Kiri Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad

ITA 2736/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8038 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

, CKH CKHCKH CKH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2736/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD., PLOT NO.299/1/A, PHASE-II, VATVA, GIDC, AHMEDABAD. / VS. ADDL. CIT TDS RANGE, AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AHMKO 1019 E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 14/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 /06 /2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-8/259/14-15 DATED 21/07/2015 ARISING IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.272A(2)(K) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 23/07/2014 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.1,72,000/-U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN LEVYING PENA LTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED IN FILI NG TDS STATEMENT DUE TO ACUTE SHORTAGE OF FUNDS COUPLED WITH INADEQU ATE STAFF AND FACILITIES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE CASE OF APPELLANT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED C1T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE DEFAULT, IF ANY, COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS ONLY TECHNICAL AND/OR VENIAL CAUSING NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY COMPENSATED THE APPELLANT FOR SUCH DELAY BY DEPOSITING TDS ALONG WITH INTEREST FOR SUCH DELAYED PERIOD 6. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDER S WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION S UBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CH ALLENGED THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT FOR RS.1,72,000/- ONLY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH ITS TDS RETURN IN FORM NO. 24Q & 26Q FOR ALL THE QUARTERS O F THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - CONSIDERATION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED VIDE LETTER DATED 21-01-2014 FOR TH E IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURN OCCURRED DUE TO INADEQUATE STAFF AND FACILIT IES. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR RS. 100 FOR EACH DAY OF DELA Y AGGREGATING TO RS.1,72,000/- ONLY. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARN ED CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : THE AO AS PER HIS ORDER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY STATIN G THAT '...........AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B THERE IS NO SCOP E FOR CONSIDERING REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENTS IN TIME, SINCE SECTION 273B EXCLUDES THE PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(K). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PENALTY U/S. 272A (2)(K) IS CALCULATED AT RS. 1,72, 200/-' IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN SECTION 273B P ROPERLY. IT CLEARLY COVERS 272A(2) WHICH WILL INCLUDE (K) ALSO. HENCE, THE AO'S PLEA FOR IMPOSING PENALTY THAT APPELLANT'S CAS E IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PROVING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE F AILURE U/S.272A(2)(K) IS WRONG. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPEL LANT IS GIVEN FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE R EQUIRED STATEMENTS WERE NOT FILED IN TIME. I HAVE CONSIDERED AO'S ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE AR. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AR HAS GIVEN ONLY ONE DE FENCE BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE D ELAY IN FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS. THE ONLY DEFENCE IS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS FACING ACUTE SHORTAGE OF STAFF AND FACILITIES. DESP ITE FULL OPPORTUNITY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE ANY OTHER CA USE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE STATEMENTS. THE AR HAS EMPHASIZED ON THE POINT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DEDUCTED TDS BUT COULD NOT FILE STATEMENT ON TIME B ECAUSE THE ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - LOCATION OF THE FACTORY IS AWAY FROM AHMEDABAD CITY AND FACES SHORTAGE OF STAFF. IN HIS SUBMISSION HE HAS QUOTED FEW JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THOSE DEDUCTO RS/ASSESSEES WHO HAVE BONAFIDE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR LATE COMPLIA NCE OF THE LEGAL REASONABILITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AR HAS NO S UCH CIRCUMSTANCE OR REASONABLE CAUSE SO THAT THE ; PRONOUNCEMENT CAN BE APPLIED 'TO HIM. THE LOCATION OF THE FACTORY IS IN VATVA, WHICH IS V ERY CLOSE TO AHMEDABAD RATHER AN EXTENSION OF AHMEDABAD WHICH IS FULL OF INDUSTRIES AND WORKERS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS DO ING WELL WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE TDS DETAILS WHICH ARE DULY DEDUCTE D BY THE APPELLANT IN THE F.Y. 2011-12 (I.E. A.Y. 2012-13). THE STATEMENT IN FORM 24Q SHOWS THE DEDUCTION OF RS.71.69 LAKHS AND IN FORM 26Q IT- IS RS.1.55 CRORES. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS WELL AS SISTED BY THE LEGAL HELP. THE STATEMENTS ARE TO BE FILED BY THE 15 LH OF THE NEXT MONTH FROM THE END OF THE QUARTER AND ALONG WITH PROCESS OF DE DUCTION OF TAX. THE PROCESS OF FILING A STATEMENT IS A CONTINUOUS PROCE SS. EVEN CHANGE IN STAFF CANNOT CREATE A SITUATION TO C AUSE A DELAY IN COMPLIANCE BY MORE THAN 100 DAYS AND AS MUCH AS 354 DAYS AS IS THE CASE WITH THE APPELLANT. IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT SUBSTANTIVELY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS BY DEDUCTING TAX AND MAKING PAY MENT OF THE SAME WILL SIMPLY NULLIFY THE PROVISION RELATED TO NON-FI LING OF IDS STATEMENT. IT IS AGAIN NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SAY THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO ANYONE BY NOT FILING THE TDS STATEMENT ON TIME. THE LATE F ILLING OF TDS STATEMENT CAUSES GREAT HARDSHIP TO THE TAX PAYERS W HOSE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, AS 1 IT LEADS TO A NON-GRANT OF CREDIT TO THE DEDUCTEE, IT AFFECTS THE CREDIBILITY OF TAX ADMINISTRATOR AND PU TS FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT AS THE EXCHEQUER HAS TO PAY EXTRA INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A. LOOKING AT THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE REASONS QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE STATEMENTS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE NEITHER THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS MENTIONED ARE APPLIC ABLE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE NO REASON TO DELETE THE PENALTY FOR FILING THE VARIOUS TDS STATEMENTS LATE BY AS MU CH AS 354 DAYS AND 1722 DAYS IN TOTAL. HERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE TH AT THE CURRENT APPEAL IS ALSO FILED LATE BY 40 DAYS BLAME OF WHICH HAS BEEN PUT ON THE ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - ACCOUNTANT. THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT COMP ANY IS NOT CONSCIOUS OF FOLLOWING THE DEADLINES DECIDED BY THE LAW. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED UNNECESSARILY TO DEFEND HIS DEFAULT BY GI VING VERY FRIVOLOUS REASONS WHICH DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE U/S.273B. IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(K). I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,72,200/-. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDEN TICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN T HE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO D ELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FILING TDS OF THE R ETURN IN ITA NO.2733/AHD/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/01/2016. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA) WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS R EPRODUCED BELOW: 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE LD. AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SI MILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GTPL INFONET PVT LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.2582 & 2583/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE ON SIMILAR F ACTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - '7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F ULLY DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF TDS ALONG WITH INTEREST PRIOR TO THE ISSU ANCE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE REASON FOR LATE PAYMENT OF TAX ES WAS FINANCIAL CRUNCH IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN OUR VIEW CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR LATE FILING THE QUARTERLY STAT EMENTS IN FORM NOS.24Q & 26Q AS THIS STATEMENT CAN ONLY BE FILED A FTER THE PAYMENTS OF TAXES. SINCE, FULL AMOUNT OF TDS ALONG WITH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO LOSS IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE AND THE LATE FILING OF QUARTERLY STATEMENT IS TECHNICAL AND VENIAL BREACH OF PROVISION OF THE ACT. IN CASE OF T HE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UND ER: '5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) WA S JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. HE HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABO UT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED MOST OF AMOUNT OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. HOWEVER, WHERE T HERE IS DELAY IN SUCH DEPOSITS, SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WIT H INTEREST. FURTHER, THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE RELEVAN T PERIOD WAS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH CHARGEABLE IN TEREST BEFORE THE ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR THE PENAL TY UNDER REFERENCE. THE DEFAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN L EVIED BY THE AO RELATES TO LATE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO.24Q AND 26 Q OF THE IT RULES. THE ASSESSEE'S BELIEF CONSTITUTES A REASONAB LE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.273B OF THE ACT. SEC.273B OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THAT THE PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF A DEFAULT RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS MENTIONED THEREI N IF THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED CAN SHOW THAT THER E WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DEFAULT IN QUESTION. SECTION 2 72A(2)(K) FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC.273B OF THE ACT. IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY IN A ROUTINE MANNER W ITHOUT BRINGING THE FACTS ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED THE DEFAULT WITHOUT A REASONABLE CAUSE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARSIDDH ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. CIT WHICH ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE'S CASE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED.' IN CASE OF CIT(A) ELI LILLY AND CO. (INDIA) P. LTD. (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: S.273B PROVIDES THAT IN CASE REASONABLE CAUSE IS S HOWN, PENALTY U/S 272A(2) MUST NOT BE LEVIED. APPELLANT C OULDN'T FILE TDS RETURNS IN TIME SINCE TDS WAS DEPOSITED LATE ON ACCOUNT OF ACUTE SHORTAGE OF FUNDS. SINCE THE SAME IS A REASON ABLE CAUSE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED.' IN CASE OF CIT VS. HARSIDDH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD .(SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'FURTHER, APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED TDS ALONG WITH IN TEREST. THUS, IT HAS COMPENSATED GOVT. FOR LATE PAYMENT OF TDS ENSURING NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. IN CASE THERE IS N O LOSS TO THE REVENUE, THEN PENALTY U/S 272A(2) CANNOT BE LEVIED. ' IN CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISA (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'IN ANY CASE, LATE FILING OF TDS RETURNS IS MERELY A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH WHICH DOESN'T WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272A(K)'. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT IN TIM E WITHIN THE MEANING OF 273B OF THE ACT, WE, THEREFORE, DELETE T HE PENALTY BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE.' ITA NO.2736/AHD/2015 KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - 4. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING I AM NOT INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A); THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GTPL INFONET PVT LTD (SUPRA), I ALLOW THIS APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.54,200/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE REVERSE THE ORD ER AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/06/2018 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS [KK LNL; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/06/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD