M/s. M.M. Builders, Surat V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1, Surat

ITA 2921/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80522 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: S B VAIDYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , A.M.) I. T. A. NO. 2921 / AHD/ 20 1 0 (A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08) M/S. M.M. BUILDERS PACHI A PARTMENT, CITYLIGHT ROAD, ATHWAL INES, SURAT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAIFM3360R APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.B. VAIDYA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROOP CHAND, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 11 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 11 - 2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II, SURAT DATED 13.09.2010 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 . 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATE D TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION . ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 08 ON 25.03.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 47,04,49 0/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 1 3.09.2010 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ITA NO 2921/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2007 - 08 2 A FORESAID ORDER OF C IT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AD DITION OF RS. 1,90,323/ - BY TREATING ALLEGED CREDITORS AS UNVERIFIABLE CREDITORS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING A DDITION OF RS. 45,14,167/ - BY TREATING ALLEGED CREDITORS AS CEASED TO EXIST U/S 41(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. BO TH THE GROUNDS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THEREFORE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT A.O HAS NOTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESS EE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD UNDER THE HEADS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/ OTHER LIABILITIES/CONTRIBUTION SHOWN AGGREGATE LIABILITIES OF RS. 55,16,499/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDE CO NFIRMA TIONS FOR RS. 6,25,975/ - AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 48,90,524/ - HAS REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE , NOTICES U/S 133(6)/SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED FOR VERIFICATION. A.O NOTED THAT FOR TH E AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,90,323/ - (NAME OF THE PARTIES LISTED AT SR. NO. 1 TO 5 OF PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER), ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE CONFIRMATIONS AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTY OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY EXISTS. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,90,323/ - AS UNVERIFI ABLE AND HAS CEASED TO EXIST AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION . WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNT PAYABLE TO BHIKUBHAI BHANJIBHAI PATEL (RS. 32,55,000/ - ) , A.O NOTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT , BHIKUBHAI PATEL SUBMITTED THAT NO TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE S IN FINANCIAL YEAR 06 - 07, 07 - 08 & 09 - 10. A.O THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TOWARDS BHIKUBHAI BHANJIBH AI PATEL AND THEREFORE THE LIA BILITY WAS NON EXISTING AND THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 32,55,000/ - . W ITH RESPECT TO THE LIABILITIES SHOWN AGAINST KRISHNADEVI BATRA ITA NO 2921/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2007 - 08 3 (RS. 5 LACS), ASHOK VEDPRAKASH GOYAL (RS. 1,59,000/ - ) & J.A. ZANUDDIN RS. 3,75,000/ - ) AGG REGATING TO RS. 10,34,166/ - . A.O NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE CONFIRMATIONS, ADDRESSES OF THE PARTY OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE LIABILITY T O PAY EXISTS AND FURTHER IN ITS ABSENCE, THE A.O COULD NOT CARRY OUT VERIFICATION. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF RS. 10,34,166/ - TO BE NON EXISTING AS IT HAD REMAINED UNVERIFIED AND CONSIDERED IT TO HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10,34,166/ - . WITH RESPECT TO THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF CONS TRUCTION CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE TO INDUMATI KANTILAL (RS. 2,25,000/ - ). A.O NOTED THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THE CREDITOR HAD REMAINED UN REPLIED AND FURTHER ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION . HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSE SSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY PAYABLE TO SMT. INDUMATI KANTILAL AND THEREFORE C ONSIDERED IT TO BE NON EXISTING AND HAD CEASED TO EXIST AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,25,000/ - A.O THUS MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 47,04,490/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 5.1 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS AFTER PROVIDING FULL AND COMPLETE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT VIDE SHOW CAUSE DATED 21.12. 2009. THE SAID SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED ALL INQUIRY BY ISSUE OF LETTERS UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, AND WHEREVER REPLIES WERE RECEIVED, THE SAME WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY HIM. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ABOVE NOTICES TO THE CREDITORS WERE ISSUED AND SENT ON THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE DATED 21.12.2009 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT, THE BURDEN WAS ON THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH AND ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS, AND, AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH OR ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF OUTSTANDING CREDITS OR THE CREDITOR S WHEREVER THEY REMAINED UNVERIFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TREATED THE SAME AS UNVERIFIED OR CEASED UNDER SECTION 41 (1) (A) OF THE ACT. 1, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION AFTER FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.47,04,490/ - IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS, HOWEVER, NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. UPON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE IN THE ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS AGREED TO THE ABOVE ADDITION ON THE CONTRARY, IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER, HE HAS GIVEN HIS CONCLU SIONS DRAWN AFTER MAKING ALL THE INQUIRIES THAT HE COULD DO, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, AND, THEREAFTER MADE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT, HENCE DISMISSED. 5.2 THE FIRS T GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE VARIOUS SUBMISSION WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 47,04.490/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS, HOWEVER, NOT SUBMITTED OR FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW AS TO WHICH SUBMISSION HAS NOT B EEN APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 13.09.2009 REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF IS ADMITTING THAT SOME CREDITORS WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON THEIR ADDRESSES AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NO T IN A POSITION TO GIVE THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASON GIVEN FOR THEIR NON AVAILABILITY IS THAT SUFFICIENT TIME HAS PASSED. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS FACILE, AS THE ITA NO 2921/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2007 - 08 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR RELATES TO A.Y. 2007 - 08, THAT IS RELEVANT TO F.Y. 2006 - 07 AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 30.12.2009. IF THIS IS ACCEPTED, IT MEANS THE APPELLANT IS NOT AWARE OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF ITS CREDITORS TO WHOM IT HAD TO MAKE PAYMENT DURING THE F.Y. 2006 - 07. THIS IN TURN ALSO MEANS THE ALLEGED CREDITORS ARE ALSO NOT INTERESTED IN THE RECOVERY OF THEIR DUES FROM THE APPELLANT, AS THEY ARE NOT PURSUING THE SAME, WHICH FACTS ARE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE LIABILITIES TO THE ABOVE EXTENT ARE NO LONGER EXISTING .THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY ONE THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM IS ALSO OF NO VALUE VIS - A - VIS CATEGORICAL DENIAL MADE BY SH. BHIKUBHAI BHANJIBHAI PATEL THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND HE HAS NO OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2007 WITH THE APPELLANT. IN FACT, IT IS A SELF HAVING AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM THAT IT HAS T O MAKE PAYMENT OF RS. 32,55,000/ - TO SH. BHIKUBHAI BHANJIBHAI PATEL, WHEN SH. PATEL HIMSELF IS DENYING THE SAME, WHICH FACT THE APPELLANT IS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF . I, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE A FFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OR TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE SAME, WHICH IS BASED ON PROPER INQUIRY, COL LECTION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 1, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS POINT, AND DISMISS THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE A ND THEREFORE NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN PAYABLE TO BHIKUBHAI PATEL, INDUMATI KANTILAL, KRISHNADEVI BATRA, ASHOK GOYAL AND J.A. . ZANUDDIN PERTAINS TO THE ADVANCE CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTI ON FROM THE CUSTOMERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO BENEFIT WITH RESPECT TO LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 41(1) . WITH RESPECT TO THE BHIKUBHAI PATEL, THE LD . A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131, BHIKUBHAI PATEL HAD ONLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO TRANSACTION BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR F.Y. 06 - 07, 07 - 08 & 09 - 10 BUT NOWHERE HE HAD STATED THAT NO BALANCE WAS OUTSTANDING IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAD NOT ASKED BHIKUBHAI AS TO WHETHER ANY AMOUNT AT ALL WAS RECEIVABLE FROM ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE PAYABLE TO BHIKUBHAI PATEL WAS BROUG H T FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS AND FOR WHICH HE POINTED TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2004 WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO BHIKUBHAI PATEL WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HE THEREFORE SUBMI TTED THAT NO ITA NO 2921/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2007 - 08 5 ADDITION U/S 41(1) COULD BE MADE IN ANY OF THE CASE. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NITIN GARG (2012) 22 TAXMAN.COM 59 (GUJ), CIT VS. BHOGILAL ATARA (ITA NO. 588 OF 2013) (SUPRA). LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED TO THE FINDINGS OF A.O WHEREIN THE A.O HAS NOTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS NOR HAD SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITORS WHICH PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CREDITORS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EVEN IN EARLIER YEARS AND HE POINTED TO T HE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 04 - 05,05 - 06, 06 - 07 & 07 - 08 WHICH WAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . WE FIND THAT O UT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE U/S 41(1), THE MAJOR ADDITION IS WITH RESPECT TO BHIKUBHAI PATEL. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TRANSLATED COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY BHIKUBHAI PATEL TO THE A.O IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBMISSIONS ISSUED TO HIM U/S. 13 1 . FROM THE REPLY, IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE S FIRM IN F.Y. 06 - 07, - 0 7 - 08 & 09 - 10. ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 20 04. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING EITHER BY CIT(A) OR BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION WITH BHIKUBHAI PATEL IN YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2004 AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION . WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT THIS FACTUAL ASPECT NEEDS FRESH VE RIFICATION AND FOR WHICH WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O SO THAT HE CAN EXAMINE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE SINCE YEAR ENDING 2004. THE A.O SHALL ALSO MAKE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES BY SUMMONING SHRI BHIKUBHAI PATE L AND ALSO AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EX AMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE . THE A.O SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT A.O SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH RESPECT TO ITA NO 2921/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2007 - 08 6 THE OTHER PARTIES, WE FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE EITHER IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION LETTER PAN NUMBER, ADDRESSES OR ANY OTHER FORM WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE LIABILITY EXISTS. BEFORE US NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAS PAID THE C REDITORS THE AMOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS NOR THERE IS ANY FINDING ON THE SAME OF A.O OR CIT(A). BEFORE US LD. A.R. HAD ALSO RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT BUT WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FIND OF EITHER A.O OR CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DECISIONS. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AND ALSO TO DEMONSTRATE THE SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS. WE THEREFORE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O TO GIVE A FACTUAL FINDING AND TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT A.O SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 - 11 - 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD