The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Jay Infra Trade Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 261/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8891 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMISH VYAWALA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Rule of consistency; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/09 DRAFTED ON: 25/09/2 009 ITA NO.261/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 AHMEDABAD VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. JAY HOUSE PANCHVATI CIRCLE AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAACJ 3800 C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NIMISH VYAWALA O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD DATED 16/10/2 006 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, BY RAISING FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PORTION OF HOUSE KEEPING CHARGE S TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HOLDING THAT THE HOUSE KE EPING CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS BUSI NESS RECEIPTS FOR VARIOUS BUSINESS SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE OCCUP ANTS THOUGH THEY HAPPENED TO BE ASSOCIATED CONCERNS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.18 ,53,334/-. ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 2 - 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER F THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING HOUSE KEEPING SERVICES TO VARIOUS BUSI NESS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT SINCE 1998-99. AS PER ASSESSEE HOUSE KEEPING SERVICES, INCLUDE FOLLOW ING FACILITIES, 1. SITTING FACILITIES TO THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF THIS CONCERNS. 2. PARKING FACILITIES. 3. CONFERENCE ROOM AND PROPERLY FURNISHED ROOM FOR DIRECTORS FOR THOSE CONCERNS. 4. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND COMPUTER SUPPORT SERV ICES. 5. SERVICES OF LAB ASSISTANT. 6. INTERNET CONNECTION SERVICES. 7. RECEPTIONIST SERVICES. 8. SERVICES OF PEONS FOR HANDLING OF FILES. 9. SERVICES FOR MOVING THE PAPERS TO THE BANK, FIL ING OF CHEQUES, ETC. 3. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT EXCEPT PROVIDING SERVIC ES, NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIOUS GROUP CO NCERNS TO WHOM THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F MANUFACTURING OF DYES AND CHEMICALS. SOME OF THE CONCERNS TO WHOM S UCH SERVICES PROVIDED ARE M/S.JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES HAVING A T URNOVER OF MORE THAN 100 CRORES AND M/S.J.H. KHARAWALA PVT.LTD. WHICH I S ENGAGED IN THE ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 3 - MANUFACTURING OF INTERMEDIATES ON A LARGE SCALE. D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.76,13,561/- FOR PROVIDING SUCH HOUSE KEEPING SERVICES TO THE GROUP CONCERNS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED INTO THE GENUINENESS OF THE WORK DONE. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED ASSETS LIKE, LAND, COMPUTER, FURNIT URE, COOLER, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, ELECTRIC INSTALLATION, LIFT, OFFICE BUILDING, AIR CONDITIONERS, ETC. IN ADDITION, IT IS PROVIDING CH AIRS, TABLES, CUP-BOARD, FAN, FRIDGE, PRINTER, XEROX MACHINE, SCANNER, FAX-M ACHINES AND SOFA SET, WHOSE DETAILS ARE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. 4. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, HE NOTED THAT - (I) THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE VARIOUS GROUP CONCERNS AS REGARDS T O THE NATURE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, RATE OF EACH ITEM OF SE RVICE, TERMS OF PAYMENT AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS. (II) IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRACT, IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO WORK OUT VALUE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 4 - (III) THERE IS NO BIFURCATION AS TO WHAT ASSETS OR SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO WHOM. THE ASSETS PROVIDED ARE INTERCHA NGEABLE BETWEEN VARIOUS GROUP CONCERNS. 5. ON THE BASIS OF THIS FINDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER, AS PER DETAILED DISCUSSION IN HIS ORDER, HELD THAT THE MONEY RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GENUINE AND AT BEST HE COULD RECEIVE ONLY A SUM OF RS.33,39,085/- BEING THE CHARGES FOR GIVING ON HIRE, THE TABLE, S OFA SETS, ETC. FOR OTHER SERVICES LIKE, COMPUTER, SITTING FACILITIES, COMMON PARKING PLACES, ETC. HE WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF SERVICE AT RS.6,24,724/- WH ICH IS INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS.33,39,085/-. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE VAL UE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WORTH RS.6,24,725/- WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.69, 88,836/- SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. NO EXPENSE S SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED AGAINST RS.69,88, 836/-. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, TREATED THE ENTIRE SUM AS BUSINESS INCOME , HE ALSO ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION. HIS OBSERVATION IN THIS REGARD ARE C ONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.2.2 AND 3 AS UNDER:- ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 5 - 2.2. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ADVAN CED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS GROUNDS. IT IS AN ADMIT TED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN BUILDING S OTHER THAN MACHINERIES AND ALSO PROVIDED TECHNICAL SERVICES LI KE EDP, INTERNET AND OTHER CORPORATE SERVICES UNDER ONE ROO F. THE RECIPIENT OF SUCH SERVICES WERE THE GROUP CONCERNS. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS AR RANGEMENT WAS THERE FROM A.Y. 1997-98 ONWARDS. AS RIGHTLY CONTEN DED THE PROVISION OF SUCH SERVICES AND THE OBJECT BEHIND UT ILIZATION OF PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE SEEN IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND NOT THROUGH A NARROW COMPASS. THE AO OBVIOUSLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF SERVICES P ROVIDED BY THE LIMITED MAN POWER BUT IGNORING THE MAJOR ASPECT OF PROVISION OF OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN FACT, HE HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT THE FLOOR AREA MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE GR OUP CONCERNS AND THE POSSIBLE LICENSE CHARGES THAT COULD HAVE BE EN COLLECTED IN AN OPEN MARKET CONDITION. THE PERIODICAL BILLING O R OTHERWISE CANNOT RENDER THE VERY PROVISION OF BUSINESS SUPPOR T SERVICES AS NOT GENUINE. INCIDENTALLY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ARGUING THAT LESSER PAYMENTS IN THE HANDS OF SOME OF THE GROUP CONCERNS WOULD HAVE BENEFITED THE M BY WAY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OUT OF TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE RECIPIENT OF S UCH HOUSE KEEPING CHARGES, HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY OTHER BENEFIT OR REDUCTION AND HENCE NO DESIGN OR HIDDEN MOTIVE COULD BE ATTRI BUTABLE. IN ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 6 - FACT, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD PAID TAX ON ENTIRE RECEIPTS AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES AND DEPRECIATI ON ON THE ASSETS UTILIZED FOR THIS COMMERCIAL EXERCISE. THIS BEING THE FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS BEYOND REASONING TO CONCLUDE THAT T HE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW ANY EXPENSE U/S.57(I II) HOLDING THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT THE IMMOVABLE ASSETS AND MACHINERIES WERE TO BE LET OUT AS INSEPA RABLE UNITS THEN THE EXPENSES PROVIDED U/S.57 SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSI DERED. THUS, THE APPROACH OF THE AO WAS VERY NARROW AND NOT HOL ISTIC. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH CITED ABOVE (282 ITR 224) IS QUIT E RELEVANT AS THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AR E RATHER IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE THOUGH THE PROPERTIES WERE LET OUT AND CHARGES WERE SUBJECTED TO TDS U/S.194(1) STILL IT WAS HELD THAT AS PER OBJECT OF EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY IT WAS FOR BUSINESS PU RPOSE ONLY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COULD FALL SQUARELY UNDER BUSINESS HEAD. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT HOUSE KEEPING CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS FOR VARIOUS BUSINESS SERVICES PRO VIDED TO THE OCCUPANTS THOUGH THEY HAPPENED TO BE ASSOCIATED CON CERNS. 3. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION AT RS.18.53 LACS. THE AO FOR THE REASONS THAT THE AC TIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT CONSTITUTE EARNING OF INCOME UNDER OTHER SOURCES, DID NOT ALLOW DEPRECIATION THOUGH A PORTION OAT RS.6.24 LACS WAS CONSIDERED AS HOUSE KEEPING CHARGES BEING BUSINESS INCOME. THAT ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 7 - BEING SO, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REASON WHY THE DEPRE CIATION WAS DISALLOWED. THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT D EPEND ON THE QUANTUM OF INCOME. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE P REVIOUS PARAGRAPHS, THE HOUSE KEEPING CHARGES OR RECEIPTS O N EXPLOITATION OF DEPRECIABLE ASSET BEING BUILDING, LIFT, MACHINER Y, ETC. ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY AND HENCE THE DEPRECIATION AS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE IT ACT IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED WHILE GI VING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS PRO VIDING FOLLOWING SERVICES:- (1) SITTING ARRANGEMENTS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE O F SINGLE TABLE CHAIRS, BUT ARRANGEMENTS ARE SUCH THAT AL L THE PAPERS, ETC. CAN BE STORED, MOVED AND MAILED. THE CONFERENCE ROOM FOR MEETING THE VISITORS IS ALSO PROVIDED. THE VISITORS AND STAFF CAN USE THE SERVI CES OF PEONS WHO ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE COMPANY. (2) THE COMPANY ALLOWS THE USE OF COMPUTERS. THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE HIRING OF COMPUTERS. WITH THE HELP OF E.D.P . PERSONNEL, THE COMPANY HAS DEVELOPED SPECIFIC PROGRAMS WHICH ARE USED BY ALL OCCUPANTS. THE ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 8 - COMPUTERS MAY BE OPERATED BY THE PERSONNEL OF THE OCCUPANTS BUT ALL SERVICES RELATED TO SOFTWARE, ETC . ARE PROVIDED TO THE OCCUPANTS BY THE COMPANY. (3) THE COMPANY HAS ENTERED INTO INTERNAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. ALL THE BUSINESS RELA TED TELEPHONES OF THE OCCUPANTS ARE RECEIVED THROUGH TH IS SYSTEM. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO ENGAGED TELEPHONE OPERATOR AND RECEPTIONIST FOR THE PURPOSE. THE COM PANY HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO INTERNET. IT PROVIDES THE US ER OF THIS FACILITY TO THE OCCUPANTS. (4) LAB ASSISTANCE OF THE COMPANY HELPS IN TESTING THE MATERIALS, ESPECIALLY OF JCIL. THE LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS BELONG TO THOSE COMPANIES BUT COMPANY HA S PROVIDED SPACE AND PERSONNEL ASSISTANCE FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE ALSO TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE. (5) ALL THE BANKING OPERATIONS OF ALL THE CONCERNS LIKE FILING OF CHEQUES, TAKING PAPERS TO THE BANK, ETC. IS HAND LED BY SHRI Y.K. MEHTA OF THE COMPANY. ALL OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE OCCUPANT CONCERN S ARE RUN BY THE PEONS OF THE COMPANY. ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 9 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE REASONS ARE:- (I) THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THAT WH AT THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS A S PART OF IT AS HAS BEEN SO ASSESSED BY HIM. ONLY A PART AMOUNTING TO RS.69,88,836/- HAS BEEN TREATED A S INCOME FORM OTHER SOURCES. (II) THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE PAST ON THESE RECEIPTS FROM HOUSE KEEPING SERVICES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. FACTS REMAINING THE SAME, THE REVENUE SHOULD TAKE A CONSISTENT VIEW. IT HAS BEEN SO HELD BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MALBARO POLYCHEM PVT.LTD. (2009) 309/ITR 43 (RAJ.), OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOON LIGHT BUILDERS AND ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 10 - DEVELOPERS (2008) 307 ITR 197 (DELHI) AND OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DINESHKUMAR (2008) 299 ITR 59 (M.P.). THUS, IF THE FACTS ARE NOT DIFFERENT, THEN VIEW ONC E TAKEN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO. (III) IF CERTAIN PART OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY GROUP CONCERNS IN RECEIVING SERVICES FROM THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS NOT GENUINE OR IS EXCESSIVE, THEN ACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN IN THEIR HANDS. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS SHOWING THE RECEIPTS IN FULL AS TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NO REASON TO EITHER REDUCE IT OR CHANGE THE HEAD. (IV) THE LOGIC GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE PART OF THE RECEIPT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT COMPREHENDIBLE AND DOES NOT CREATE ANY LOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPTS TAKEN UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND RECEIPT TAKEN ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 11 - UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, NO SUCH DISTINCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED AND SECONDLY, IT DOES NOT AT ALL AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPT AND TAX IMPOSE D. THEREFORE, ENTIRE EXERCISES MERELY ACADEMIC AND COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. (V) FINALLY, THE DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED WHETHER THE PART OF INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AS UNDER BOTH THE HEADS THERE IS PROVISION FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. WHEN INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS, DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE U/S.32 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS PER RULES AND WHEN INCOME IS COMPUTED U/S.56 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND INCOME IS OF THE NATURE OF CLAUSES (II) & (III) OF SECTION (1) OF SECTION 56, THEN DEDUCTION OF THE NATURE OF THAT PROVIDED U/S.32(1) & 32(2) ARE TO BE ALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 57(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE RECEIPT SHOWN BY ITA NO .261/AHD/2007 THE DCIT VS. JAY INFRA TRADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 12 - THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY TAXABLE AND HAS BEEN SO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) IS CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 309/09/2009. SD/- SD/- ( T.K.SHARMA ) ( D.C.AGRAWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 09 /2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD