Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2866/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0750 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 14, ATUL PARK SOCIETY, KARELIBAUG, BARODA - 390018 PAN: AACCA3235E (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI M.K. PATEL , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 08 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 - 08 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUD ICIAL MEMBER : - 1. THIS IS AN APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS. 33,72,737/ - HAD ACCRUED TO THE AP PELLANT COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. I T A NO . 2866 / A HD/20 13 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,72,737/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR DEDUCTION OF RET ENTION MONEY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,01,593/ - U/S 40A(2)(B)OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING A DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 2,33,648/ - U/S. 36(I)(III) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, DAM CANAL ETC. MANUFACTURING & SELLING OF KAPCHI, GRIT, METAL ETC. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.3,99,56,547/ - ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.23,73,23,436/ - WHICH WORKS OUT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 16.84% AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF RS.2,91,84,902 ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 20,20,42,851/ - WHICH WORKS OUT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 14.44% SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. AFTER PERUSING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISCUSSION WITH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSMENT IS FINALIZED. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHILE COMPUTING ITS I NCOME FROM BUSINESS DEDUCTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,72,737/ - FROM THE NET PROFIT ARRIVED AT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS RETENTION MONEY / SECURITY DEPOSITS RETAINED BY THE PERSONS FOR WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN CONTRACT WORK DURING THE YEA R. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.11.201 2, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 3 DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.33,72,737/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 'DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, YOUR HONOUR HAD ASKED US TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO W HY - ,, AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,72,737/ - BEING DEDUCTION OR SECURITY DEPOSIT CLAIMED BY THE'' COMPANY BE NOT ADDED AS INCOME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF CIVIL WORKS, DAMS, ROADS, ETC, THE COMPANY HAD UNDERTAKEN WORK FOR VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WHO HAD RETAINED SECURITY DEPOSITS WITH THEM. THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.33,72,737/ - WAS WIT HHELD BY THE CONCURRENT AGENCIES DEPENDING VERIFICATION OF SATISFACTORY COMPLETION WORK. THE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THESE AMOUNTS SINCE ACCORDING TO IT THE SAID MONEY DOES NOT ARISE TO THE COMPANY OR THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY AM OUNT OF THE RETENTION MONEY TILL SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK AND REMOVAL OF DEFECTS. THE COMPANY HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA PVT. LTD., AND ALSO VARIOUS OTHER DEC ISIONS STATED M THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR AS WEL L AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED HERE THAT THE COMPANY HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HAVE TO REQUEST YOUR HONOUR NOT TO ADD THE SAID AMOUNT IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. ' I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4 4.1 THE SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, PRIMA FACIE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A R ECURRING ISSUE AND FOR THE A.Y. 1 992 - 93 AND 1993 - 94, THE HON. ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE'S A PPEAL BEFORE THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS AT PRESENT BEING SUB - JUDICE AND FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY MY PREDECESSOR IN EARLIER YEARS, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS. 33,72,737/ - IS REJECTED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING O F EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE L.T. ACT. THEREF ORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1 )(C) ARE ALSO INITIATED ON THIS ISSU E. 5. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE ORDE R SHEET ENTRY DATED 19. 1 1. 2012 IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS TO WHY THE COMMISSION PAID TO SAMRAT TRADING CORPORATION, PROP. ASHOK M. PATEL (HUF) OF RS.3,01,593/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, AS THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2009 - 10 WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS). ON PERUSAL OF ANNEXURE - C FILED ALONA WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS.3,01 ,593/ - TO M /S. SAMRAT TRADING CORPORATION, PROP. SHRI ASHOK M. PATEL (HUF). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES PRO VIDED BY SHRI ASHOK M. PATEL, (HUF) , FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 5 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING YOUR HONOUR HAD ASKED US TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,01,593/ - BEING COMMISSION TO SAMRAT TRADING CORPORATION BE NOT DISALLOWED AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THIS R EGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TO SAMRAT TRADING CORPORATION FOR SALES EFFECTED THROUGH THE SAME. THE SAID CONCERN IS PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF ASHOK M PATEL (HUJ. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS ASSESSED TO TAX VIDE PAN NO. A ACHS 8682J. THE COMMISSION PAYMENT HAD FOR MATERIAL SOLD THROUGH THEM BEING CRUSHED STONE AGGREGATES AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATES. THE SAID CONCERN HAD EMPLOYED STAFF AND HAD INCURRED OTHER EXPENSES FOR EFFECTING SUCH SALES AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORK OF THE COMPANY, HENCE IT IS REITERATED THAT THE SAME BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BUT IN CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ITS GENUINENESS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WHERE THE KARTA OF HUF HAS ALREADY DIE D IN MARCH 2000. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 AND OTH ER YEARS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - I , BARODA, HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE APPELLATE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.CAB - I/185/08 - 09 DATED 17.3.2010, AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C1T(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 'I HAVE CONS IDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. A. R. AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE KARTA OF THE HUF (COMMISSION AGENT) WAS SHRI ASHOK M. PATEL, WHO IN THE PAST INDIVIDUALLY TOOK EFFORTS TO PROCURE BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SHRI PATEL DIED IN MARCH, 2000. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION HAVE CONTINUED TO BE MADE TO THE HUF, ALTHOUGH T HE KEY PERSON NO LONG ER EXISTED. FOR EARNING COMMISSION CERTAIN SERVICES MUST BE PROVIDED WHICH SHOULD HAVE SOME COM MERCIAL VALUE FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED WHEN THE AGENT HIMSELF WAS DECEASED. NO LIGHT HAS BEEN SHED ON THIS ASPECT BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 1,96,629/ - , WHICH IS UPHELD. ' I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 6 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO TAKI NG INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE COMMISSION PAID TO SAMRAT TRADING CORPOR ATION, PROP. ASHOK M. PATEL (HUF ) OF RS.3,01,593/ - IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . PENALTY PROCE EDINGS U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS ALSO BEEN I NITIATED SEPARATELY ON THIS POINT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS INCOME WITH IN MEANING OF EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 27I(1 )(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. 7. FROM THE ANNEXURE TO BALANCE SHEET AND - THE DE TAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THE FUND TO VARIOUS PARTIES OUT OF THESE ADVANCE WERE MADE TO M/S. AMARSHIV ENGINEERING CO BUT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED UPON ADVANCES. FROM THE LEDGER IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ADVA NCES WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND DURING THE YEAR THERE IS NO TRANSACTION WITH THESE COMPANIES. THE CONCERN IS OWNED BY THE RELATED PERSONS TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INCURRING EXPENSES ON INTEREST PAYMENT ON LOAN FUNDS. DURING THE YEAR THE LOAN FUNDS H AVE BEEN INCREASED TO RS.5,01 ,00,659/ - FROM THE EARLIER YEAR AT RS.3,97,88,062/ - .. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES AT RS.6,00,855/ - . THE ADVANCES OF RS.1 9,47,070/ - ON M/S. AMARSHIV ENGINEERING CO. REMAINED THROUGH OUT THE YEAR. SINCE, THERE WERE NO TRANSACTION THROUGH OUT THE YEAR THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADVANCES ARE NOTHING BUT LOAN ADVANCES. I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 7 THE AR EXP LAINED THAT ADVANCES REGARDING TO AMARSHIV ENGINEERING CO, THE ADVANCE WAS FOR BUSINESS; HOWEVER INTEREST WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AGREED ON THE CORRESPONDING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV E THAT THE ADVANCE WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE BY ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND AGREED THAT INTEREST WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THIS ADVANCE. THE PREVAILING BANK INTEREST RATE DURING THE YEAR WAS @I2%. BANKS AND THE INTEREST FOR THE YEAR ON ADVANCES WORKED OUT AT RS.2,33,648/ - . THEREFORE/OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENTS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,33,648/ - IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED WHETHER THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.3,33,363/ - INTO PROFIT AND LOSS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF PERQUISITE IN HAND OF DIRECTORS/EMPLOYEES. THE REPRESENTATIVE REPLIED THAT THIS EXPENSE WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE VALUATION OF PERQUISITE IN HAND OF DIRECTORS/EMPLOYEE'S AND WILLING TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME EXPENDITURE @20%. ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNT OF RS.66,673/ - IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 8 9. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS AND AFTER DISCUSSION AND ALSO FROM THE DATA MADE AVAILABLE, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS COMPUTED AS UNDER: - (A) INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RETURN OF INCOME RS.2,35,43,040/ - ADD : FURTHER ADDITIONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER A ) ON ACCOU NT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT/ RETENTION MONEY (PARA 4.0) RS.33,72,737/ - B) ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION (PARA 5.0) RS, 3,01, 593/ - C) INTEREST DISALLOWANCE (PARA 6.0) RS. 2,33,648/ - D) TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS.66,673/ - RS.39.74,65I/ - BUSINESS INCOME RS. 2,75,17,691 / - ASSESSED INCOME (ROUNDED OFF...) RS.2,75,17,691 / - I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 9 THE INCOME ASSESSED AS PER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IS HIGHER THAN THE BOOK PR OFIT CALCULATED UNDER SECTION 11 5JB OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE TAX IS CALCULATED AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ASSESSED U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. CALCULATED TAX AND CHARGED INTERESTS U/S.234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D AS APPLICABLE. GIVEN CREDIT OF THE PRE - PAID TAXES, AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE & CHALLAN ACCORDI NGLY. ISSUED NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S. 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF ORDER ABOVE. 10 . T HEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. THE REASON S FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,37,237/ - AS WELL AS ENTIRE ABOVE SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THIS REGAR D, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH A IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ITSELF VIDE ITS APPEAL ORDER ITA NO. 394 1 /AHD/1995 AND 4367/AHD/1996 DATED 22/08/2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 9 4 IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AGAINST THE APPELLANT. BUT THEREAFTER , THIS MATTER WENT TO HIGH COURT AND H ON BLE HIGH COURT GAVE THE DECISION IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE/APPELLANT IN HIS OWN CASE AND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WAS RE VERSED . SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 3 IS CONCERNED , LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT IN HIS FAVOUR HENCE GROUND NO. I.T.A NO. 2866 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 10 2 GOES AGAINST THE APPELLANT. SO FAR GROUND NO. 4 IS CONCERNED , SINCE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SRIDEVI ENTERPRISES AND HAS HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT ANY PART MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE IN A YEAR TO WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID HAD BEEN DIVER T ED FOR NO N - BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 11 . IN THE RESU LT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 26 - 08 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 26 /08 /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/ , / ,