLY TO KNOW THE WEIGHT WITHOUT ANY OTHER APPARENT GAIN. THE AO HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE REQUIREMENT OF DAY - TO - DAY PRODUCTION RECORDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS BUSINESS I.E. SHIP BREAKING WHERE DAY - TO - DAY YIELD CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INPUT AND WEIGHING THE SCRAP GENERATED EACH DAY BEFORE STO RING THE SAME AND AGAIN INCURRING FURTHER EXPENSE OF LOADING AND WEIGHING AT THE TIME OF ITS SALE DOES NOT MAKE ANY COMMERCIAL SENSE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF THOSE RECORDS, THE BOOK RESULTS SHOWN ARE ALSO NOT VERIFIABLE AND THOSE BECOMES AT THE SWEET WILL OF THE APPELLANT AND OPEN FOR ALL KIND OF MANIPULATIONS. 3.6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND IN ABSENCE OF MAINTAINING THE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS OF CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION AND OTH ER DISCREPANCIES FOUND, I HOLD THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE JUSTIFI ED AND UPHELD. HENCE GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. RELIANCE IS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - - OM AX SHOE FACTORY VS. CIT (2005) 148 TAXMAN 517 - ACIT VS. SUNDER CHEMICALS & AGARBATTI WORKS P.LTD.(2005) 1 46 TAXMAN 1 1 - MARUTI UDYOG LTD. VS.DY.CIT (2005) 92 ITD 1 19 - CHAMPA LAL CHOUDHARY VS. DY.CIT (20 12) 24 TAXMANN.COM 3 08 - ITO VS. BAL MUKAND AGG ARWAL (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 42 - PAWAN KUMAR VS. ITO (2012) 137 ITD 85 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. VIDE THIS GROUND, THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING THE AO'S ACTION REGARDING SUPPRESSED INCOME OF RS.38,00,000/ - BEING ALLEGED UNRECORDED SALES OF 7 D.G. SETS AND OTHER MACHINERIES. IN OTHER WORDS, NO SALES/CLOSING STOCK IN RESPECT OF THE DG SETS AND OTHER MACHINERIES LIKE MOTORS, PUMPS ETC. HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE ARE SOLD IN THE MARKET ON NUMBER BASIS. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH RECORDING THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - (RS.28 LAKHS FOR 7 DG SETS AND RS.10 LAKHS FOR OTHER MACHINERIES). IN SUPPORT, CERTAIN BILL COPIES OF THE OTHER SHIP BREAKERS SHOWING THE SALES OF THE AFORESAID ITEMS HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS HAVE NO VALID BASIS AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE SE ITEMS AND THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE NOT RECORDED. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE IS BASED ON MERE CONJECTURES AND SURMISE S. THE LD. AR HAS STATED THAT IN MOST OF THE SHIPS COMING FOR SHIP BREAKING, THE ENGINES HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR USEFUL LIFE AND COUP LED WITH THE FACT THAT THE ENGINES ARE OF THE OLD TECHNOLOGY PREVAILING BEFORE 3 - 4 I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 7 DECADES, THERE IS RARELY A CASE WHERE A BUYER OF SUCH OLD ENGINES / D G SETS CAN BE FOUND. THE AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE INSTANCES OF SALE OF ENGINES / D G SETS REFE RRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE OF EXCEPTIONAL CASES OF SHIPS WHICH WERE DECOMMISSIONED ON ACCOUNT OF MAJOR ACCIDENTS AND SUCH OTHER COMPELLING REASONS WHERE THE ENGINES/ D G SETS WERE VERY MUCH FUNCTIONAL AND THEREFORE, COULD BE SOLD AS SUCH. HOWEVER, IN MANY OF THE CASES WHERE SHIP IS VERY OLD, THE ENGINE IS ALSO TO BE DISMANTLED AND SOLD AS SCRAP. 3.7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. I FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE AO HAS ANNEXED CERTAIN BI LLS OF OTHER ASSESSEES' WHO WERE IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AND THESE BILLS INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT SOLD ENGINES/DG SET RECOVERED FROM SHIPS DISMANTLED BY THEM. ON PERUSAL OF THESE BILLS, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TECHNICAL DETAIL ME NTIONED NOT EVEN HP OF ANY ENGINE WHICH IS THE MOST ELEMENTARY TECHNICAL CHARACTER ASSOCIATED WITH THESE TYPES OF ITEMS. THESE BILLS ALSO DO NOT INDICATE THE NAME OF SHI P FROM WHICH THE SAME HAVE BEEN RECOVERED AND SOLD; THEREFORE THERE IS NO CLUE AS TO WH ETHER THE SHIP FROM WHICH IT WAS RECOVERED WAS A WAR - SHIP OR A SMALL FISHING - TRAWLER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT CERTAINLY INDICATES THAT THE ENGINE / DG SET ARE CAPABLE OF BEING SOLD AS SUCH. THIS IS FURTHER TO BE INFERRED FROM THE FACT THAT WHEN THE SHIP CAME FOR DISMANTLING, IT CAME ON ITS OWN I.E. WITHOUT BEING TOWED. IT IS THEREFORE TO BE PRESUMED THAT THOUGH THE ENGINE / DG SET MAY BE OLD, STILL THEY ARE IN RUNNING CONDITION. 3.8. THE AR HAS, ON HIS PART, CONTENDED THAT IT IS GENERALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO SELL ENGINE OF A BROKEN SHIP AS SUCH AND IN SUCH SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DISMANTLE THE ENGINE ALSO AND SELL MACHINERY PARTS. THE AR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT AO'S BELIEF OF SALE OF THE D G SETS AND OTHER MACHINERIES AND FURTHER BELIEF OF UNR ECORDED REC EIPT OF RS.38,00,000/ - IS APPARENTLY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT SUCH BELIEF AND THEREFORE, THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS IN THIS REGARDS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 3.9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD A ND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT MADE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE ME AND I AM NOT FULLY CONVINCED WITH THE SAME. WHILE, ON ONE HAND, THE SALE BILLS APPENDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DO NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAILS, IN THE SAME WAY, THE PURPORTED SALE OF SPARE PARTS FROM ALLEGED DISMANTLED SHIPS BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIC DETAIL. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF WHAT IS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WHEN DG SET OF SHIP FINALLY BROKEN WAS IN WORKING CONDITION, THOUGH MAY BE VERY OLD, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY COMMERCIAL SENSE TO DISMANTLE SUCH ENGINE AND SELL THE SAME BY WEIGHT AS SCRAP. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ENGINES WERE ALSO DISMANTLED AND SOLD AS SCRAP. THE SALE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE BILLS A PPENDED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT OF ANY HELP BECAUSE THE NAME OF SHIP FROM WHICH IT WAS RETRIEVED IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED MUCH LESS ANY TECHNICAL DETAILS OR AT LEAST THE HP OF SUCH ENGINE. 3.10. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON EARLIER YEAR'S BOOK RESULTS WITH THE CONTENTION THAT NO SUCH ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS BUT IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT LIKE FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND A.Y.2006 - 07 THE SHORTAGE WAS ONLY AT 8.57% AND 7.16% ONLY WHICH WERE MUCH LESS THAN THE CLAIM OF SHORTAGE AT 10.53% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTH ER IT IS HERE TO MENTIONED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES - JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY IN THE INCOME - TAX PROCEEDINGS. MERELY NO SUCH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MAKE I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 8 ANY ADDITION IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON DIFFERENCES OF FACTS FROM THOSE YEARS. THE FACTS OF EACH YEAR ARE INDEPENDENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE TAKEN CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE RESPECTIVE YEAR AND HENCE IT DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER. TH E SHORTAGE AT THE YEAR END IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE ESTIMATED BASIS IN THE FORM OF BALANCING FIGURE. BEING ESTIMATED FIGURE IT IS ALWAYS AT THE SWEET WILL OF THE ASSESSEE TO REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE SHORTAGE/CONSUMPTION OF RAW - MATERIAL AS WELL AS PRODUCTION OF THE FINISHED GOODS. THIS IS SUPPORTED WITH THE FACT THAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS OR SEMI FINISHED GOODS EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS SUFFICIENT RAW MATERIAL IN THE HANDS OF T HE APPELLANT AT THE YEAR END AND HIS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE ALSO GOING ON REGULARLY TILL END OF 31.3.2009 BUT STILL NO STOCK OF THE FINISHED OR SEMI FINISHED GOODS HAVE BEEN SHOWN. IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE THAT ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR THERE WAS NO PRODUCTION OF THE FINISHED GOODS OR SEMI FINISHED GOODS. 3.11. EVEN THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE BASIS OF CLOSING STOCK OF UN - CUT SHEET AT 2680 M.T. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. HE FAILED TO FURNISH THE INVENTORY OF T HE SAID STOCK ALSO. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE UN - CUT SHIP I.E. BALANCE RAW - MATERIAL AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS ALWAYS ESTIMATED WITHOUT HAVING ANY BASIS WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE PARA NO.3 OF HIS WRITTEN SU BMISSION DTD. 24.1.2013 WHICH H AS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. SINCE THE STOCK OF PARTLY CUT - SHEET SHIP AND THE SHORTAGE ARE ESTIMATED ONLY WHICH DIRECTLY IMPACT UPON THE MANUFACTURING/TRADING RESULTS. THUS IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT MAINTAINING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PROPERLY AND THEY WERE NOT DISCLOSING THE TRUE POSITION OF HIS MANUFACTURING/TRADING ACTIVITIES. DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAD THE OPENING STOCK OF UN - CUT SHIP OF 8576 M.T. FURTHER THE OTHER SHIPS NAMELY M.V. EURASIAN ALLIANCE, M.V. CRYSTAL LILY WERE FULLY UTILIZED FOR PRODUCTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND A MAJOR PORTION OF THE ANOTHER SHIP NAMELY HOWRAH BRIDGE WAS ALSO UTILIZED FOR PRODUCTION. IT IS NEEDLESS HERE TO MENTION THAT EVERY SHIP CONTAINS VARIOUS TYPES OF MACHINERIES WHICH MAINLY INCLUDE ONE MAIN ENGINE, TWO D.G. SETS, SO MANY MOTORS, PANELS, ELECTRONIC ITEMS, COMPRESSORS, HYDROLIC PUMP, FRESH WATER EQUIPMENT, WORK SHOP MACHINERIES AND LIFE BOATS ETC. ON SPECIFIC R EQUISITION ABOUT SALE OF THESE ITEMS OR LYING CLOSING STOCK AT THE YEAR END THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ONLY DETAILS OF SALE OF SOME MACHINERIES OR ITS PARTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF 1 D.G. SET AGAINST 8 D.G. SETS RECEIVED BY HIM. THE D.G. SETS SOLD ON 14.4.2009 WAS NOT BELONGING TO M.V. ERUSAIAN ALLIANCE AND CRYSTAL LILLY SHIPS. NO SALE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENTS, MOTORS, COMPRESSORS AND OTHER MACHINERIES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. AS PER THE A.O, AT LEAST 2 SETS OF THESE MACHINERIES MUST HAVE RECOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE OPENING PARTLY CUT - SHIP AND FROM M.V. EURASIAN ALLIANCE AND CRYSTAL LILLY. THE ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE SHORTAGE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ONLY DUE TO NON - DISCLOSURE OF THE SALE OF THESE ITEMS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN SOLD WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE MACHINERIES WERE REMOVED INTACT AND SOLD IN THE MARKET. 3.12. THE APPELLANT HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT IN WHAT MANNER THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DG SET/OTHER MACHINES EITHER AS IT WAS OR BY CUTTING IN PIECES AS SCRAP HAS BEEN SHOWN OR LYING IN THE CLOSING STOCK. ON TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I PARTLY AGREE WITH THE AO'S I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 9 OBSERVATION REGARDING SALE OF DG SETS AND OTHER MACHINERIES OUT O F BOOKS BUT NOT WITH THE ESTIMATE OF SALE PROCEEDS AS DONE BY HIM WHICH IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND HENCE CONFIRM THE LUMPSUM ADDITION OF R S. 19,00,000/ - BEING 50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH WOULD TA KE CARE OF ALL POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE AN D MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. I THEREFORE SUSTAIN ADDITION OF RS. 19,00,000/ - IN PLACE OF RS. 38,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O.. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED PA PER BOOK CONTAINING WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) AND DETAIL OF MACHINERY, LEDGER ACCOUNT ETC. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN T HE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN MI SWACO LTD. VS. DCIT ITA NO. 3 7 7 4 /AHD/2008 DATED 05 TH AUG, 2011 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A GROUND NO.3 6. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - BEING UNACCOUNTED SALES OF 7 DG SETS AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF ONE DG SET ON 14.4.2009 FOR RS.4 LAKHS AND FOR TWO SET OF OTHER TYPE OF MACHINERIES OF RS.10 LAKHS . THE AO HAS REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AFTER FINDINGS VARIOUS D ISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS STATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19,00,000/ - BEING 50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, FROM TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT IN WHAT MANNER THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DG SET/OTHER MACHINES EITHER AS IT WAS OR BY CUTTING IN PIECES AS SCRAP HA D BEEN SHOWN OR LYING IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SALE I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 10 OF ONLY ONE DG SET AGAINST THE EXPECTED RECOVERY OF AT LEAST 7 DG SETS FROM M.V. EURASION ALLIANCE AND CRYSTAL LILLY THROUGH M.V. EURASION . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THIS MA TERIAL DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY T H E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH COGENT EVIDENCES. E VERY SHIP CONTAINS VARIOUS TYP ES OF MACHINERIES WHICH MAINLY INCLUDE ONE MAIN ENGINE, TWO D.G. SETS, SO MANY MOTORS, PANELS, ELECTRONIC ITEM S, COMPRESSORS, HYDROLIC PUMP, FRESH WATER EQUIPMENT, WORK SHOP MACHINERIES AND LIFE BOATS ETC . BUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF SALE AND ACCOUNTING OF THESE ITEMS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE FACTS OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE NET PRODUCTION AND S HORTAGE, NON - EXCISABLE PRODUCTS , FERROUS AND NON - FERROUS SCRAP ETC. , T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION T O THE EXTENT OF RS.19 LAC. HOWEVER AFTER TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE THAT THE VESSELS ARE OF DIFFERENT TYPES WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF MACHINERIES AND THE FACT THERE WAS INCOMPLETE MAINTEN ANCE OF RECORDS BY THE ASSESSEE , WE CON SIDERED IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 6, 00000/ - AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 19,00000/ MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A).T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.2 7 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PERFORMED MARRIAGE DURING T HE I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 11 YEAR AND DISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 30,46,296/ - . ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAIL OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SON. AFT ER GOING THROUGH THE DETAIL OF EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY EXPENDITURE ON THE CLOTH OF BRIDE - GROOM AND OTHER FAMILY MEM BERS , MUSIC BAND, VIDEOGRAPHY, PHOTOGRAPHY AND ON JEW ELLARY ITEMS. CONSEQUENTLY THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED EXPENSES OF JEWELLARY OF RS. 3 LACS, FOR CLOTHES EXPENSES OF RS. 1 LACS, AND FOR REMAINING ITEM AT RS. 1 LACS. 8 . AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DISMIS SED THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - DECISION 6.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURES ON VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE MARRIAGE OF H IS SON SHRI AKSHAY WHICH HAS BEEN TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.38,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF D.G. SETS AND MACHINERIES AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE GROUND NO. 1ABOVE. AS PER THE A.O. THE ESTIMATION OF THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDIT URES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AT RS.3 LAKHS, CLOTHING'S AT RS. 1 AND FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS AT RS. 1 LAKH WERE MADE. THE APPELLANT SIMPLY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS SHOWN THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF RS.30,46,269/ - WHICH WERE DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED A LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF THE EXPENDITURE BUT DID NOT POINTED OUT THAT THOSE INCLUDES THE EXPENDITURES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY, CLOTHING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY. EVE N IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R. WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE MADE ON THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS AND INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL MARRIAGE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT HE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE AP PELLANT AND IN ABSENCE OF DEBITING THESE EXPENDITURES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE ESTIMATION OF THE EXPENDITURES MADE BY THE A.O. ARE MOST GENUINE AND REASONABLE AS THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. IS JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. BUT NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS REQUIRED SINCE THIS HAS TO BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE OF D.G. SETS AND MACHINERIES AS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19 LAKHS IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THIS ORDER. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 12 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT HELD THAT NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS RE QUIRED AS THE S AME HAS TO BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER ADDITIONS . WE HAVE ALREADY REDUCED THE OTHER ADDITIONS AS SUPRA IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE I S DISMISSED. GROUND NO.1 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING SUCH ACCOUNTS WHICH MAY SHOW THE CORRECT POSITION OF RAW MATERIAL /PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS/REMAINING STOCK/SHORTAGE ETC AND DETAIL OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL. WE OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAIL OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS PRODUCTION OF THE RAW MATERIAL/FINISHED GOODS THE SHORTAGE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE AND THE SHORTAGE WAS SHOWN WITHOUT DISCLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS. T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING THE QUANTI TATIVE RECORDS OF CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION AND THERE WERE OTHER DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN RESPECT OF MAINTAINING RECORD AS ELABORATED ABOVE IN DETAIL IN THIS ORDER THEREFORE, WE OBSERVED THAT AO HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT T HEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IS UPHELD I.T.A NO. 2591 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AJAYKUMAR R. JAIN VS. JCIT 13 ON JUSTIFI CATION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. O RDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 12 - 01 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 1 2 /01/2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,