Ardor Structures Private Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 297/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9202 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TALSANIA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revised return; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 250; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD., ARDOR HOUSE, MONDEAL BUSINESS PARK, B/S. GURUDWARA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD-380059. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD. [PAN NO. AAHCA 8674 N] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKIT TALSANIA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SEWAK, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 02.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.03.2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 PAS SED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDAB AD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09 .2013 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.(-)32,28,046/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 1 43(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, UNDER SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF T HE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04.09.2014 FOLLOWED BY A FURTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) R.W.S 129 AND ALONG WITH A ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 2 - NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 13.07.2015 DUE TO CHANGE OF JURISDICTION. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE A SSESSEE INVESTED IN SHARES OF M/S. CHEM-EDGE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND M/S. ARD OR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. THE INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 21,03,01,050/- AS ON 31.03.2013 WAS INCREASED FROM RS. 16,13,35,150/- AS ON 31.03.2012. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.43,16, 239/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME OR ANY DIVIDEND IN COME U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. FURTHER THAT, THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWING SUCH SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WHICH WA S ULTIMATELY REJECTED. THE LEARNED AO RELYING UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR BEING NO.5/2014 DATED 11.02.2014 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED VARI OUS INDIRECT EXPENSES SUCH AS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITY AN D THEREFORE THESE INDIRECT EXPENSES WOULD INCLUDE EXPENDITURE ASSOCIATED FOR I NVESTMENT ACTIVITY. ULTIMATELY THE ORDER WAS FINALIZED BY THE LEARNED A O UPON DETERMINATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS.52 ,49,165/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 45,207/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THUS DISALLOWANCE AS PER PROVISION U/S 14A RULE 8D HAS B EEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 4,36,028/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD SUO MOTO DISALL OWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.43,16,239/- IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FURTHER DISA LLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.44,042/- WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WHILE DETERM INING ASSESSED INCOME. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ONE OF THE GROUP C OMPANIES NAMELY GREENLAND INFRACON PVT. LTD. IN A.YS. 2012-13 AND 2 013-14 WHEN THE APPELLATE ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 3 - AUTHORITY FULLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN TURN WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS. 2 039 AND 2040/AHD/2016 A COPY WHEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. H E THEREFORE PRAYED FOR THE SIMILAR RELIEF BEFORE US. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE THAT SINCE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME BEING CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D CANNOT BE APPLIED SO AS TO MA KE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS ALSO SETTLED BY T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS-CORRTECH ENERGY PVT. LTD. REP ORTED [2014] 45 TAXMANN.COM 116. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE DEPARTMENT RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPECTI VE PARTIES, WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS CITED BY THE LEA RNED AR IN FAVOUR OF HIS CASE. IT APPEARS FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT IN THAT CAS E THE AO DISALLOWED AT RS.1,67,32,314/- AND AFTER REDUCING THE DISALLOWANC E SUO MOTO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.98,03,322/- COMPUTED THE A DDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.69,28,992/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WIT HDRAWN THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.98,03,322/- BEING WRONGLY OFFERE D IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION OF LAW. ULTIMATELY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THAT OCCASION GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THERE WAS NO ADMITTED EXEMPT INCOME OR DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR GRANTING TOTAL RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT INCLUDING ON ACCOUNT OF SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 4 - 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LE ANED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STRAIGHTWAY ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT RECORDED BY THE AO IN PARA 4.1.1 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT GIVEN RISE TO ANY E XEMPT INCOME CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. NOTWITHSTANDING SUC H FACT, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED RS.98.03 LAKHS AGAINST THE N ON- EXISTENT TAX FREE INCOME. THE AO HOWEVER RE-WORKED THE DISALLOWANCE A T RS.1,67,32,314/- AND AFTER REDUCING THE DISALLOWANC E SUO MOTO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.98,03,322/- COMPUTED T HE ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14 A OF THE ACT AT RS.69,28,992/-. THE LEARNED AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND WITHDRAWN THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF R S.98,03,322/- BEING WRONGLY OFFERED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION OF LAW. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE DISCUSSED IN D ETAIL BY THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELET ED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE IN TUNE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIT VS. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P .) LTD. (2018) 95 TAXMANN.COM 250 (SC). AND HOST OF OTHER BINDING JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS. THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.98,03,322/-, THERE WAS NO JUSTIF ICATION FOR THE CIT(A) TO GRANT RELIEF ON THIS SCORE. THE LEARNED DR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE SUO MOTO DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.69,28,992/- AS COMPUTED BY THE AO IN TERMS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SUBSTANTIV E QUESTION ARISES IN THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNES S OF THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN REFUSING TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR RESORTING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14 A OF THE ACT . TWO BROAD ISSUES EMERGES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE; (I) WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE U NDER S.14A IS MAINTAINABLE WHERE ADMITTEDLY NO EXEMPT INCOME I.E. DIVIDEND WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND (II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GOING BEYOND THE RETURN OF INCOME AND REMOVE THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF H AS MADE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER THE A CTION OF THE CIT(A) ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 5 - IN BRINGING DOWN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSE E AND GRANTING RELIEF ON THE ISSUES NOT RAISED AT THE TIME OF FILI NG ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN AT A SUBSEQUENT STAGE IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW OR NOT. 7. THE FIRST ISSUE FRAMED ABOVE APPEARS QUITE SIMP LE AS WE SEE. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, WE TAKE NOTE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11/02/2014 WHICH SEEKS TO EMPHASIZE TH AT ALL EXPENSES PERTAINING TO AN EXEMPT INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT NO CORRESP ONDING TAX FREE INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. N OTWITHSTANDING THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR, VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE KICKED WHEN THERE WAS NO EXE MPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS THE CASE IN THE PRESEN T APPEALS. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS IL&FS ENERGY DEVELOPMEN T COMPANY LTD. (2017) 84 TAXMAN.COM 186(DELHI) AND THE HON'BL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P .) LIMITED (2017) 80 TAXMANN.COM 221(MADRAS) HAVE EXPRESSED A CLEAR DISAGREEMENT WIT H CBDT CIRCULAR AND HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN RE LEVANT YEAR THERE CANNOT BE A DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER S.14 A OF THE ACT . SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD (2014) 45 TAXM ANN.COM. 116 (GUJ) AND PR.CIT VS. INDIA GELATINE AND CHEMICALS LTD. (2 016) 66 TAXMANN.COM 356 (GUJ). THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL FIAT WAS REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 372 ITR 692 (DELHI) WHEREIN HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY RULED THAT DISALLOWANCE UND ER S.14 A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX EXEMPT INCOME. NOT ABLY, THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN CIT VS. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P .) LTD. (2018) 95 TAXMANN.COM 250 (SC). HENCE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) WHICH E SSENTIALLY HOLDS THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CAN BE TRIGGERED ONLY IF ASSESSEE SEEKS TO SQUARE OFF EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE INCOME WHICH DOE S NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT AND SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEARS. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE DO N OT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) FOR NON-APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 6 - 8. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE REGARDING PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE CI T(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF ON THE DISALLOWANCE (SUO MOTO MADE BY THE AS SESSEE) BEYOND THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORMAL R EVISED RETURN. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ASPECT IN VERY GREAT DETA IL IN PARA 2.5 TO 2.28 OF ITS ORDER. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REITERATE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, WE FULLY ENDORSE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE C IT(A) WHICH ESSENTIALLY HOLDS THAT THE MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY AN INCOME NOT TAXABLE HAS BEEN WRO NGLY OFFERED FOR TAX, WILL NOT OPERATE AS ANY KIND OF ESTOPPEL AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED OR NOT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SHOW THAT IT HAS BEEN OVER ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT EVEN ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESS EE'S OWN MISTAKE OR OTHERWISE, THE REVENUE IS UNDER DUTY TO ASSESS CORR ECT INCOME. 9. IT IS TRITE THAT THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT ARE UNDER SACROSANCT OBLIGATION TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TAX CAN B E COLLECTED ONLY AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. IF AN ASSESSEE, UNDER A MIS TAKE, MIS-CONCEPTION OR NOT BEING PROPERLY INSTRUCTED, IS OVER ASSESSED, THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ONLY LEGITIMATE TAX DUES ARE COLLECTED. THIS IS THE VIEW WHICH FLOWS FROM INNUME RABLE JUDGMENTS INCLUDING CIT VS. SHELLY PRODUCTS (2003) 261 ITR 367 ( SC), S. R. KOSHTI VS. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 ( GUJ), ESTER INDUSTRIES VS. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (DELHI) AND CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SH AREHOLDERS (P.) LTD. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (BOM). THE ESSENCE OF THESE DECISIONS ARE THAT MERE ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RES PECT TO AN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OR IN REVISED RETURN WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO BAR AN ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING AN EXP ENSE OR DISPUTING AN ADDITION IF IT IS OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IT IS THUS WELL SETTLED THAT IF A PARTICULAR INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER TH E ACT, IT CANNOT BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF ESTOPPEL OR ANY OTHER EQUITAB LE DOCTRINE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT ENFORCE UNTENABLE ACTION S OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IT WHICH LED TO DECLARATION OF INCOME OF HI GHER AMOUNT INCORRECTLY. IT IS THUS OPEN TO ASSESSEE TO SHOW TH AT IT WAS OVER ASSESSED IN CORRECTLY OWING TO ITS OWN MISTAKE. 10. SO VIEWED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY POTENCY IN THE AR GUMENT LAID ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) ALLEGEDLY COM MITTED ERROR IN GRANTING TOTAL RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14 A OF THE ACT . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF UNDER S.14 A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE BY THE ITA NO.297/AHD/2017 ARDOR STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 7 - ASSESSEE AND THEREBY GRANTING RELIEF HIGHER THAN CL AIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE FAULTED IN LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS ON THE BETTER FOOTING. HE MADE SUCH REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF. THEREFORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO REQUEST FOR WITHDRA WAL OF SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHETHER CAN AT ALL BEEN E NTERTAINED IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEALT WITH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE US. RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT WE DO NOT HESITATE TO DELETE THE DISALLOWA NCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.52,44,165/- U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D PARTICULARLY IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER HAVE ANY EXEMPT INCOME NOR EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE CASE IN HAND BEFORE US. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2019 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MS. M ADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/03/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD