The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2670/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9645 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KR BHARDW AJ
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: S H RI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD, NIRMA HOUSE, NEAR INCOME TAX CIRCLE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAACC6252H (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI ANIL KR. BHARDW AJ , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH SHRI HIMANSHU SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 02 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 02 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE FOUR REVENUE S APPEAL S FOR A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 , AR ISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 19 - 08 - 2011 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - XI/179, 180, 181 & 182 /10 - 11 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 / A HD/2 0 11 A . Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 2 2. BOTH PARTIES FAIRLY STATE AT THE OUTSET THAT REVENUE S PLEADINGS RAISED IN THE INSTANT BATCH OF FOUR CASES CHALLENGE THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER INTER ALIA DELETING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTIES ARISING FROM D ISALLOWANCES OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - , SECTION 35D OF RS. 14,00,936/ - AND T HE ONE PERTAINING TO EXCESS RE M UNER ATION PAID TO MANAGING DIRECTOR AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,03,940/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99. THE SECOND ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 RAISES A SOLITARY GROUND PERTAINING TO PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE ON EXCESS REMUNERATION TO MANAGING DIRECTOR OF A SUM OF RS. 9 L ACS. THE THIRD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 INVOLVES PENALTY ARISING FROM PRIOR PERIOD DISALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE OF RS. 25,89,158/ - . THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 RAISES TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF PENALTY EMA NA TING FROM DISALLOWANCES OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE OF R S. 42,92,983/ - AND U/S. 35D DEDUCTION SUM OF RS. 6,38,101/ - ; RESPECTIVELY. BOTH PARTIES TAKE US TO THESE FOUR CASE F ILES WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED ALL THE ABOVE STATED PENALTIES IN ALL IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME IN LOWER APPELLATE ORDERS UNDER CHALLENGE. 3. BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN UNISON THAT FACTS RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 ARE SIMILAR TO THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS RAISED IN THE SUCCEEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. NO DISTINCTION ON FACTS IS POINTED OUT. WE TREAT ITA 2668/AHD/2011 AS THE LEAD CASE. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE SET OUT AS UNDER. I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 3 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES REITERATE THEIR RESPECTIVE PLEADINGS FOR AND AGAINST THE IMPUGNED PENAL ACTION. 4 . THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY MANUFACTURES IV FLUIDS AND SYRINGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED REASSESS MENT IN ITS CASE ON 28 - 02 - 2005 DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND IT URE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,20, 32,904/ - , SECTION 35D DEDUCTION OF RS. 14,00,936/ - AND EXCESS REMUNERATION TO ASSESSEE S MANAGING DIRECTOR AMOUNTING TO A SUM OF RS. 15,06,940/ - ; RESPECTIVELY . THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THESE QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ALLEGING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ITS CONCEALMENT. 5 . WE COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSE STRONGLY CONTESTED THIS PROPOSAL. IT SUBMITTED IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 270 - 03 - 2009 INTER ALIA THAT IT WAS ALREADY A LOSS MAKING ENTITY. AND THE SAME STOOD REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE STAT ED DISALLOW ANCES. IT DENIED TO HAVE CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLARI FI ED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF MERE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT EITHER OF THE TWO COMPONENT EMBEDDED THEREIN. LACK OF ANY MAL A FIDE INTENTION WAS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS PENALTY ORDER DATED 31 - 03 - 2009 REFERRED TO CHRONOLOGY OF QUANTUM EVENTS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE S ACTION IN CLAIMING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, SECTION 35D DEDUCTION AND EXCESS REMUNERATION TO ITS I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 4 MANAGING DI RECTOR (SUPRA) AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS RESULTED IN LEVY OF IMPUGNED MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 9,56,34,273/ - . 6 . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CIT(A) COMES TO THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE MATER FIRST OF ALL. HE QUOT ES HON BLE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO - PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC) HOLDING THAT MERE REJECTION OF A CLAIM OF EXPENDIT URE OR DEDUCTION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE PROCEEDS TO DEAL WITH EACH OF THE T HREE DISALLOWANCES. THE LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE OF PENALTY QUA PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - READS AS FOLLOWS: - (B) DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 1,20.32,904/ - IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 1.20,32,904/ - VIDE PARA NO.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.2.2005. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 15,13,07,385/ - IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES IS GIVEN IN ANNEXURE - 3 TO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GROSS TOTAL OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT IS RS. 16,34,10,289/ - . DETAILS OF T HESE EXPENSES REVEALS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A CREDIT OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A NET PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 15,13,07,385/ - ( 16,30,10,2897 - - 1,20,32,904/ - ) IN THE P & L A/C. THE ASSESSING IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ADDED BACK GROSS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 16,34,10,285/ - IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME INSTEAD OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 15,13,07,385/ - AND IN THE PROC ESS IT HAD CLAIMED EXCESS EXPENSES OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - . THIS SUM WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBSEQUENTLY PENALTY WAS ALSO IMPOSED ON THIS SUM OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS VERY CAREFULLY AND SIN CERELY FEEL THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 5 CORRECTLY APPRECIATED BY THE A.O. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A NET PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES OF RS. 15,13,07,385/ - IN THE P & L A/C. AND ADDED THE SAME BACK IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IF THE AO'S REASONING I S ACCEPTED THAT THE GROSS PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES OF RS. 16,34,10,289/ - NEEDS TO BE ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION. THE NATURAL FALL BACK OF THIS EXERCISE WILL BE THAT GROSS PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES OF RS. 16,34,10,289/ - SHOULD BE DEBITED IN THE P&L A/C. AND CRE DIT RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - SHOULD GO IN THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE P&L A/C. THIS CREDIT OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - IS SET OFF BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED NET PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES OF RS. 15,13,77,385/ - IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE EXPENSES AS ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESSER BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - . THIS IS THE SAME AMOUNT CREDITED IN P&L A/C. THUS THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS REARRANGEMENT OF EXPENSES AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNCHANGED BY THIS EXERCISE. SECONDLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ADDED GROSS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 16,34,10,289/ - INSTEAD OF NET PRIOR PERI OD EXPENSES OF RS. 15,13,77,385/ - . THUS, THIS TANTAMOUNT TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - . ; THE PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. SINCE, NO NEW INCOME, HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THIS EXERCISE, AND AT BEST IT IS A DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENSES, ACCORDINGLY PENALTY IS NOT ATTRACTED ON THIS ADDITION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, PENALTY IMPOSED ON AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,32,904/ - IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 7 . WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL ARGUMENTS. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE ON FACTS. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SALARY CREDIT. IT WOULD ACCORDINGLY DEBIT A NET PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE ADDED BACK GROSS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES INSTEAD OF NET AMOUNT. THE CIT(A) H OLDS THAT THERE IS REVENUE IMPLICATION AS THE SAME IS ONLY REARRANGEMENT EXERCISE OF EXPENSES. WE FURTHER FIND FROM CASE 119 FORMING ASSESSEE S PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31 - 03 - 1998 THAT IT HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED NETTING EX ERCISE. I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 6 WE REITERATE THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS THAT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS LEADING TO MERE RE - COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE WITHOUT ANY NEW EVIDENCE BEING DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE SAME CANNOT BE PERCEIVED AS AN INSTANCE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . WE NOTICE THAT A CO - ORDINAT E BENCH DECISION IN ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD VS. ACIT ITA 1859/AHD/2011 DECIDED ON 01 - 01 - 2016 ACCEPTS SUCH A NETTING AS FOLLOWS: - 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. PAGE 13 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISE ALL DETAILS OF ASSESSEE S PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITU RE AMOUNTING TO RS. 67,88,591/ - FALLING UNDER MAJOR HEADS OF C & F, MISC. EXPENDITURE, OUTWARD FREIGHT AND TRAVELLING ETC. ITS LEDGER ACCOUNTS REVEALS THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED ON VARIOUS DATES FROM 01 - 04 - 2005 TO 31 - 03 - 2006. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE ON GENUINENESS ASPECT OF THE ABOVE STATED EXPENDITURE HEADS. THIS IS NOT THE REVENUE S CASE THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOWHERE REBUT ASSESSEE S CASE THAT IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING PAST PRACTICE OR THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. CASE LAW (1958) 33 ITR 681 (BOM) CIT VS. NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD HOLDS THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ASSESSED AT UNIFORM RATE, YEAR OF RAISING AN EXPENDITURE CL AIM IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE, MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE. NEXT JUDGMENT (2010) 194 TAXMANN 158 (DEL) CIT VS. JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES ACCEPTS CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CLAIMING IDENTICAL EXPENDITURE IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHEREI N THE NECESSARY EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AFTER 31 ST MARCH OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. CASE LAW (2014) 221 TAXMANN 80 (BOM) CIT VS. MAHANAGAR GAS LTD SUPPORTS ASSESSEE S CASE THAT PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE CRYSTALLIZE DURING THE YEAR O N RECEIPT OF BILLS IS ALLOWABLE. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY (2010) 328 ITR 17 (DEL) CIT VS. EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD UPHOLDING CIT(A) S AND TRIBUNAL S VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE ADMITS PRIOR PERIOD I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 7 INCOME WHICH WAS NOT EXCLUDED WHILE WORKING OUT RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR INCOME, IT IS UNREASONABLE TO ALLOW ONE PART OF PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT I.E. PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. WE ADOPT THE SAME REASONING HEREIN AS WELL AND HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ARISING FROM DISALLOWA NCE FROM PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. THIS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND STANDS REJECTED. 8. WE COME TO THE SECOND GROUND NOW SEEKING TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ARISING FROM SECTION 35D DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,00,936/ - . IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THIS AMOUNT H AS ARISEN BECAUSE OF GIVING CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT TO APPEALS AND REVISIONS IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAME RELATE TO PRELIMINARY AND PREOPERATIVE EXPENDITURE WRITTEN OFF. THE INITIAL CLAIM WAS FOR RS. 1,11,62,284/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK CLUE FROM APPEAL ORDERS AND REVISIONS FOR RE - COMPUTING THE S AME TO BE OF RS. 14,00,936/ - AFTER ALLOWING EXPENSE OF RS. 97,61, 348/ - . WE HOLD IN THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS RAISED THE IMPUGNED CLAIM IN TUNE WITH THAT MADE I N THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AN ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SECOND GROUND ALSO FAILS. 9 . THIS LEAVES US WITH REVENUE S THIRD AND LAST SUBSTANTIVE GR OUND PERTAINING TO PENALTY QUA EXCESS REMUNERATION PAID TO I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 8 ASSESSEE S MANAGING D IRECTOR AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,06,940/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TOTAL REMUNERATION OF RS. 68,23,940/ - PENDING APPROVAL FROM THE GOVT. OF INDIA. THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS PERTAI NING TO THE RELEVANT POST FACTO APPROVAL ASPECT ALREADY FORMS THE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 130. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATES IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT THAT THIS APPROVAL ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 FOR RS. 53,17,000/ - RESULTING IN TR EATMENT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,06,940/ - WHICH WAS RECOVERED AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO REBUT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. WE CONCLUDE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED PA ST PRACTICE BY CLAIMING ITS MD S REMUNERATION SUBJECT TO GOVT S APPROVAL WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AN ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS THIRD GROUND IS REJECTED . ITA 2668/AHD/2011 IS DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR. 10. WE COME TO LATTER THREE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 TO 2001 - 02 INVOLVING REVENUE S OTHER THREE APPEALS ITA 2669 - 2671/AHD/2011. BOTH PARTIES HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN AS SUMMARIZED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS ARE COVERED BY OUR FINDINGS ON THE VERY ISSUES DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 HEREINABOVE . WE APPRECIATE THIS FAIR STAND AND D I RECT THAT OUR DISCUSSION IN ABOVE DECIDED ASSESSMENT YEAR SHALL COVER ALL SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHEREVER NECESSARY. ITAS 2669 TO 2671/AHD/2011 ARE ALSO REJECTED ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A NO S . 2668 TO 2671 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD 9 11. THESE FOUR REVENUE S APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 18 - 02 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 18 /02 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,