The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. Powersoft Consulting Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 270/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9094 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P M SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 92E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.270/AHD/2006 & ITA NO.287/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 & 2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:18.8.09 DRAFTED:9.9.09 ACIT CIRCLE-5, 2 ND FLOOR, C.U. SHAH COLLEGE BUILDINGS, AHMEDABAD ACIT CIRCLE-5, C.U. SHAH COLLEGE BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, AHMEDABAD V/S . V/S . POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD., 801, SATKRUT PARTH SARTHI AVENUE, NR. SHYAM, 132FT RING ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AABCP7988E POWERSOFT CONSULTING PVT. LTD. 801, SATKRUTI, PARTH SARTHI AVENUE, NR. SHYAMAL, 132 FT RING ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M.G. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI P.M.SHUKLA, SR. DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT O F THE DIFFERENT ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- XI/141/2005-06, CIT(A)-XI/139-63/206-07 DATED 09-11 -2005 & 15-11-2006. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS DIFFERENT ORDER DATED 30-03-2005 AND 14-03-2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04. ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 2 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.10A OF THE ACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.87,66,084/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND RS.1, 23,202/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 3. AT THE OUTSET LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TA KEN US TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WHEREIN AFTER REPRODUCI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA-4 TO 4.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO CHANGE OF NAME, EARNING OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE S UBMISSIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. 4.1 IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY I S REGISTERED WITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA, (STPI) GANDHINAGAR, WHIC H IS STATUTORY BODY FORMED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IT IS FURTHER SEEN T HAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY STPI AND FOR WHICH THE STPI HAS GIVEN CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO WORK DONE BY THE A PPELLANT FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE RECEIVED BY THE APPEL LANT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE APP ELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT WORK WITH REGARD TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES IN RESPECT OF POWSERSOFT CONSULTING INCOME., USA AND AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL S RELATED SERVICES INCOME., USA AS PER MASTER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO B Y THE APPELLANT WITH THE ABOVE COMPANIES. 4.2 THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE ME BY THE A.R OF TH E APPELLANT ALSO REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CO NDITIONS LAYS DOWN AS PER THE PROVISIONS SECTION 10A OF THE I.T. ACT., 1961. IT I S TO BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOT ESTABLISHED THE FAC T THAT THE INCOME FROM SOME OTHER SOURCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO APPELLANTS HANDS TO MAKE CLAIM U/S.10A OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, I AM IN AGREEME NT WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 4.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION OF THE APPELLANTS CLAI M U/S.10A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTIO N U/S.10A OF THE I.T. ACT., 1961 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 3 4. THEREAFTER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE F URTHER TAKEN US TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT WAS FILED AND HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED ANY COPY OF TRIAL REPORT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT / MODIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. H E STATED THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DOCUMENT / PAPERS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXACT NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. EVEN THE DETAILS OF QUALIFICATION OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE WORKS WERE CALLED FOR BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAME AND IT WAS THE ALLEGATION OF THE R EVENUE THAT THE SO-CALLED EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL WORK HAVE NO TEC HNICAL SKILL IN THE COMPUTER FIELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S.10A OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) AND CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOTED IN ABOVE PARA-3 OF THIS ORDER. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF REPORT U/S.10 OF THE ACT, WHEREBY THE QUANTUM OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS M ENTIONED AND CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED INTO WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS , I.E., FORM NO.3CEB REPORT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT FURNISHED U/S. 92E RELATING TO INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ALSO REFERRED TO THE COPY OF MASTE R AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AND HE REFERRED TO PAGE-90 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE MENTIONED. IN VIEW OF THE SE, LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANK ING CHANNEL, I.E. THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND IN THIS RESPECT THE STPI CERTIFICATE H AS ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THESE, LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT CIT(A) HA S RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING THROUG H THE CASE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH A SOFTWARE TECH NOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA (STPI IN SHORT) GANDHINATAR, WHICH A STATUTORY BODY FORMED B Y GOVT. OF INDIA AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS S TIPULATED BY STPI AND IN THIS ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 4 RESPECT A CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO WORK DONE FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND RECEIPT ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL HAS BEEN P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT REBUTTED THE ALLEGATIONS O F THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEES WORK IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. AND IN THIS CASE NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES / DOCUMENTS / PAPERS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT T HE EXACT NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. EVEN NO DETAILS OF QUALIFICAT ION OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE WORK WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CARRIED OUT ANY EXERCISES TO EXTRACT THE EXACT NATURE OF SERVICES R ENDERED AND NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. WHAT TYPE OF CONSULTING S ERVICES AS PER THE MASTER AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO PROVE THAT THE POWERSOFT CONSULTING INCORPORATION (USA) AND AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVELS RELATED SERVICES INC. USA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DEFICIENCIES, WE FEEL TH AT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAIN HIS CASE AND A CCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THIS COMMON ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVE THE NATURE OF CONSULTING SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. NOW COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.287/AHD/2007. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN REDUCING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTING SALARY FROM RS.41,90,028/- TO RS.5 LAKHS. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.41,90,028/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTIN G SALARY WHEREAS IN EARLIER YEARS, THE CONSULTANTS SALARY WERE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,95,099/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAIL S AS SUCH NAMES, COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE CONSULTANTS, NATURE OF CONSULTANCY RENDERED BY THE CONSULTANT, THE BUSINESS NECESSITIES AND RESULTS ACHIEVED, WITH TH E SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, COPIES OF PROJECT REPORT, CONSULTANCY WORK UNDERTOOK BY THE C ONSULTANT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS AND THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSEE REPLIED IN GENERAL TERMS AND PARTICULARLY STATED THAT THE C ONSULTANTS ARE NOT TRACEABLE AND SALARY IS PAID AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THE AO CONSIDE RED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 5 ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE AO NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEES SOFTWARE EXPORT HAVE DECREASED FROM RS.2,56,98,408/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO RS.1,97,91,478/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, I.E. Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE CONSULTANTS SALARY HAVE INCREAS ED FROM RS.27,95,099/- IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR TO RS.41,90,028/-. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE INCREASE IN THE CONSULTANTS SALARY W ERE NOT JUSTIFIED COMPARED TO DECREASE IN SOFTWARE EXPORT SALES. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPY OF INVOICE RAISED BY THE CONSULTANT W ITH RESPECT OF NATURE OF WORK OR THE NATURE OF CONSULTANCY RENDERED BY THE CONSULTANTS A ND ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED THE CONSULTANTS SALARY IN ENTERITY AMOUN T TO RS.41,93,028/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CI T(A) RESTRICTED DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AT RS.5 LAKHS AND ALLOWED BALANCE SALARY OF RS.36,90,028/-, BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PARA-3.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- 3.1 HAVING VERIFIED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE CLAIM IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT DID DO EXPORTS, THOUGH REDUCED CONSIDERAB LY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPENSES RAISED CORRE SPONDINGLY IS NOT CONVINCING EVEN THOUGH THE EXPORTS HAVE NOT RAISED TO THAT EXTENT. THEREFORE, DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE CLAIM DOES NOT APPEARS TO ME JUSTIFIABLE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT A PORTION OF THE SAID CLAIM COULD BE DISALLOWED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD NOT JUSTIFIED THE HEAVY EXPENSES AGAI NST THE LOW TURNOVER. THEREFORE, THE A.O IS DIRECTED TO RETAIN AN ADDITIO N OF RS.5 LACS AND ALLOW RS.36,90,028/- TOWARDS SALARY EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MA DE BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO CONSULTANTS SALARY BY FILING THIRD PART Y EVIDENCES. EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE INVOICE RAISED BY THE CONSULTANTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EXPORT SALES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WAS ONLY AT RS.1,97,91,478/- AND NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO TO ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 6 PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.41,92,028/- W HICH WERE GENUINE. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT THAT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) THAT EXP ENSES RAISED CORRESPONDINGLY IS NOT CONVINCING, THOUGH THE EXPORTS TURNOVER HAVE DECREA SED. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE T HE ENTIRE CLAIM OF CONSULTANTS SALARY IS JUSTIFIABLE REASON, BEING IN THE EARLIER YEARS T HE AO HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,95,099/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE I S UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AND IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESS EES EXPORT SALES ARE AT RS.1,97,91,478/-. WE FEEL THAT THE REASONABLE ACCEP TANCE OF CONSULTANTS SALARY WILL BE AS OF LAST YEAR I.E. RS.27,95,099/- AND NOT MORE THAN THAT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CONSULTANTS SALARY AT RS.27,95,099/- AND BALANCE BE DISALLOWED. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,800/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON ADVANCES TO STAFF WRITTEN OFF. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ADVANCED AMOUNT TO EMPLOYEES WITH THE INTENTION TO RETAIN THEIR SERVI CES BUT SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE LEFT THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CLEARING THE DUES. A CCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.47,800/-. THE AO HAS NOT A LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA-8 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND ALSO AFTER PERUSING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE A.R I FIND THAT THIS LOSS HAS TO BE ALLOWED SINCE THE APPELLANT GAVE SOME ADVANCES TO E MPLOYEES WITH A VIEW TO CONSOLIDATE EMPLOYEES DEVOTION TOWARDS ITS BUSINESS . HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYEES HAVE ACTED CONTRAST TO THE FAITH POSED IN THEM AND DESERTED THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THIS AMOUNT TO ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE INTENTION TO RETAIN THEIR SERVICES BUT SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES LEFT ASSESSEE-COMPANY WITHOUT CLEARING THE SAID DUES. WE FEEL THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS ADVANCED TO THE ITA NO.270/AHD/06 & 287/AHD/07 A.YS. 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT CIR-5 ABD V. POWERSOFT CONSULTING LTD. PAGE 7 EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THIS IS A BUSINESS CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LOSS INCURRED WILL BE ALLOWED AS B USINESS LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS ISSUE O F THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11/09/2009 SD/- SD/- (P.K.BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 11/09/2009 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- XI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD