Soyani Manufacturing Works, Surat V. The Dy.CIT, Centralised Processing Centre, Cell TDS,

ITA 3026/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8849 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 234E; 200A; 201

Judgement Text

, ,LK ,LK,LK ,LK- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3026/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2013-14) SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS SURVEY NO.152, SURAT DHULIA RAOD, GANGADHARA PARIA, P.O. SOYANI, TAL. PALSANA, SURAT - 394310 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, CELL TDS, GHAZIABAD, UP - 201010 ! PAN/GIR NO. : AAVFS 6055 J ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' RESPONDENT ) '$ APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- #'%$ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.I. MEHTA, ADDL. CIT. & ' (%) * / DATE OF HEARING 23/03/2017 +,-. %) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/03/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-IV, SURAT, DATED 29/09/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 2 - 2. ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HAS BEEN TAKEN FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL: I). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING CHARGING OF LATE FILING FEES U/S.234E AM OUNTING TO RS.16,000/-. II). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SETTLED RATIO U/S. 272A(2)(K) WHEN T HE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) IS SIMILARLY WORDED OF SECTION 2 34E. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED LEVY OF FEE U /S. 234E IN THE ORDER U/S.200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PASSED BY THE DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD, UP ON 29/12/2013. 4. AFTER FOLLOWING THE RETURN SAME WAS PROCESSED BY THE TDS CPC AND LATE FILING FEE U/S. 234E TO THE TUNE OF RS.16, 000/- WAS IMPOSED. 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. LEARNED AR CITED AN ORDER OF THIS BENCH, ITA NO. 2957 TO 2963/AHD/2015, AND STATED THAT THIS IS SQUARELY COV ERED AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED: '1. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPEC TIVE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 3 - APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LATE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234-E CAN BE LEVIED PRIOR TO 01/06/2015. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN THO ROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIDDHI VINAYAK DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT(SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER:- '2. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH HAS MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE. THE FINDING HAS BEEN REPR ODUCED IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. DCIT, GHAZIABAD RENDERED I N ITA NO.3271/AND/2014. IT READS AS UNDER: '3. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT - ITA NO. 90/ASR/2015, VIDE ORDER DATED 9TH JUNE, 2015, WHEREIN THE DIVISION BE NCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER :- '4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS , LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C ) 31498/2013(J)], HONBLE KARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF ADITHYA BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918-69 38/2014(T-IT), HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAK ASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION O F INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED I N RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISION S WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDE RS FROM THE HON'BLE COURTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UN DERSTANDING, THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DIS POSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 4 - 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 234 E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGH T INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLO WS: 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHE RE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WIT HIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURI NG WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SH ALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CAS E MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SH ALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT I N ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STA TEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2010. T HIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIM E, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, OR A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 5 - REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECT ION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNE R, NAMELY:- (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COM PUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY:- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION I N THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASI S OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMP UTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 20 0 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SE NT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PU RSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT- (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 6 - (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESS ING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUS LY DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUBSECTION. 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMEN DMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITU TED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY:- (A) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (B) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID U NDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTH ERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (C) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUAN CE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COURS E OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECT ION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPEC T OF THE 'FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E'. ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 7 - THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STO OD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR R AISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE E XAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, W E HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECTION 200A, WHICH, AT T HE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT RECOVERABLE F ROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTM ENTS: (A), AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF 'ARITHME TICAL ERRORS' AND 'INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' - SECTION 200A(L)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR 'INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT'. - SECTION 200A(L)(B) 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE TO , OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMP LATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE E XAMINED LEGALITY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE SO. H E HAS JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 234E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY CO ULD BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN R ESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITT ED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200 A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A , RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 8 - YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHIC H THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILED, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STATEMEN T WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MAD E AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPSED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DI SCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFOR E, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED L EVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELI EF ACCORDINGLY.' 11. WHEN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT WAS BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAVE MU CH TO SAY EXCEPT TO PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FAIRLY DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS ACCEPTING LEVY OF L ATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E HAVE INDEED BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUT E W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2015 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MUCH BEFORE THAT DATE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I HEREBY DELETE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY WAY OF IMPUGNED INTIMATION ISSUED. THE A SSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.' 14. WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISPARITY ON THE FACTS, TH EREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE AND DELETE THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED.' 16. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE LA TE FILING FEE OF TDS RETURN U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUND NOS.L TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ARE ALLOWED.' ITA NO. 3026/AH D/2014 SOYANI MANUFACTURING WORKS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2013-14 - 9 - 7. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REAS ONING WE ARE NOT INCLINE TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ID. CIT( A). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF TANISH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE LATE FILING FEES OF RS.16,000/-. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID ORDER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K ( ) 0 1 (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRA SAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/03/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234) & 5) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 5) 0 1 / THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT. 5. 67 8)'34 *34. 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9: ( GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, # 6)) //TRUE COPY// '/& () (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY