Shri Kamlesh Natvarlal Parmar, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-13(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2696/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67727 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: PRITESH SHAH
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! ! ' #$ ' #$ ' #$ ' #$, , , , % % % % BEFORE S/SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-2010] KAMLESH NATVARLAL PARMAR C-22, RATANNAGAR SOCIETY NR.PARVATINAGAR SOCIETY THAKKAR BAPANAGAR BUS STOP AHMEDABAD 380 024. PAN : AJMPP 6994 R /VS. ITO, WARD-13(4) AHMEDABAD. ( (( ('( '( '( '( / APPELLANT) ( (( ()*'( )*'( )*'( )*'( / RESPONDENT) +,$ - . / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRITESH SHAH - . / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR.DR ' 0 - $1/ DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013 234 - $1/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2013 5 / O R D E R PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 1.11.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUN D IN THE APPEAL: ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -2- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,50,700/- CONSIDERI NG THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED TO BANK AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68, WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO ON VERIF ICATION OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CAS H DEPOSIT TOTALLING TO RS.20,50,700/- IN ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, AHM EDABAD DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDE R: DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) 26.04.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 49,000.00 13.05.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 49,500.00 23.05.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 48,000.00 29.05.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 30,000.00 06.06.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 9,000.00 17.06.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 10,000.00 23.06.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 7,000.00 25.06.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 6,000.00 04.07.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 20,000.00 22.07.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 17,500.00 08.08.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 10,000.00 26.11.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 48,700.00 29.11.2008 CASH DEPOSIT 7,50,000.00 06.01.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 2,50,000.00 12.01.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 45,000.00 15.01.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 20,000.00 23.01.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 1,00,000.00 06.02.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 1,00,000.00 21.02.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 3,00,000.00 22.02.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 1,000.00 05.03.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 30,000.00 25.03.2009 CASH DEPOSIT 1,50,000.00 TOTAL 20,50,700.00 ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -3- 4. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY DATED 4.11.2011 AN D OPERATIVE PART IN PARA 1.2 OF THE AOS ORDER IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SA KE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: A) ...... ASSESSEE IS DOING JOB SINCE 18 YEARS AT PRIVATE ORGANISATION AT DILIPKUMAR & BROTHERS. HIS SALARY FOR THE A.Y.2009-10 IS RS.78,000/-. HE HAS SAVED HIS PART OF SALARY AND SO, SINCE INCEPTION OF HEARING INCOME BEFORE 15 YEARS, HE HAS SAVED RS.4,02,741/-. WE HEREBY SUBMIT SALARY C ERTIFICATE FOR A.TY.2009-10 AND INCOME TAX RETURN ALONG WITH S TATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2009-10. B) MR.NATVARLAL MANGALDAS PARMAR, FATHER OF ASSESSE E WAS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. HE HAS WORKED WITH HEALTH AND MEDIAL SERVICES AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, CIVIL HOSPITAL FOR MANY YEARS. HE WAS RETIRED FROM THE SAID ORGANIZATION IN THE YE AR 1998. AFTER THAT HE WAS WORKING INDEPENDENTLY AND EARNING SOME INCOME. HE DIED ACCIDENTALLY IN THE YEAR 206. HE HAS NOT PREPARED ANY WILL OR ANY DOCUMENTS. SO, IN INHERIT ANCE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.6,00,000/- BY WAY OF CASH. WE HEREBY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS OF PENSION PAYMENT DECLARATION CER TIFICATE DEATH CERTIFICATE. C) MRS.PANIBEN NATVARLAL PARMAR, MOTHER OF ASSESSEE WAS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. SHE HAS WORKED WITH KAMDAR RA JYA VIMA YOJNA, ESIC DEPARTMENT FOR MANY YEARS. SHE WA S RETIRED FROM THE SAID ORGANISATION IN THE YEAR 2002. SHE H AS GIVEN BY WAY OF GIFT TO OUR ASSESSEE SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- IN AGGREGATE. WE HEREBY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS OF PENSION PAYMENT DECLA RATION CERTIFICATE, ELECTION CARD, FOR IDENTITY PROOF, PHO TOCOPY OF BANK PASSBOOK, IN THAT IT IS SHOWN THAT CHEQUES OF COMMU TED PENSION AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, AND SAME HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND PHOTOCOPY OF GIFT DEEDS. D) MR. GIRDHARBHAI MAGANBHAI LEUVA, FATHER-IN-LAW O F ASSESSEE IS FARMER. HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURE INCOM E. HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT ZULASAN, DIST. KADI. HE HAS GIVEN TO OUR ASSESSEE SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- IN A GGREGATE BY ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -4- WAY OF GIFT. WE HEREBY SUBMIT PHOTOCOPY OF ELECTIO N CAR, DETAILS OF LAND UNDER 7/12 DOCUMENT AND GIFT DEEDS. 5. THE DETAILS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO, AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.11.2011, WHICH WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 25.11.2011, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN PARA 1.8 AT PAGE NO.5 OF THE ORDER OF THE AO. AFTER E XAMINING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO VIDE PARA 1.9 TO 1.13 OBSERVED WITH REGARD TO SAVINGS BY THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF HIS SALAR Y WAS CLAIMED AT RS.4,02,741/- SAVED DURING THE 15 YEARS OF HIS SERV ICE. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE EMPLO YER OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT LO OKING TO THE QUALIFICATION AND MEAGER SALARY WITH REGARD TO THE SAID SAVING, AND DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ONLY IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE GENUINENESS OF THE S AVINGS WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE FROM THE FATHER, IT WAS ST ATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDR AWN CASH FROM THE FATHERS BANK ACCOUNTS AND INVESTED IN GOLD IN THE YEAR 2006, WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, AND CONVERTED IN TO CASH BY SELLING AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASI NG THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THIS REGARD, AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY BANK ACCOUNT OF FATHER FOR VERIFICATION, AND NO PROOF REGARDING THE PURCHASE O F GOLD IN THE YEAR 2006 WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS.4 LAKHS AND PURCHASED GOLD JEWELLERY OF 50 TOLAS BUT HAS NO PROOF TO SHOW WITHDRAWAL OF THE ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -5- AMOUNT NOR THE PURCHASE OF THE GOLD. ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE INVOICES AND WEIGHT BILLS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE MOTHER O F THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD APPROX. 20 GRAMS OF GOLD ON AL MOST EVERY DAY TOTALING 1085.84 GRAMS AMOUNTING TO RS.10,99,830/- IN CASH STARTING FROM 14.10.2008 TO 24.3.2009. THE INVOICES AND WEI GHT BILLS WERE ALSO SERIALLY NUMBERED WITHOUT ANY BREAK, AND IN NO BILLS, THE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS EXCEEDS RS.20,000/- AND ALL THE TRA NSACTIONS ARE MADE IN CASH I.E. SALE OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF JEWELLE RY OF GOLD HAD BEEN DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD IN CASH FOR AMOUNT NOT E XCEEDING RS.20,000/-. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, MOTHER OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THIS FACT THAT TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, GIFT HA S BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, TH E SOURCE OF RS.5,00,000/- AS A GIFT FROM MOTHER COULD NOT BE EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS SOURCE OF INCOME OF FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE OF SIX ITEMS WERE FILED. ON VERIFICATION OF GAM NAMUNO , IT WAS FOUND THAT ONLY, 8,800 SQ.METERS OF THE LAND WAS POSSESSED BY THE FA THER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THERE WAS NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES REFLECTED DURING THE YEAR 2006-2007 TO 2008-2009, AND THEREFORE, THE GIF T OF RS.5,00,000/- FROM THE FATHER-IN-LAW WAS NOT ACCEPTED. 8. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOURCE FROM THE ASSESSEES OWN SAVING, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM INHERITANCE, AS CLAIMED FROM T HE FATHER AND GIFT FROM THE MOTHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW, COULD NOT BE EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.20,50,700/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DIT. ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -6- 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF T HE AO. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OU TSET, ARGUED THAT SECTION 68 APPLIES ONLY WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE M AINTAINED AND NOT WHEN THE CREDIT IS FOUND IN THE PASS-BOOK. THE PAS S-BOOK IN WHICH CREDIT IS FOUND IS NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND THEREF ORE, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CA SE OF ITO VS. SHRI KAMAL KUMAR MISHRA, ITR NO.398/LKW/2012, IN WH ICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED ON VARIOUS DEPOSITS/CREDITS FOUND RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. HE ALSO RELIED UPON DECISI ONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REPEATED SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS, AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND PRAYED TO DELETE ADDITION CONFIR MED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 11. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS AMOUNT OF RS.4,02,740/-, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SAVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS SALARY INCOME WHICH WAS RS.78,000/- PER ANNUM DRAWN DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, FROM THE PRIV ATE ORGANIZATION, WHERE HE WAS WORKING FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS. FOR VERIFICATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE AC T WAS GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT REPLIED. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD, HOW AND WHERE THE SAVING IN THE L AST 18 YEARS WERE KEPT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SAVINGS FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -7- AMOUNTING TO RS.4,02,741/- WERE INVESTED SOMEWHERE. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT AN ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS HAS BEEN SAV INGS THE SALARY IN CASH AND KEEPING THE SAME WITH HIM IN THE SAME FORM AT ALL T IMES TO COME, AND SUDDENLY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS DEPOSITED DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HO USE. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE OR NO COGENT EXPLANATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT HAVING SAVED RS.4,02,740/- OUT OF HIS SALARY INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF SAVINGS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM THE SALARY INCOME. 13. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE FROM HIS FATHER, THE FATH ER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RETIRED ON SUPERANNUATION ON 31.7.1998 AND HIS PENS ION WAS FIXED AT RS.1,214/-. THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT I.E. GRATUITY O F RS.78,656/- AND COMMUTED VALUE OF PENSION WAS RS.98,343/- WERE RECE IVED ON 31.7.1998. NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY HIM T O SHOW CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE FATHER, AND NO SATISFACTORY EXPLA NATION WAS PROVIDED FOR THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF RS.6 LAKHS FROM HIS FATHER. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT A PERSON HAVING A PENSION OF RS.1,214/- AND HAVING SM ALL GRATUITY & COMMUTED VALUE OF PENSION, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, COUL D SAVE RS.6,00,000/-, FOR WHICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD BEFORE ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. THE EXP LANATION THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN 2006, OUT OF WITHDR AWAL FROM HIS FATHERS BANK ACCOUNTS, NO PURCHASE BILLS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WERE PRODUCED ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE SAVING OF RS.6,00,000/- BY THE F ATHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASS ESSEE HAD SAVED RS.6,00,000/- FOR GIVING GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE AND I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE, THE A O IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF GIFT FROM FATHER OF THE ASS ESSEE. ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -8- 14. SIMILARLY, THE PENSION CERTIFICATE OF MOTHER WA S BROUGHT ON RECORD, WHO RETIRED ON 31.3.2002 AND HER PENSION IS RS.1,30 5/-. SHE RECEIVED A RETIREMENT GRATUITY OF RS.1,04,074/- AND COMMUTED V ALUE OF PENSION OF RS.1,05,757 IN JUNE, 2002. NO OTHER DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS OF SOURC E OF RS.5,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN CASH TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS GIFT FROM THE MOTHER. 15. AS REGARDS GIFT FROM FATHER-IN-LAW, IT WAS FOUN D THAT THE FATHER-IN- LAW POSSESSED AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 8,800 SQ.METERS ON WHICH NO AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT DURING 2006-2007 TO 2008-2 009, AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE THAT THE FATHER-IN-LAW HAS GIVEN GIF T OF RS.5,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF TH E CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY COGENT EXPLANATION WITH REGAR D TO THE SOURCE OF RS.20,50,700/- DEPOSITED IN CASH DURING THE IMPUGNE D YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 17. AS REGARDS MENTIONING OF SECTION 68 IN PARA 1.1 3, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISI ON OF THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE ITAT AND DECISION OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW, WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE FACTS IN THE SAID CASES ARE DIFF ERENT TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH DEPOSITE D FROM TIME TO TIME, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND EVEN BEFORE US. WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. SHRI KAMAL KUMAR MISHRA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW IN T HE PRESENT CASE THAT MENTIONING OF WRONG SECTION BY THE AO IN PARA 1.13 DOES NOT CHANGE THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. ACCOR DING TO US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE OR PROVE THE SOUR CE AND GENUINENESS OF THE ITA NO.2696/AHD/2012 -9- CASH DEPOSITS MADE AT TWENTY-TWO OCCASIONS, AS MENT IONED HEREINABOVE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR HEREINBELOW SUPPORTS OUR VIEW: I) MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT, (DEL)(SB)(2008) 113 ITD 37 7; II) CIT VS. KS.DATTAREYA, (2012) 344 ITR 127 (KAR.) III) M.SUNDRAM VS. ACIT, (2006) 287 ITR 1245 (MAD) THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CA SE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, W HICH IS CONFIRMED, AND SOLE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.2696/AHD/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( ' #$ ' #$ ' #$ ' #$ /KUL BHARAT) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . / B.P.JAIN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD