The Jt. CIT., Navsari Range, Navsari V. M/s. Ravi Exports, Navsari

ITA 294/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 137 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0179 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI RAJIV AGRAWAL
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A-BENCH, AHMEDABAD. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIA L MEMBER, AND HON'BLE SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.294/AHD/2007, 295/AHD/2007, 296/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI RANGE, NAVSARI VERSUS M/S. RAVI EXPORTS LIMITED; HOUSE NO.43, NEAR MISSION HOUSE; POST: JALALPORE, NAVSARI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCR 1201 J FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SHRI RAJIV AGRAWAL CIT DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI. NONE ORDER PER T K SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2006, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), VALSAD, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-2002, 2002-20 03 & 2003-2004 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ITA NO.294/AHD/2007(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF RS.1,7 6,99,250/- ON THE DEPB BENEFITS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF THE THIRD PROVISO OF THE SECTION 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS COST COMPONENT I N THE SALE VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENSE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING A PART OF SALES VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENSE I.E. RS. 2,38,44,331/- AS A PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AND ONLY RS. 23,89,898/- AS A PROFIT ON SALE OF THE DEPB LICENSE U/S 28(IIID) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF 11,93,065/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF DOSING STOCK MADE BY THE A.O. 2 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CTT(A) OUGHT TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. ITA NO.295/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03): 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 8OHHC OF RS.146 ,50,462/- ON THE DEPB BENEFITS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF THE THIRD PROVISO OF THE SECTION 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT THOUGH THE ASSESSES HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS COST COMPONENT I N THE SALE VALUE OF THE OEPB LICENSE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING A PART OF SALES VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENSE I.E. RS.2,31,28,692 AS A PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AND ONLY RS. 20,94,219/- AS A PROFIT ON SALE OF THE DEPB LICENSE U/S 28(IIID) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS. 68,262/- O N ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK MADE BY THE A.O. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS, 3,75,412/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,17,145/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. 7. ON THE FACTS AND M THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE ID. OUGHT TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE ID.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. ITA NO.296/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04): 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 8OHHC OF RS.13, 84,085/- ON THE DEPB BENEFITS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF THE THIRD PROVISO OF THE SECTION 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT THOUGH THE ASSESSES HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. 3 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS COST COMPONENT I N THE SALE VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENSE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING A PART OF SALES VALUE OF THE DEPB LICENSE I.E. RS.2,04,40,347 AS A PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AND ONLY RS.55,062/- AS A PROFIT ON SALE OF THE DEPB LICENSE U/S 28(IIID) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.4,35,283/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK MADE BY THE A.O. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS, 3,18,000/- OUT OF SALES PROMOTION, SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES MADE B Y THE A.O. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,05,040/- OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. 7. ON THE FACTS AND M THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE ID. OUGHT TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE ID.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. 6. IN ALL THESE CASES, NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO TH E ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 14.12.2009 IS RETURN ED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS REFUSED. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE ALL THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SHRI RAJEEV AGRAWAL, LD. CIT (D.R.) APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TUR NOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN RS.10 CRORES. ACCORDING TO A.O, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. HOWEVER, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF TH E DEPB LICENSE SALES, THE COMPONENT OF PROFIT WHICH IS ONLY RS.23,89,898/-, R S.20,94,219/- AND RS.55,062/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RE SPECTIVELY, IS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THE LD. D.R. FAI RLY CONCEDED THAT NOW FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC, ITAT, MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH 4 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 87 (MUMBAI)[SB] HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 28(IIID), WHIC H REFERS TO THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB OBVIOUSLY REFERS ONLY TO THE PROFIT ELEMENT AND NO T THE GROSS SALE PROFIT OF DEPB . CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT ( I.E. THE SALE VALUE LESS THE FACE VALUE) IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT, SPECIAL BE NCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF A.O. FOR REDETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THEREFORE , IN THESE THREE CASES ALSO, THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O., WHO WILL RE CALCULATE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AFTER GIVING OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) WAS DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, MUMBAI ON 11.08.2009. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WILL RE COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AFTER GIVING OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO.4 IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS AGAINST DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,93,065/-, RS.68,268/- AND RS.4,35,283/- FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AN 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED TH E AVERAGE VALUE METHOD FOR 5 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DIF FERENCE ON THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITIO N AT THE RATE OF 5% ON THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.11,93,065/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, RS.68,268/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND RS.4,35, 283/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIO NED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THREE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW. THE A.O. HAS MADE CERTAIN CALCULATION IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH WORKINGS DISALLOWED 5% OF TOTAL VALUE OF CLOSING ST OCK. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CONSISTENTLY THE METHOD OF STOCK VALUATIO N, I.E. COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY COMME NTS ON THIS VALUATION. NO DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN POINTE D OUT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION AND RE-WORKING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. RESULTANTLY, G ROUND NO. 4 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENTS IS REJECTED. 12. GROUND NO. 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AN D GROUND NO. 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE COMMON, WHICH ARE AGAIN ST FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,75,412/- AND RS.6,05,040/- RESPECTIVELY MADE B Y THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 13. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE A.O. DISALLOWED 5% ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BECAUSE T HERE WAS NO PROOF OR COGENT REASONS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION AND NOT WARRANTED B Y LAW. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS DEL ETED THE EXPENSES WITHOUT PROPER FINDINGS. HE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THES E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS, IN THE IMPU GNED ORDERS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED TH AT THE A.O. DID NOT BRING ANY 6 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 MATERIAL / EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS FIN DING WHILE DISALLOWING THE SAME AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. THESE WERE VERIFIED AND NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRA TIVE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,75,412/- AND RS.6,05,040/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE FINDING. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS LEGA LLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT BECAUSE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A UDITED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SHOULD HAVE NOT MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. NO SPECIF IC DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 5 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND GROUND NO. 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE DISMISSED . 15. GROUND NO.6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND GROUND NO.5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE COMMON, WHICH ARE AGAIN ST FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,17,145/- AND RS.3,18,000/- RESPECTIVELY MADE B Y THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 16. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT IN BOTH THE Y EARS, THE A.O. DISALLOWED 2% ON SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROO F OR COGENT REASONS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION AND NOT WARRANTED BY LAW. IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE EXPENSES WITHOUT PROPER FINDINGS. HE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THESE ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS, IN THE IMPU GNED ORDERS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED TH AT THE A.O. DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL / EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS FIN DING WHILE DISALLOWING THE SAME AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. THESE WERE VERIFIED AND NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROM OTION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 7 ITA NO.294, 295 & 296AHD/2007 RS.3,17,145/- AND RS.3,18,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE FINDING. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS LEGA LLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT BECAUSE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A UDITED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SHOULD HAVE NOT MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. NO SPECIF IC DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 6 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND GROUND NO. 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE DISMISSED . 18. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ALL TH E THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- SS (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08/01/2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD. LAHA/SR. P.S.