The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Surat V. M/s. Sarika Jewellers, SILVASSA

ITA 271/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67957 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.271/AHD/2010 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE ASST.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 SURAT / VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS SHOP NO.4, MAHAVIR COMPLEX OPP.BUS STAND, SILVASSA ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAWFS 5210 N ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.DR ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28/10/2013 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/11/2013 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 13/11/2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36,13,415/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUN TARY DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 27.11.2006, WHICH WAS NOT RETRACTED TILL THE TIME O F FILING OF RETURN ON 31.03.2008, WAY BEYOND THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RE TURN. ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME COMES TO RS.6,86,585/- ONLY, AS PER THE SEIZED PAPERS, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF ENTRIES OF RS. 28,00,000/- ON PAGES 57,58 & 59 OF ANNEXURE-6, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION EITHER IN ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS EXCEPT STATING THAT THESE ARE DAILY/MONTHLY TRANSACTION OF SARIKA JEWEL LERS IN FOLLOWING WORDS- 'PAGE NO.22 TO 59-DAILY/MONTHLY TRANSACTION OF SARI KA JEWELLERS' IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN PARA 4(I) OF HIS LETTER DATED 24.11.2008 IN FOLLOWING WORDS-'WITH RE SPECT TO THE ANNEURE-6 PAGE NOS 57,58 & 59 WHICH CONTAIN SOME ACCOUNTS WRI TTEN BY SHRI SAJA RAJ POKHRAJ SHAH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR TH E SAID DETAILS IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, HE HAD DISC LOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,00,000/- AS ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME DURING THE F.Y.2006-07. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF DISCREPANCY OF RS.15,00,000/- REFLECTED IN ANNEXURES A-L, A-2 8S A-3 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION, WHATSOEVER, IN ITS LETTER DATED 15 .12.2008 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DESPI TE A SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4(II) TO (IV) OF H IS LETTER DATED 24.11.2008 IN RESPECT OF THESE ANNEXURES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T ACCOUNTED FOR THE DETAILS IN THESE ANNEXURES IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATION THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF (1) THIRU JOHN V. RETURNING OFFICER, A 1977 SC 1724 AND (2) P ULLAGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO.LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973) 91 ITR W HEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT AN ADMISSION, IF CLEARLY AND UN EQUIVOCALLY MADE, IS THE BEST EVIDENCE AND THOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE, SHIFTS THE ONUS TO THE MAKER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS BY NOT PR ODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER AT ANY STAGE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GRANTE D. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA AND CO. V/S. CIT(1987) RE PORTED IN 168 ITGR 375, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS MADE A STATEMENT OF FACTS, HE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE IF THE TAXING AUTHO RITY TAXES HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT STATEMENT. ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 7. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF V.KUNHAMBU 85 SONS (1996) 219 ITR 235, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT MADE BY A PARTNER OF A FIRM, THOUGH MADE U/S. 132(4) WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT MAKE USE OF IT, IF IT IS NOT OBT AINED BY COERCION OR INTIMIDATION. 8. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SURVEY ACTION U/ S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT )ON 27/12/2006. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,32,979/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED, THEREB Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITION OF RS.36,13,415/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND CASH FOUND. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS.36,13,415/- WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BY RAI SING THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.36 ,13,415/-. 3. THE SR.DR SHRI J.P.JHANGID HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF H AD DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.43 LACS BEING UNACCO UNTED INCOME OF STOCK AS WELL AS CASH FOUND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION. ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT MERELY MAKING A STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR TAXATION. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE PHYSICAL STOCK COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UP-T O-DATE AND NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGISTER UP-TO-DATE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE POSITION OF PURCHASE, SALE, STOCK AND PROFIT, DISCR EPANCY OF ONLY RS.6,86,585/- WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS D ULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER THE SURVEY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BE NCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMT.SARASWATI M.KATARIA IN ITA NO. 914/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, DATED 24/08/12. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTION, A STATEMENT MADE U/S.133A OF THE ACT WAS NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REVENUE COUL D NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME BY PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE LD.CI T(A) IS RIGHTLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE I N PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, STOCK TAKING WAS MADE. AT THAT TIME THE BOOKS WERE NOT WRITTEN FULLY HENCE STOCK FOUND COUL D NOT BE ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - COMPARED WITH THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT AHS GIVEN THE STOCK POSIT ION AS PER BOOKS AND RECONCILE WITH THE STOCK FOUND AND NO DIS CREPANCY WAS THERE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE RECONCILIATION OF THE APPELLANT. THE CASH DISCREPANCY OF RS.1,93, 660/-D HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SEIZED PAPER ANNEXURE 6 PAGE NO.57, 58 & 59 WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF SALES, TOTALS ONLY TO RS.6,49,400/- WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLA NT WHILE CALCULATING THE INCOME. THE ESTIMATION OF RS.28,00 ,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT (WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AT TH E TIME OF SURVEY), IS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, THE ANNEXURE A /1 TO ANNEXURE A/3 WAS ALSO ACCOUNTED FOR AN ESTIMATION OF RS.15,0 0,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT SAME WAS DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE APPELLANT HAS CALCULATED THE INCOME CO NSIDERING THE UNACCOUNTED SALES APPEARING ON THESE PAPERS AND ALR EADY OFFERED INCOME OF RS.4,92,925/- IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND RS.1,93,660/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 GIVING TOTAL DISCLOS URE OF RS.6,86,585/-. B) AS PER DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS & SONS V. CIT (262 ITR 101 (KER)] AND HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KHANDER KHA N SON [300 ITR 157 (MAD)], HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WHEN NO DISCREPANCY IS FOUND IN THE STOCK OR IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY OTHER DISCREPANCY FOUND. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SPECIALLY THE FACT THAT THE STOCK HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND NO DISCREPANCY REMAI NS, AND IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.36,13,415/- IS D ELETED. 4.1. THE AO IN PARAGRAPH NO.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS RECO RDED A FINDING THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE I.T.ACT ISSUED, SHRI CP JARIA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE, ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS CA LLED FOR. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.6 , THE AO HAS ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL STO CK REGISTER AS CALLED FOR, FOR VERIFICATION. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY STOCK TAKING WAS MADE. AT T HAT TIME THE BOOKS WERE NOT WRITTEN FULLY, HENCE STOCK FOUND COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS. HOWEVER, IN THE STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT AHS GIVEN THE STOCK POSITION AS PER BOOKS AND RECONCILE WITH THE STOCK FOUND AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS THERE. THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED T HE RECONCILIATION OF THE APPELLANT. THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE AO. THE AO IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.5 OF HIS ORDER HA S OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE HIS LETTERS DATED 01/12/2008 & 15/12/2008, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE STA TEMENT OF SHRI SAJJANRAJ PUKHRAJ SHAH RECORDED U/S.133A WAS BASED ON ESTIMATE. FURTHER, CONSIDERING THE SEIZED MATERIAL THE DISCLO SURE OF RS.43 LACS DOES NOT RESULT AND WHATEVER DISCREPANCY WAS DISCLOSED I N THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER SURVEY. IT IS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN BOOKS AND PHYSICAL STOCK, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IS REQU IRED. IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.6, THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPLANA TION GIVEN BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS STOCK REGISTER AS CALLED FOR, FOR VERIFICATION. ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - (II) WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXURE-6 PAGE NOS.57, 58 & 59 , IN WHICH A DISCLOSURE OF RS.28,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A SSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THESE ARE DAILY/MON THLY TRANSACTION OF SARIKA JEWELLERS, NO OTHER CLARIFICATION/EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE. (III) WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXURE-A/1 TO ANNEXURE-A/3, I N WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.15, 00,000/-, NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY IT. 4.2 HOWEVER, IN PAPER-BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, WHEREIN STOCK REGISTER IS ALSO GIVEN. THE ASSESSE E HAS GIVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO IS NOT CORRECT. AFTER C ONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY, IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE FOOLPROOF FOR MAKING THE DECISION . IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AND EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY AS NOTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE CALLED FO R. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH (ITA T BENCH D AHMEDABAD) IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. 914/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, DATED 24/08/2012 (SUPRA). IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RE IS A CONTRADICTORY FINDING BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A). ON ONE HAND, THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE STOCK REGISTER AND THE OTHER HAND HE HAS RECORD ED A FINDING THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/SD.143(2) AND 142( 1) THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED T HE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AO HAS N OT REJECTED THE RECONCILIATION OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS ANY RECONCILIATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) AND RESTORE THIS ITA NO.271/AHD/ 2010 THE ACIT VS. M/S.SARIKA JEWELLERS ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - APPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DECISION AFRESH. THE L D.CIT(A) WOULD DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER GETTING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES T O BOTH THE PARTIES. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/ 11 /2013 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD