The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda V. Comed Chemicals Ltd., Baroda

ITA 2642/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67562 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K TANDON
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Documents seized
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA V/S . M/S. COMED CHEMICALS LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, ORIENT BUSINESS CENTRE, OPP. SURAJ PLAZA, SAYAJIGUNJ, VADODARA. PAN NO. AA BCC0242N (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SMT. SMITA SRIVASTAVA, CIT D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI P. K. TANDON, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 02.07.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.08.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WHIC H HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 10.07 .2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,85,739/- ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGED/EXPIRED GOODS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,23,766/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINE PAYMENT TO M/S. SAFFROYS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.48,88,550/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND TRADING OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. THE A.O. OBSERVED TH AT ON VERIFICATION OF P&L ACCOUNT, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEB ITED RS.7,94,441/- UNDER THE HEAD EXPIRED GOODS. HOWEVER, FOR THE GOODS REPLA CED WORTH RS.1,46,60,484/- DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE P&L ACCOUNT . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ACCOUNTING TREATM ENT OF THE SAID RS.1,46,60,484/-. THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT TH E SAME HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE COST, HENCE, THE SAME WAS NO WHERE REFLECTED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE A.O. FOUND THAT ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF GOODS REFLECTED IS CONTRARY TO THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD SPECIFIED IN TH E 11 TH DIVISION TO THE INCOME TAX RULE. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE IT ACT ON 09.09.2004 ON THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. THE A PPELLANT FILED A SETTLEMENT PETITION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI. THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WING DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH HAD RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI KIRIT C. PATEL, PRODUCTION MANAGE R IN PHARMACEUTICAL DIVISION ON 09.09.2004 AT THE FACTORY PREMISES AT S AVLI. THE A.O. REPRODUCED THE STATEMENT ON PAGE NOS. 4 & 5 AND CONCLUDED ON T HE BASIS OF THIS ADMISSION MADE BY THE MANAGER THAT THE AVERAGE OF G OODS RETURN ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGED/EXPIRED WAS 1 TO 2 %. THUS, SHE ESTIMAT ED GOODS DAMAGED/EXPIRED @ 2% ON SALES. THE EXCESS CLAIM EX CEEDING 2% ON SALES IS DISALLOWED AT RS.28,85,739/- AND ADDED BACK IN T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITI ON BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 3 3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. ON PE RUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS O F TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHO WERE NOT LOOKING AFTER SALES/MARKETING/GOODS RETURNED/DESTROYED. IT WAS A LSO ADMITTED BY BOTH THESE EMPLOYEES THAT NO RECORD OF GOODS DESTRO YED WERE MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER FOR DISPROVING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT W AS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHER, BOOKS WERE TREATED AS AUTHE NTIC SINCE THESE WERE NOT REJECTED U/S 145 BEFORE ESTIMATING THE GOO DS RETURNED/DAMAGED. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE STAT EMENTS OF BOTH THESE EMPLOYEES THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MEMORY WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E. HENCE, THEIR STATEMENTS WERE NOT CORROBORATED WITH DOCUMEN TS/RECORDS BEFORE MAKING ANY ESTIMATE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTY-WISE D ETAILS OF DEBIT ADVICE AND CLAIMS OF VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. USHA T RIPATHI (249 ITR 4) THAT THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SEIZED DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE UPHELD. MOREOVER, ESTIMATE IS NOT WARRANTED WITHOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/ S 145 IF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, NO NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS ESTABLISHED FOR MAKING THE ESTIMATE NOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED U/S 14 5. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALL OWED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. CIT D.R. FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH INCLUDES COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SHRI KIRIT C. PA TEL, SHRI SUBHASHCHANDRA B. BHAVSAR, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION OF M/S. SAFFROYS AND COPY OF ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 4 SETTLEMENT ETC. LD. CIT D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THA T THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT HE H AD OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE/EXPENSES, BOGUS SALES AND UNACCOUNTED PURC HASE. ON THAT BASIS, HE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM A. Y. 1999-2000 TO 2005-06. THUS, SHE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 4.1 AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HA S DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT PETITION WHERE THE PERCENTAGE OF GOO DS DAMAGED/EXPIRED VARIED FROM .75% IN 1998-99 TO 4.3% IN 2003-04. IT WAS ARGUED THAT WHEN NEW PRODUCT IS LAUNCHED, IT TAKES SOME TIME TO GET THE PRODUCT ACCEPTED BY THE MARKET AND DURING THE INITIAL PERIOD THE MANUFA CTURERS HAVE TO MAKE AVAIL THE PRODUCT IN ALL MARKETS BUT IT GET ACCEPTED ONLY IN FEW AREAS IN FIRST INSTANCE. THESE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASS ESSMENT ORDER. THE DEPARTMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2006-07, 07 -08 & 08-09 HAD ACCEPTED THE FIGURE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPIRED/DAMAGED G OODS. THE DEPARTMENT ONLY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF PERSON DEALING W ITH THE PRODUCTION WHO WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FACT AS DAMAGED AND EXPIRED O F GOODS WERE BEING DEALT BY THE MARKETING STAFF EVEN IN STATEMENT ALSO THE E XECUTIVE HAD ADMITTED THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPIRED GOODS 4 TO 5%. THUS, IT IS A LLOWABLE EXPENSES. HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS PRACTICE IN THE PHARMACEUTICALS BUSI NESS THAT SOME PRODUCTS HAVE TO BE EXPIRED OR DAMAGES AND ALL THE RETAILERS ARE NOT ABLE TO SELL THE GOODS WITHIN EXPIRY OF DATE, EVEN BRANDED GOODS SOM E TIME EXPIRED. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN EXPIRY OF GOODS PERCENTAGE MOR E THAN 4%. DURING THE ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 5 YEAR, GOODS EXPIRED WAS RS. 7,94,441/- AND GOODS RE PLACED AT RS. 1,46,60,484/- WHICH IS 2.46%, IS REASONABLE. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RE CORD ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. EVEN, N O EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE FOUND, WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES DISCLOSURE OF FURTHER ANY ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERVENE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,23,766/-. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VITAL MATERIAL WAS SEIZED DEMONSTRATING THE ASSESSEE UNLI KELY PAYMENT TO M/S. SAFFROYS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO , THE ASSESSEE HAD PASSED A JOURNAL ENTRY AND PAID RS.20,23,766/- TO M/S. SAF FROYS AS AGAINST THEIR OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2005. THE LD. A.O. GAV E REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. THE APPELLANT CLAIME D BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS GENUINE AND ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION, BU T LD. A.O. DOES NOT SATISFY WITH THE CONFIRMATION AS HE FOUND VARIOUS DEFECTS I N THE CONFIRMATION. THUS, SHE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 20,23,766/- AS WRONG DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAFFROYS. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEA L BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. ON PE RUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE PURC HASE OF ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 6 MACHINERY WAS MADE DURING EARLIER YEAR AND PAYMENT WAS OUTSTANDING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHI CH WAS PAID FROM TERM LOAN ACCOUNT. FURTHER, NOTHING HAD BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. SAFFROYS WAS FILED WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND IT CONTAINED PAN AND ADDRES S OF THE FIRM. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING ANY DOUBT ABOUT TH E GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATION THEN SHE COULD HAVE GOT IT VERI FIED FROM THE CONCERNED WARD/CIRCLE SINCE PAN AND ADDRESS WERE ME NTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION. FURTHER, IT WAS NOT DISPUTED THA T THERE WAS NO OUTSTANDING LIABILITY PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED. THE THIRD GROUND OF AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. CIT D.R. VEH EMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O., WHEREAS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND CLAIMED THAT CONFIRMATION H AS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A.O. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION PAGE NOS. 10 TO 14 . THE RECIPIENT IS ASSESSED TO TAX WHICH PAN NO. GIVEN WITH CONFIRMATI ON AT PAGE NO.14. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED CONFIRMATION BEFOR E THE A.O. WITH SIGNATURE AND PAN NO., IF SHE HAS ANY DOUBT ON CONFIRMATION, SHE SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THIS CONFIRMATION FROM HER COUNTER PART AT KOLKATA. LD. A.O. HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT POWER UNDER THE IT LAW, WHICH HAS NOT BE EN USED BY HER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APPELL ANT, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 7 10. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.48,88,550/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED, I T WAS TRACED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED BOGUS PURCHASE TO REDU CE PROFIT THEREBY REDUCE TAX LIABILITY. THE APPELLANT ASKED TO FILE PARTY WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASE WHICH WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS BEEN RE PRODUCED BY THE A.O. ON PAGE NOS. 7 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. A.O. FURTHER IDENTIFIED FROM THE PURCHASE DETAILS THAT 18 PARTIES MENTIONED ON P AGE 10, WERE GIVEN BOGUS BILL TO THE APPELLANT IN PAST, WHICH HAS BEEN ADMIT TED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE APPELLANT FILED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE TRANSACTION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS BEFORE THE A.O . BUT LD. A.O. DID NOT SATISFY WITH THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE APPELLAN T BEFORE HER AS VARIOUS DEFECTS WERE FOUND IN THE CONFIRMATION. ON THE BAS IS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ADMISSION MADE BY THE APPE LLANT IN SETTLEMENT PETITION UNDER THIS HEAD, SHE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 48,88,550/-. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEA L BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. ON PE RUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ADDI TION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS NOT PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE EARLIE R YEAR. HOWEVER, NO DEFECTS WERE POINTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED WERE HAVING PAN AS WELL AS ADDRESSES OF THE P ARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT A BOUT THE ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 8 CONFIRMATIONS FILED, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD HAVE CALLED FOR DIRECT INFORMATION IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, A DDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT AN Y INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I N THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. KEEPING IN VI EW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION IS HERE BY DELETED AND THE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. CIT D.R. VEH EMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND ARGUED THAT IN SETTLEMENT, TH E ASSESSEE IT HAS DISCLOSED IN PAST UNDER THIS HEAD AN ADDITIONAL INCOME. IT P ROVES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED THE BOGUS PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR. WHATEV ER BOGUS PARTIES NAMES ADMITTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WERE ALSO THERE UNDER THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND CLAIMED THAT THE EVIDEN CE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06 NOT 06-07. THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION WITH PAN AND FULL ADDRES S BEFORE THE A.O. HE FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. USHA TRIPATHI [2001] 249 ITR 0004 (ALL .), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT, NO ESTIMATED ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 158BB AND PRAYED TO CONFI RM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SEARCH WAS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06, W HATEVER EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE WERE RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06 NOT 2006-07. THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION WITH PAN NO. WITH FU LL ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASE ITA NO. 2642/AHD/2009 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 9 PARTIES. ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT BRINING OUT ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IF THE A.O. H AS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE, SHE SHOULD HAVE INQUIR E DIRECTLY FORM THE SUPPLIER OR MADE ANY INQUIRY AS PER LAW. THE LD. A .O. HAD NOT MADE OUT THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. THE ADDITION WAS MA DE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN PAST, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.08.2013 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (T.R. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;