Shri Hemendra L. Shah, Ahmedabad V. The DY. CIT., Circle-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 3134/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9227 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 25/08/09 DRAFTED ON: 26/08 /09 ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1998-1999 RESPECTIVELY SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH 7, KRISHNA APARTMENT AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-9 AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AELPS 5265 E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL, DR O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 16/12/2003 , 10/02/2004 & 17/02/2004 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1 998-99 RESPECTIVELY BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - IN ITA NO.3134/AHD/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED U/S.147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENSES AS DEDU CTION AGAINST ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 2 - BUSINESS INCOME BEING REMUNERATION AND INTEREST REC EIVED AS WORKING PARTNER OF THE FIRM. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT A LLOWING SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES OF RS.2,15,521/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION MADE BY A.O. OF RS.69,58,859 /- U/S.68 OF BEING LOANS OF RS.24,50,850/- FROM VINOD K.PATEL, R S.38,00,000/- FROM PARESH N.PATEL AND RS.7,00,000/- FROM DILIP CO RPORATION. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,04,476/- BEING BANK CHARGES AND RS.47,662/- BEING COMMISSION EXPENSES AND OTHER MISC. EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT TREATING THE BUSINE SS INCOME AS NIL. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. IN ITA NO.3135/AHD/2004 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE APPELLAN T CHALLENGING ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 3 - THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING AN O RDER U/S.147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENSES AS DEDU CTION AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME BEING REMUNERATION AND INTEREST REC EIVED AS WORKING PARTNER OF THE FIRM. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES OF RS.41,60,925/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED UNDER OT HER HEADS OF INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION MADE BY A.O. OF RS.3,00,94,0 00/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENTS OF RS.2,00,948/- AS MENTIONED IN PAGE-2 OF A.O. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.36,32 ,098/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH CREDITS I N THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S.VIDHI CORPORATION OF WHICH THE APPELLA NT IS THE PROPRIETOR. ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 4 - 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. IN ITA NO.3136/AHD/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER HENCE THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), H AS ERRED IN NO DECIDING THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE APPEL LANT CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER IN PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENSES AS DEDUCTION AGA INST BUSINESS INCOME BEING REMUNERATION AND INTEREST REC EIVED AS WORKING PARTNER OF THE FIRMS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES OF RS.2,49,00,6 01/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE LEARNED ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 5 - ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED ENTIRELY FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.95,02,419/- BEING INTERESTS EXPENSES AND RS.92,35,159/- BEING BANK CHARGES. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.13,36,706/- BEING COM MISSION EXPENSES AND HE FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF OTHER PETTY EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.40,71,.925/- UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF EARLIER YEAR. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.30,59,334/- IN THE P ROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENSE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND STATING THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN INTEREST BEARING LOANS AND ADVANCED THEM TO V ARIOUS PERSONS INTEREST FREE AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO T CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS. ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 6 - 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME AT NIL EVEN THOUGH TH E APPELLANT HAS BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.2,49,00,601/-. H E FURTHER ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THAT EXT ENT UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF H EARING. 2. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 171 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ON 16/12/2003 AND THE SAME WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 08/03/2004. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL WAS 07/05/2004 AND THE APPEALS FEE WAS PAID ON 25/10/2004 AND THE APPE ALS WERE ALSO FILED ON THAT DATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NOTORIZED AF FIDAVIT ALONGWITH MEMO OF APPEALS INDICATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 7 - JUDICIAL CUSTODY SINCE 09/10/2002 AND WAS ULTIMATEL Y RELEASED ON BAIL AFTER NEARLY SIXTEEN MONTHS ON 14/04/2004. THERE AFTER, THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED FOR FUNDS TO PAY THE APPEALS FEE AND FILED THE APPEALS. THUS, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE AS SESSEE TO FILE THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED T IME. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE APPEALS BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY AND SUBMITTED THAT DELAY W AS NOT BECAUSE OF REASONABLE CAUSE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SILVER STAR ENGINEERS VS. ITO & ANR. 266 ITR 376 (KER) AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DELAY OF SIX DAYS WAS NOT C ONDONED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) THE DELAY MERITS TO BE COND ONED. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE BENCH WA S OF THE OPINION THAT DELAY WAS BECAUSE OF REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE DELAY WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY MALA-FIDE INTENTION OR GROSS NEGLIGE NCE. THUS DELAY WAS CONDONED AND PARTIES WERE HEARD IN RESPECT OF GROUN DS OF APPEAL. ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 8 - 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE APP EAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2 2/01/2003 WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 13/02/2003, 05/03/2003, 31/03/2003 , 23/04/2003 AND 21/05/2003. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS AGAIN ISSUED FIXING THE HEARING ON 24/10/2003. ON THAT DAY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING 15/12/2003. SINCE NOBODY ATTENDED ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THE APPEALS WERE DECIDED EX-PARTE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). SIMILARLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 998-99 ALSO ON SIMILAR FACTS THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1997-98 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT CASH CREDIT RECEIVED F ROM 26 PERSONS AS NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE COULD SUBMIT EVIDENCES, S UCH AS, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, CONFIRMATION L ETTER AND CONTRA ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF 20 PERSONS AND COULD NOT FIL E THE SAME FOR SIX PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF OF ONLY RS.7,07,500/- OUT OF THE ADDITION(S) OF RS.41,60,925/-, RS.3,07,94,000/-, RS.2,00,948/- AND RS.36,39,568/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT DUE TO GODHRA CARNAGE ON 28/02/2002 THE CITY OF AHMEDAB AD WITNESSED ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 9 - RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES IN THE SUCCEEDING MONTHS AND MOST OF THE CITY WAS UNDER CURFEW. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH FACTORS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COLLECT CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FROM CASH CREDITORS AT A SHORT NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY HA VE BEEN ABLE TO COLLECT CONFIRMATIONS/ INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THE SUBSTANTIAL CASH CREDITORS COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED SEPA RATELY BY WAY OF PAPER BOOK FOR ADMISSION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UND ER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE EVIDENCES REQUIRED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). HENCE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT TH E APPEALS FOR THE ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE RESTORED BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) TO DECI DE THE ISSUES AFRESH. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILE D OF THE SAME TO FILE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. TH EREFORE NO SECOND INNINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1998-99 IT IS OBSERVE D THAT THE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(APPEALS) EX- ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 10 - PARTE IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSE E. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AT THE MATERIAL TI ME AND THEREFORE HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND TO PROPERLY PLACE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEA LS). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IT SHALL BE I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOR ADJUDICATION FRESH AFTER AL LOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 8. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS FOR WANT OF CONFIRM ATIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCES . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF DISTURBED ATMOSPHERE WHICH EXISTED AFTER GODHRA CARNAGE PREVE NTED THE ASSESSEE TO COLLECT AND FURNISH THE REQUIRED CONFIRMATIONS A ND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH CREDITS AT THE RELEVANT TIME. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY COLLECTED THE REQUIRED CONFIRMATIO NS AND EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIAL CASH CREDITS. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE S IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO R ESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1998-99 TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME ITA NOS.3134, 3135 & 3136/AHD/2004 SHRI HEMENDRA L.SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 96-97, 97-98 & 98-99 - 11 - TAX(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO ADMIT THE FRESH EVIDENC ES NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER PROPER VERIF ICATION OF THE SAME AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28.08.2009. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/08/2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD