The ITO,Vapi Ward-4, Nani Daman V. M/s. Priya Printek, Nani Daman

ITA 2654/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73159 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. VS M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, S. NO.338/3A, GALA NO.15, SHREE NARAYAN INDL. ESTATE, CRICKET GROUND, KACHIGAM, NANI DAMAN. PAN: AAHFP 7674C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NOS.306 & 307/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, S. NO.338/3A, GALA NO.15, SHREE NARAYAN INDL. ESTATE, CRICKET GROUND, KACHIGAM, NANI DAMAN. PAN: AAHFP 7674C VS ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/03/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE DE PARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, ALL ARISING F ROM THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), VALSAD FOR A.YS. 2006-2007 AND 2007 -08, VIDE ORDERS ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 2 - BOTH DATED 24 TH OF JUNE, 2010. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE APPEALS, REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT STATING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE IT STARTED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE POINT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT HAS COMMENCED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2004, AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S.143 (3) RESPECTIVELY DATED 19.11.2008 AND 3.12.2009, THE AO HAD DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF RS.7,22,441/- FOR A.Y. 2006-0 7 AND RS.15,33,420/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS STATED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF REPROCESS GRANULES. THE REASON G IVEN FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB BY AO WAS THAT T HE COMMENCING OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS NOT STARTED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST OF MARCH, 2004. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE REQUISITE LICE NSE FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS OBTAINED ON A LATER DATE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEF ORE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS FOUND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE SAID ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, AHM EDABAD IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HE LD AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE CAREFULLY. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO BEEN PER USED CAREFULLY. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF TH IRD PARTY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF MANUFACTURING, DEDUCTION U /S.80-IB CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE HONBLE ITAT, AHME DABAD IN THE APPELLANTS CASE VIDE ITA NO.2742/AHD/2009 HAD GRAN TED RELIEF FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 ON THE SAME ISSUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OR DER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD, I AM INCLINED TO GRANT RELIEF IN THIS YE AR ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 3 - 4. WITH THIS BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEAR D BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R. J.P. JHANGID HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SI DE OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, LEARNED AR, MR. HARDIK VORA HAS PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4.1 WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HONB LE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.2742/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 20 05-06 TITLED AS M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK VS. ITO, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN, VI DE ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 HAS HELD AS UNDER: HAVING HEARD THE ID. D.R., WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE A.O . IS THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS STARTED THE PRODUCTION WITHOUT OBTAININ G THE LICENSE AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 3(1) OF GOA, DAMAN & DIUJ FACTORIES RULE S, 1985. AS AGAINST THIS, BEFORE BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BELO W, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVIT Y COMMENCED ON 31.03.2004. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE FACTORY HA S STARTED ITS PRODUCTION ON 31.03.2004, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SSI REGISTRAT ION CERTIFICATE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT PURCHASE AND SALES WER E MADE AS ON 31.03.2004. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HA S STARTED ITS PRODUCTION OR NOT COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. BY MAKI NG SPOT ENQUIRIES IN THIS REGARD. ADMITTEDLY NO SUCH ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE. T HE SAME ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS.2253 & 2254/AHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 20 06-07, ORDER DATED 16.11.2009 IN THE CASE OF ADARSH PACKAGING -VS.- IT O, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 'THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DEALT W ITH THE IDENTICAL QUESTION IN A FEW CASES AND HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THA T IF THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY COMMENCED THE MANUF ACTURING ACTIVITY ON OR BEFORE 31-3-2004, THEN IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THA T THE FACTORY LICENCE WAS OBTAINED LATER THAN 31-3-2004, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB CANNOT BE DENIED. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THESE ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER FOR VIOLATION OF A CONDITION, BUT SO LON G AS FACTUALLY THE PRODUCTION HAS COMMENCED ON OR BEFORE 31-3-2004, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE REFUSED. THE LEAD ORDER IS THE ONE DATED 5-6-2009 IN ITA NOS.100 4 AND 1005/AHD/2009 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. PADMEY IMPEX (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-2006 AND 2006- 2007). IN THIS CASE ALSO THE AO HAD DENIED THE DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE FACTORY LICENCE BEFORE IT STARTED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE CIT(A) H AD HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 4 - MATERIAL WHILE PROCESSING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 8 0IB OF THE IT ACT AND WHAT WAS MATERIAL WAS WHETHER MANUFACTURING ACTIVIT IES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR OR NOT. AFFIRMING THIS VIEW OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE FACTORY LICENCE WAS GRANTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROC ESSING THE CLAIM UNDER THE SECTION AND THAT IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ANY P ROVISIONS OF OTHER STATUTES THEN THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME TO T HE AUTHORITIES EXECUTING THOSE LAWS AND THE ASSESSEE MAY EVEN FACE PENAL CON SEQUENCES UNDER THOSE LAWS BUT THAT CANNOT AFFECT THE CLAIM UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT WHICH ONLY REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE AN ARTICLE OR THING. THUS THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GRANTING TH E DEDUCTION. A SIMILAR ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE SAME BENCH ON THE SAME DAY IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. SAMRAT HEALTHCARE, IN ITA NO.L006/AHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PADMEY IMPEX (SUPRA) WAS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER BENCH IN AHMEDABAD IN ITA N O.L536/AHD/2009 DATED 28-8-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. IN THIS ORDER, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED POSITION OF THE LA W THAT A CONDITION (THAT MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ONLY A FTER OBTAINING THE FACTORY LICENCE) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLAT URE FOR GRANTING CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITI ES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB THOUGH THE PRODUCTION HAS STARTED IN THE ACCOU NTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 FOR WHICH THE FACTORY LIC ENCE WAS OBTAINED ONLY ON 3-6-2004. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE AHME DABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL THE FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSE SSEE OBTAINED THE FACTORY LICENCE ONLY ON 08-2-2007, BEFORE 31-3-2004 IS IRRE LEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB. THE QUESTION HOWEVER REMAINS AS TO WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY STARTED PRODUCTION BEFORE 31-3-2004. IN TH IS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF MENTIONED THAT ON PERUSAL O F THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IT IS SEEN THAT THE PRODUCTION STARTED ON 31-3-2004. IT THEREFORE APPEARS TO US THAT THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER TAKEN THE VIEW THAT SINC E THE FACTORY LICENSE WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 08.02.07 AND IT IS AN OFFENCE PUNISH ABLE UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT AND THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER TO COMMENCE MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITY BEFORE ISSUE OF THE SAID LICENSE, IT WOULD BE AGAIN ST PUBLIC POLICY TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER ONE STATUTE IN RESPECT O F ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF A NOTHER STATUTE WHICH ALSO INVITES PENALTY UNDER THAT STATUTE. THUS, EVEN THE CIT(A) DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE DOUBTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITY ACTUALLY COMMENCED BEFORE THE 31-3-2004. THE REASON ING OF THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AS CORRECT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER S PASSED BY THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THEM, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IB AS CLAIMED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE SAME. ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 5 - 4.2 AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT O NCE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PAST A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY A RESPECT ED CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THIS PARTICULAR IS SUE IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB, THEREFORE, IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE FOLLOWED KEEPING JUDICIAL PROPRIETY IN MIND. 4.3 OUT ATTENTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DRAWN ON AN ORDE R OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. JOLLY POLYMERS DATED 21 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2013 (IN TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1622 OF 2012, WHEREIN THIS VERY ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN ASSESS EES FAVOUR AS UNDER: BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FIN DING OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE SAID ACT). THE OBJ ECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AS THE FACTORY LICENSE WAS GRANTED ON 3 RD MAY, 2005, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED MANUFACT URING ACTIVITY PRIOR TO CUT OFF DATE 31 ST MARCH, 2004. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL R ELIED UPON ITS DECISION IN THE MATTER OF ITO VAPI V/S. SAMARTH HEALTH CARE IN ITA NO.1006/AHD/2009 DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2012 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. THE TRIBUNAL CA ME TO FINDING OF FACT IN THE ABOVE CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DOUBT ABOUT RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION, POWER CONSUMPTION, SALES AND EMPLOYMEN T OF WORKERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB OF THE SA ID ACT, WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE AN ARTICLE OR THING AND IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF ANY OTH ER STATUTES THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE AUTHORITIES IMPLEMEN TING THOSE ACTS/STATUTES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF DENIAL OF BENEF IT UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE SAID ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POIN T OUT WHY AND HOW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF SAMARTH H EALTH CARE (SUPRA) IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS. IN ANY EVENT, TH E CIT(A) WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DIRECTS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF. 4.4 A DECISION OF AN HONBLE HIGH COURT IS THEREFOR E BINDING UPON US. HENCE IN A SITUATION WHEN THE QUESTION WHETHER A MA NUFACTURER IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE TO RUN THE FACTORY WAS ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 6 - OBTAINED AFTER 31 ST OF MARCH, 2004, BEING DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS ARE EXPECTED T O FOLLOW THE VIEW OF THE HIGHER FORUM. 4.5 INTERESTINGLY, THERE IS AN ORDER OF JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT AS WELL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. JOLLY POLYMERS ORDER DA TED 17.01.2012 (TAX APPEAL NOS.1387, 1388, 2016, 1105, 1106, 1116, 1117 , 1125 ALL OF THE YEAR 2010). THERE WERE TWO ISSUES WHICH WERE RAISED FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE QUESTION NO. B REFERRED; THE VIEW OF THE HONBLE COURT WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FO R READY REFERENCE QUESTION NO.B WAS AS UNDER: (B) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL, WAS RIGHT IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SETON 80IB OF THE ACT WHEN APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO RUN THE FACTORY WAS MADE TO THE FACTORY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO 31.03.2004 BUT THE ACTUAL LICENSE WAS GRAN TED ONLY AFTER THE SAID DATE? 4.6 WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS APPEAL ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE WHETHER DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB CAN BE ALLOWED WHEN APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO RUN THE FACTORY WAS MADE TO THE FACT ORY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO 31.02.2004 BUT THE ACTUAL LICENSE WAS GRANTED LATER ON. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN THE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS PRECEDENT WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. CO NO.306 AND 307/AHD/2010 5. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BEING IN SUPPORT OF THE CLA IM AND NO OTHER ISSUE WAS RAISED; HENCE, LEARNED AR HAS CONSIDERED IT PROPER NOT TO PRESS THESE TWO COS. WE HEREBY DISMISS THESE TWO CROSS OB JECTIONS, BEING NOT PRESSED. ITA NOS.2653, 2654/AHD/2010 & CO NO.306, 307/AHD/20 10 ITO VAPI WARD-4, NANI DAMAN VS. M/S. PRIYA PRINTEK, NANI DAMAN. A.Y.2006-07 - 7 - 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS AS WELL AS ASSE SSEES COS ALL ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/03/2014 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD