Shri Shailesh C.Modi, Surat V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(1)(4), Surat

ITA 3060/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1921 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL R SHAH
• Keywords: Gift; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 56

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI, PLOT NO.B/58/59, JAWAHAR ROAD NO.4, UDHYOGNAGAR, UDHNA, SURAT-394210 PAN : ACXPM 7558 G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL R. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK KUMAR, SR. DR. !'# / DATE OF HEARING : 19/01/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/04/2016 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, SURAT, DATE D 16.09.2015 PASSED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13 BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DI SALLOWING RS.11,12,947/- U/S 41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION/DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OF SALE OF PROCESSED YARN, STAMPING FOILS AND CLOTH. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 24.07.2012, SHOWING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.7,740/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTIC E U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.08.2013, FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S 14 2(1) DATED 01.02.2014 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GIFT OF RS.40,69,952/- FROM HIS SISTER OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS UNSECU RED LOAN IN THE NAME OF SMT. KIRANBEN GANDHI IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS.11,12,947/- FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 20 11-12 ON THE CREDIT BALANCE STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. KIRANBEN GANDH I AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE OP ENING BALANCE OF RS.40,69,952/- WAS CONVERTED INTO GIFT BY BOOK ENTR Y. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WENT AHEAD TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.11,12,947/- FOR THE INTEREST PAID TO SMT. KIRANBEN GANDHI IN EARLIER Y EARS BY TREATING IT AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE LE ARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,430/- BY DISALLOWING 20% OF EXPENSES OF RS.5,02,153/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EL EMENT INVOLVED IN THOSE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY AS SESSING THE INCOME ATRS.12,21,117/- AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING TWO ADDITIO NS; I) DISALLOWANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT - RS.11,1 2,947/- II) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL USE - RS . 1,00,430/- 3.1 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.11,12,947/- AND PARTLY ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 3 ALLOWED THE GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BY R ESTRICTING IT TO 10% AT THE PLACE OF 20% MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER. 3.2 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ONLY AGAINST THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,12,947/- MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT . 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE'S REAL SISTER SMT . KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI HAS GIVEN THE SUM TO THE ASSESSEE AS GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,69,952/- WHICH WAS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS LOA N ON WHICH ASSESSEE PAID THE INTEREST OF RS. 11,12,947/- IN EARLIER YEARS. S HE HAS GIVEN THE AMOUNT AS GIFT TO HER REAL BROTHER OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION AS SHE WAS WELL SETTLED IN USA. FURTHER SHE HAS SHOWN THE INTEREST PAID BY ASS ESSEE AS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER IN ALL THE YEARS WHEN SHE RECEIVED THE INTEREST. THE SAID AMOUNT OF GIFT WAS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSE E TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFF ICER ASKED ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY INTEREST CREDITED TO HIS SISTE R IN EARLIER YEARS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 41( 1) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILED REPLY VIDE LET TER DATED 21.03.2015. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATION AT PARA NO. 4.2 TO 4.4 HE MADE THE ADDITION OF INTEREST PAID IN EARLIER YEARS OF RS. 1 1,12,947/- TO KIRANBEN GANDHI BY TREATING IT AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S . 41(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT A SSESSEE OWED A SUM OF RS.40,69,952/- TO KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI AS AT THE B EGINNING OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING COULD NOT BE FULLY CONSIDERED AS A TRADING LIABILITY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT HAVE INVOKED THE ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1), HAD THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED THE GIFT BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND UTILISED THE PROCEEDS THEREOF FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI, THE NET EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE REDU CTION OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THAT ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOK ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD THE VERY SAME EFFECT AND HENCE A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THE SINGLE BOOK ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED AS TWO SEPARATE ENTRIES AS 'CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT OF GIFT AND 'CONST RUCTIVE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION, AS THERE WAS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN IN A S CENARIO KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI WOULD HAVE FIRST GIVEN GIFT THROUGH CHEQUE A ND LATER WHEN THE FUNDS ENCASHED BY ASSESSEE WOULD BE USED TO REPAY T HE LABILITY, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO TAX LIABILITY AS GIFT GIVEN BY KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI BE EXEMPT U/S 56 BEING COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RELATI VE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE TAXABILITY OF THE TRANS ACTIONS DOES NOT FULLY DEPEND ON MERE BOOK ENTRIES PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND HENCE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE FASTENED WITH TAX BURDEN JU ST BECAUSE HE HAS PASSED A SINGLE BOOK ENTRY INSTEAD OF TWO SEPARATE TRANSAC TIONS. FURTHER, WHEN THE INTEREST EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI WOULD HAVE OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION IN HER COM PUTATION OF INCOME. FURTHER NO BENEFIT WOULD BE CLAIMED BY THE KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI IN FORM OF CLAIMING ANY BAD DEBTS OR DISCOUNT IN THE YEAR O F WRITE-OFF AS THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD BE DEBITED TO HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS G IFT GIVEN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS GIFT IS ALREADY CONSID ERED FOR TAX U/S 56 AND THEN EXEMPTED AS THE GIFT IS RECEIVED FROM RELATIVE S. NOW IF THE SAME AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AGAIN UNDER SECTION 41(1), IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CONSIDERING THE SAME CREDIT TWICE. LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED AND RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 5 I. RAJESH KUMAR VS. ACIT, 24 TAXMANN.COM 133 (COCHIN) II. K.P. BROTHERS VS. CIT, 42 ITR 0650 (RAJ.) (HC) III. PARAMJEET SINGH BEDI VS. ITO, ITA NO.160/IND/2012 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION I S THAT WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 41( 1) OF THE ACT AT RS.11,12,947. FROM GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT AS ON 01.04.2007, THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS.26,15,4 30/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. THE REAFTER, UPTO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, THERE WERE TRANSACTIONS OF ADDITIONS AND REPAYMENT AND ALSO INTEREST OF RS.11,12,947/- WAS CREDITED IN HER ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS AN INTEREST EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11. THEREAFTER, DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2011-12, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE WAS A FURTHER ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM SMT. KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI OF RS.6,91,569/- AND TH E BALANCE STOOD AT RS.40,69,952/-. THEREAFTER, SMT. KIRANBEN JAYANT GA NDHI, WHO IS A NON- RESIDENT INDIAN AND SETTLED IN USA, GAVE THE SAID A MOUNT OF RS.40,69,952/- AS GIFT TO HER BROTHER. 5.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY ACCEPTED THE SAI D GIFT OF RS.40,69,952/- AND HAS NOT QUESTIONED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT FROM ASSESSEES SISTER AND THE ADDITION CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LIMITED ONLY TO THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.11,12,947/- BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. WE ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE INTEREST WHICH HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. K IRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI IN ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 6 HER INCOME TAX RETURN AS NOTHING CONTRARY TO THIS F ACT HAS BEEN PUT ON RECORD. THIS MEANS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF INTERES T PAYMENT BY ASSESSEE AND INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE SISTER HAVE FOUND THEIR DU E PLACE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE TRANSA CTIONS HAVE BEEN ENTERED PRUDENTLY IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, A SUM OF RS.6,91,569/- WAS FURTHER ADDED TO THE UNS ECURED LOAN BALANCE IN THE NAME OF SMT. KIRANBEN JAYANT GANDHI AND THEREAFT ER, THROUGH A PROPER GIFT DEED, SHE HAS GIFTED THE SUM OF RS.40,69,952/- TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT IN BY THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH (ITAT, COCHIN BENCH) IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, KOTTAYAM, REPORTED IN [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 133 (COCH.), WHEREIN FOLLO WING ISSUE WAS INVOLVED:- THE ASSESSEE, A RETAIL TRADER IN TEXTILES, HAD RECE IVED RS.75 LAKHS AS GIFT FROM HIS MATERNAL UNCLE BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRY, I.E., BY C REDITING HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND DEBITING THE BUSINESS ACCOUNT OF VEE, I.E. THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE DONOR. PRIOR TO PASSING THE GIFT ENTRY, THE ASSESSE E OWED RS. 72.55 LAKHS TO VEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER FROM HIS UN CLE CONFIRMING THE PAYMENT OF GIFT, YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE S AID GIFT WAS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CESSATION/REMISSION OF TRADING LIABILITY AS PER SECTION 41(1). ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE GIFT OF RS. 75 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 41(1). COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT T HE DONOR V WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF VEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GO ODS FROM THAT CONCERN. IT WAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWED A SUM OF RS. 72.55 LAKHS TO VEE AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THERE WAS ALSO NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE MATERNAL U NCLE OF THE ASSESSEE, V, THE PROPRIETOR OF VEE, HAD CONFIRMED THE GIFT OF RS. 75 LAKHS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. [PARA 4] ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) HAD NOTICED THAT THE GIFT HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE DONOR BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRY, I.E., BY REDUCING THE BALANCE DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND, HEN CE, TAKEN THE STAND THAT SUCH REDUCTION OF LIABILITY WOULD AMOUNT TO 'REMISS ION OF TRADING LIABILITY'. THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE VIEW EXPRESSED B Y THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). [PARA 6] HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BALANCE OUT STANDING IN THE ACCOUNT OF VEE COULD NOT BE FULLY CONSIDERED AS A TRADING LIAB ILITY (AS ASSUMED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES), AS THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS HAVING MIXED TRANSACTIONS, I.E., THE TRANSACTIONS OF GENERAL NATURE AND ALSO TRANSACTION S OF TRADING NATURE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WOULD NOT HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1), HAD THE ASSESSEE R ECEIVED THE GIFT BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND UTILISED THE PROCEEDS THEREOF FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO VEE, THE NET EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE REDUCTION OF THE OUTSTANDI NG BALANCE IN THAT ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E BOOK ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD THE VERY SAME EFFECT AND HENC E A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOK ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A S 'CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT OF GIFT' AND 'CONSTRUCTIVE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING LIAB ILITY'. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION, AS THERE WAS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY. [PARA 7] 5.2 APPLYING FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND ALSO TO THE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY US ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO REMISSION OF LIABILITY OF RS.11,12,947/- U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE GIFT WAS GENUINELY MADE BY SMT. KIRANBEN GANDHI AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND THER E WAS NO BUSINESS CONSIDERATION IN THIS TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE INTEREST PAYME NT OF RS.11,12,947/- MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 3060/AHD/2015 SHRI SHAILESH C. MODI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2012-13 8 6. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST OF APRIL, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/04/2016 BIJU T., PS !&''()(*' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- ./ / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD