The ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan V. M/s. Unjha Pharmacy, Unjha

ITA 2932/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1771 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: A C SHAH
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Commercial expediency; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 192; 64; 145; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AH MEDABAD BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA,JM AND SHRI A.N.PAHUJA,AM ITA NO. 29 32/AHD/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN. (N.G.) [PAN: AAAFU4052D] VS. M/S UNJHA PHARMACY, STATION ROAD, UNJHA DIST. MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. NEETA SHAH, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.C.SHAH, A.R. ( )/ ORDER A.N. PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 26.10.2006 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, RAISES TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.30,93,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE TH AT THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,49,390/-. FILED ON 28/11/2003 BY THE ASSESSEE ,MANUFACTURING AYURVEDIC MEDICINES,AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 10/03/2004 U/S 1 43(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 23/11/2004. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NO TICED THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS OF AYURVEDIC MEDICINES AND S ELLING THE SAME ALL OVER INDIA THROUGH THEIR SOLE DISTRIBUTORS FOR DIFFERENT STATE S. THE FIRM SELLS THE GOODS AT 60% DISCOUNT ON TRADE PRICE TO THEIR SOLE DISTRIBUTORS EXCEPT THOSE LOCATED IN CHHATISGARH AND MP WHO ARE GIVEN DISCOUNT @ 38%. IN ADDITION, I NCENTIVE ON BASIS OF TURNOVER IS GIVEN . WHILE EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IT WA S NOTICED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT DISCLOSED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WAS VERY LOW AS COMP ARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT GP IN THE YEAR CONSIDERATION DECLINED ITA NO. 2932/AHD/2006 2 TO 14.67% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.8.23 CRORE AS AGAIN ST GP OF 16.01% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ON TURNOVER OF RS.7.63 CRORES. THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT GP DECLINED SINCE COMMISSION @55-60% WAS PAID IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST COMMISSION OF 55% IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSME NT YEAR BESIDES PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.6,49,906/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AND INCREASE IN COST OF RAW MATERIALS AND PACKING MATERIALS. HOWEVER, THE A O REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE EMPLOY ED SISTER CONCERNS TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR PRODUCTS AND ALLOWED HUGE DISCOUNT S VARYING BETWEEN 38 TO 60% TO THEM BESIDES PAYMENT OF SALES INCENTIVES AND COMMIS SION..ACCORDINGLY, APPLYING THE AVERAGE GP RATE OF 18.43% FOR THE AYS 2001-02 T O 2003-04, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,93,520/-.. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR IN THE PURCHASES OR SA LES AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DETAILED INFORMATION AND CHARTS OF COMPARATIVE PRICES OF SOME OF THE RAW MATERIALS FOR TWO YEARS I.E. A.Y.2002-03 AND 2003-0 4 WERE FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN PRICES OF RAW MATERIALS AND O THER EXPENSES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO DISCREPANC IES WERE FOUND. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS AND DETAILS FURNISHED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER CLA USE 1 OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2000-01, THE FIRM HAD GIVEN DISCOUNT @45%ON T RADING PRICE TO THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE FIRST YEAR, FOLLOWED BY DISCOUNT OF 55% IN F INANCIAL YEAR 2001-02. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03, THE DISCOUNT WAS INCREASED TO 60% AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS HAD TO BEAR ALL THE EXPENSES RELEVANT TO THE SALES AND MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING EXPENSES FOR S ALESMAN, DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS AND ADVERTISEMENT. THE FIRM MAINTAINED RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THESE WERE AUDITED AS PER SECTION 44AB OF I.T.ACT. THE AUDITOR DID NOT FIND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS IN THE BUSINESS POLICY OR SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. (1991) 192 ITR 566- 567,IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 2932/AHD/2006 3 WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED, THE MERE FACT THAT THERE WAS A FALL IN GROSS PROFIT COULD NOT LEAD TO THE INFERENC E THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INFLATED. INTERALIS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE D ECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V/S CIT (1995) 80 TAXMAN 184 ( GAUHATI HIGH COURT ),CIT V/S MANGA DARSHI CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD. (1985) 155 ITR 44 2 (A.P.),S. SHARABHAIYA SHETTI & SONS V/S CIT (1967) 64 ITR 175 (A.P.),MYSORE FERT ILIZER CO. V/S CIT (1966) 59 ITR 268 (MADRAS) AND CIT V/S EASTERN COMMERCIAL ENT ERPRISES (1994) 210 ITR 103 (CALCUTTA). IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS AND T HEREBEING NO COMMENTS OF THE AO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: 2.4 THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF AY URVEDIC MEDICINES SINCE LAST 111 YEAS AT UNJHA, DISTRICT MEHSANA. THERE WAS A FA LL IN GROSS PROFIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEA R. THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH EXPLANATION REGARDING THE ABOVE FALL IN GROSS PROFIT. DETAILED EXPLANATIONS WERE FURNISHED AS PER LETTER DATED 13/3/2006. HOWEV ER, ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS STATING THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR FALL IN GROSS PROFIT WAS THE DISCOUNTS AND COMMISSION PAID TO THE SOLE DISTRIBUT ORS WHO HAPPENED TO BE SISTER CONCERNS MANAGED BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT-FIRM. THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY POINTED OUT BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT IT HAD DIVIDED THE BUSINESS REGION IN THREE GROUPS NAMELY (A) GUJARAT, RAJASTHAN AND ANDHRA PRADESH, (B) CHAHATISGARH, WEST BENGAL AND MADHYA PRADESH AN D (C) MAHARASHTRA, BIHAR AND JARKHAND. FOR THE FIRST GROUP, THE APPELLANT FI RM AHD APPOINTED M/S UNJHA PHARMCY PVT. LTD. FOR THE SECOND GROUP, THE APPELLA NT FIRM HAD APPOINTED SHREE UNJHA PHARMACY, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND FOR THIRD GROUP, THE APPELLANT APPOINTED M/S TONIX HEALTH CARE AS SOLE DISTRIBUTORS. THE APP ELLANT FIRM HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE THREE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE YE AR 2000 AND ACCORDING TO CLAUSE 1 OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT THE FIRM HAD GIVEN 45% DISCOUNT ON THE TRADE PRICE TO THE SAID DISTRIBUTORS IN THE FIRST YEAR I.E. IN THE YEAR 2000-01. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. IN THE F.Y.2001-02, SUCH DISCOUNT WAS 55% AND THEREAFTER FROM APRIL,2002, THE SAID DISCOUNT IN ALL WAS 60%. 2.4.1 IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE A GREEMENT WITH THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SPEND ANYTHING FU RTHER ON SALES. THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS WOULD SELL THE PRODUCTS AND WOULD BEAR ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SALES AND MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS INCLUDING EXPEN SES FOR SALESMEN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS AND ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PR ODUCTS. 2.4.2 THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS HAD UNDERTAKEN MARK ETING OF THE PRODUCTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS BY APPOINTING THEIR STOCKISTS, WHO LESALE DEALERS AND C&F AGENTS. THEY ALSO EMPLOYED SALES MANAGERS AND STAFF FOR THE RESPECTIVE AREAS TO CANVAS THE PRODUCTS, ADVERTISE THE PRODUCTS IN DIFFERENT M EDIA. ALL THE EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY THEM. THE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THESE SOLE DISTRIBUT ORS FROM 45% TO 60% WAS IN ITA NO. 2932/AHD/2006 4 ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADE PRACTICE. IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR, THE DISCOUNT WAS PAID @55% AHMEDABAD THE INCREASE IN TH E RATE WAS AS PER AGREEMENT ALREADY EXECUTED IN THE INITIAL YEAR. THE APPELLANT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS HAD INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPE NDITURE IN CARRYING OUT DISTRIBUTION. THESE DISTRIBUTORS WERE ALL ASSESSED TO TAX. 2.4.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH POINTED OUT THAT THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS WERE SISTER CONCERN, DID NOT EXAMINE WHETHER THE TRADE D ISCOUNT PAID TO THEM WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE SERV ICES RENDERED BY THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) & (B) OF THE I.T.ACT. THE BUSINESS POLICY AND ARRANGEMENT OF APPOINTING SOLE DISTRIBUTORS WAS BEING FOLLOWED FROM 1999-2000 ONWARDS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT (AS PER ORDER D ATED 31/3/2004) AND THE PAYMENT OF TRADE DISCOUNTS TO THE VERY SAME SOLE DISTRIBUTO RS (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERY SAME AGREEMENT) WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. DURING THE YEAR, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS AUDITED WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND NO DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT WAS NOTICED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO DID NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. OBVIOUSLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED REGARDING FALL IN GROSS PROFIT DURING THE YEAR. IN SUCH A CASE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND ES TIMATING GROSS PROFIT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 1995 W.E.F. 1/4/1997, ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ONLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN SUB SECTION-3 OF SECT ION 145. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXPRESS ANY DISSATISFACTI ON REGARDING THE CORRECTNESS OF COMPLETENESS OF ACCOUNTS, AND AS SUCH NO ESTIMATE O F INCOME IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY DOUBT REGARDING GENUINENESS OR REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE ON TRADE DISCOUNT S, HE SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 37 OR SECTION 40A(2 )(A) AND (B) OF THE I.T. ACT. NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT. ON THE OTHER HAND, A PPELLANT POINTED THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT PAID TO SISTER/OTHER ASSOCIATE CONCERNS WA S AS PER AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2000 AND SUCH EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS JUS TIFIED ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST T HAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT GENUINE OR EXCESSIVE. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ADDITION MADE WAS PURELY ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUPPRESSED THE GROSS PROFIT EARNED DURING THE YEAR. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GON E THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSEMENT ORDER THAT THE AO DID NO T POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE IGNORING THE BOOK RESULTS NO R BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD ITA NO. 2932/AHD/2006 5 REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE DISCOUNT/COMMISSION. HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. V. CIT (I.T.R. NO. 12 OF 1990) OBSERVED THAT A LOWER RATE OF GROSS PROFIT DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WOULD NOT IN ITSELF BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ANY ADDITION. THE MERE FACT THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OR GROSS PROFIT IS HIGH OR LOW IN A PARTICULAR YEAR DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO INFERENCE THAT TH ERE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSION. LOW PROFIT IS NEITHER A CIRCUMSTANCE NOR MATERIAL TO JU STIFY ADDITION OF PROFITS. THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS IN DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CI T [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); RAGHUBIR MANDAL HARIHAR MANDAL V. STATE OF BIHAR [1 957] 8 STC 770 (SC); STATE OF KERALA V. C. VELUKUTTY [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC); STATE OF ORISSA V. MAHARAJA SHRI B.P. SINGH DEO [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); BRIJ BHUSAN LAL PARDUMAN KUMAR V. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); CHOUTHMAL AGARWALLA V. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (ASSAM); R.V.S. AND SONS DAIRY FARM V. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (MAD); INTERNATIONAL FOREST CO. V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K) ; M. DURAI RAJ V. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (KER); RAMCHANDRA RAMNIVAS V. STATE OF ORISSA [1970] 25 ST C 501 (ORISSA); ACTION ELECTRICALS V. DEPUTY CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (DELHI) AND KAMAL KUMAR SAHARIA V. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (GAUHATI) INDICATE THAT THE AO IS NOT FETTERED BY ANY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS, AND HE I S ENTITLED TO ACT ON MATERIAL WHICH ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW, B UT WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF BEST JUDGMENT, THE INCOME-T AX OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR M ATERIAL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT. LOW PROFIT IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IN ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR IN VOKING THE POWERS OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT WITHOUT SUPPORT OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECOR D. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMITBHAI GUNWANTBHAI, 129 ITR 573 HELD THAT IF THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE BOOKS THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIE S IS NOT THE REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. SECONDLY, EVEN IF FOR SOME REASON, THE BOOKS ARE RE JECTED IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS OR ON PURE GUES S WORK. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS FOR IGNORING THE BOOK RESULTS AND APPLYING THE AVERAGE PROFIT RATE OF THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION. EVEN THE ITA NO. 2932/AHD/2006 6 REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL CONT ROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IF THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE BOOKS, THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO REVENUE TO CONTEND TH AT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIES IS NOT THE REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. IN THE LIGHT OF THES E OBSERVATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). C ONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3,BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DO NO T REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12 .2009. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 11THDECEMBER,2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. M/S UNJHA PHARMACY,STATION ROAD, UNJHA,DIST. MEH SANA 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN. (N.G.) 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-GANDGHINAGAR 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD