M/s. Indian Texdyes Industries, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

ITA 3137/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9696 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE OLHE OLHE OLHE VGEN VGEN VGEN VGEN] YS[KK ] YS[KK ] YS[KK ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA LNL; ,OA LNL; ,OA LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK EK/KQFERK EK/KQFERK EK/KQFERK JKW; JKW;JKW; JKW;] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D LNL; LNL; LNL; LNL; DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3137/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES, COMET ESTATE, NAGARWEL HANUMAN ROAD, RAKHIAL, AHMEDABAD. / VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 12, AHMEDABAD 38009 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFL 4921 L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 02/07/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/09/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD, VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XX/127/13-14 DTD. 24-09-2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE PE NALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ADDITION MADE ON DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK OF RS.6,82,062/-. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT AS T HERE WAS UNDER STATEMENT OF INCOME SHOWN DUE TO UNDER VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. IN FACT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 6,82 ; 062/- AS WRONGLY ASCERTAINED BY ACIT ALTHOUGH ALL MATERIAL FACTS WERE PRODUCED BEFO RE ACIT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT VIDE IT'S LETTER DATED 14-07 -2011 AND THE SAME IS PRESSED HERE TO BE CONSIDERED. 3. THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD ING TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT DOES REPRESEN T THE INCOME. THEREFORE THERE IS NO CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR ACT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF AP PELLANT. HENCE PENALTY LEVIED BE DELETED. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS THAT IT MAY BE PERMITTE D TO ADD, TO ALTER AND/OR TO AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E PENALTY ORDER CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR RS.6,82,062/-. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CHEMICA LS AND EXPORT OF CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENT HAS INTER ALIA SHOWN THE CLOSING STOCK AS DETAILED UNDER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS QUANTITY 1. COBALT SULPHATE (RM) 25 KG. 2. ITENOGEN BLUE CB (FP) 3130 KG. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 4.1 HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN LESS QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE ITEMS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. AS PER THE AO, THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK SHOULD BE AS UNDER: COBALT SULPHATE ITENOGEN BLUE CB STOCK AS ON 31.03.2006 4047 KG 5006 KG PURCHASE/PRODUCTION 7000 KG 44103 CONSUMPTION/SALES 10638 KG 45100 STOCK AS ON 31.03.2007 409 KG 4009 4.2 ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WORKED OUT THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK ON ACCOUNT OF LESS STOCK, WHICH IS DETAILED AS UNDE R: COBALT SULPHATE (RM) 384 KG @580 = 222720 + ITENOGEN BLUE CB (FP) 906 KG @507 = 459342 4.3 ON A QUESTION BY THE AO ABOUT THE LESS REPORTIN G OF CLOSING STOCK, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,82,062/- AND ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4 THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30-11-2012 INITIATED THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 4.5 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR THE PENALTY U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLI ANCE TO IT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE QUANTITY OF STOCK AS DECLARED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS ON 31-03-2007. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A DETAILED REPLY WAS ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 14-07- 2011 RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE STOCK AS DIS CUSSED ABOVE. 4.6 THE DIFFERENCE AS OBSERVED BY THE AO IN THE QUA NTITY OF CLOSING STOCK WAS ACCEPTED TO BUY THE PEACE OF MIND AND AVO ID FURTHER LITIGATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBER ATE ACT ON ITS PART FOR CONCEALING INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT REPORTED IN 249 ITR 125. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME @100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO UGHT BY EVADED. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE DI FFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK POINTED OUT BY THE AO WAS DULY EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 14-07-2011. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK WAS ADMITTED TO AVOID THE LITIGATION, AND TO BUY TH E PIECE OF MIND. THE ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADMISSION OF THE DIFFE RENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK DOES NOT LEAD TO LEAVE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AUTOMATICALLY. 5.1 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY ACCEPTED UNDERV ALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JU DGMENTS: SR NO. NAME OF THE COURTS DETAILS OF THE CASE CITATION 1. GUJARAT HIGH COURT A.M. SHAH & CO. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 108 TAXMAN 137 2. DELHI HIGH COURT CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. REPORTED IN 191 TAXMAN 179 3. HONBLE APEX COURT MAK DATA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9772 OF 2013 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF AO BY LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5.3 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSES SEE IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - 6. THE LD AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED AS UNDER: IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO PENALTY NOTICE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN CL OSING STOCK AS WORKED OUT BV AO AS BELOW- COBALT SULPHATE (RM) ITENOGEN BLUECB (FP) STOCK AS ON 31.03.2006 4047 KG 5006 KG PURCHASE / PRODUCTION 7000 KG 44103 KG CONSUMPTION/ SALES 10638 KG 45100 KG STOCK AS ON 31.03.2007 409KG 4009 KG WORKING SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER THE AUDIT ED ACCOUNTS: COBALT SULPHATE (RM) ITENOGEN BLUECB(FP) STOCK AS ON 31.03.2006 4047 KG 4100 KG* (PG 10) PURCHASE / PRODUCTION 7000 KG 44103 KG TOTAL 11047KG 48203 K G CONSUMPTION/ SALES 11022 KG 45100 KG STOCK AS ON 31.03.2007 25 KG 3103KG COBALT SULPHATE (RM)* I) JOB WORK CONSUMPTION [P/B PAGE 8] 4017KG II) OWN CONSUMPTION [P/B PAGE 9] 7005 KG 11022 KG* NOTE: IN AUDIT REPORT COMPUTING STOCK OF COBALT SUL PHATE (RM) CONSUMPTION OF 384 KG IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2007 WAS MISSED OUT & FIGURE OF 10638 KG WAS TAKEN FOR THE YEAR CLOSING S TOCK AT 409 KG AS REPORTED WHEREAS 25 KG IS CORRECT CLOSING STOCK. [P /B II PAGE 48 & 49] ITENOGEN BLUE CB (FINISHED GOODS)* I) OPENING STOCK IS 4100 KG (P/B II PG 22) WHEREAS AO ADOPTED 5006 KG (STOCK IN PROCESS) FIGURE INDICATED BELOW C LOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2006 (P/B PG 10) WORKING OUT CLOSING STOCK @ 4009 KG INSTEAD OF 3103 KG SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - APPELLANT IN RETURN TILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 APPENDED NOTE [P/B PG 4] '(2) THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,82,062/- FOR CLOSIN G STOCK VALUATION IS ADDED TO INCOME IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND T O AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION. BUT IN/ACT THERE IS NO SUCH DIFFERENCE AS ALLEGED BY I.T. AUTHORITY* THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN AT TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 34, 39,146/- & THEREFORE TO BUY PEACE OF MIND BY NOT CHALLENGING PROCEEDINGS U/ S 148 ADDED BOTH THE AMOUNTS TO THE INCOME WHICH EVEN AFTER ADDITION REMAINED AT A LOSS. APPELLANT NEITHER FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR CONCEALED INCOME AS ALLEGED BY THE AUTHORITIES. APP ELLANT GAVE EXPLANATION DURING QUANTUM AS WELL PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT REBUTTED BY AUTHOR ITIES. JUST TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION IF ADDITION MADE IS ACCEPTED IT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY AUTOMATICALLY. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT PENALTY LEVIED BE KINDL Y DELETED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S UNDER-REPORTING OF CLOSING STOCK BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PE NALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO AL LEGES THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNDERVALUED ITS CLOSING STOCK. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY WA S LEVIED U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - 8.1 FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE D IFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK AS DISCUSSED ABOVE BUT TH E AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT/INFIRMITY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT WITH THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO LEVY THE PENALTY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME DELIBERAT E ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER FOR CONCEALING OF THE INCOME OR FUR NISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THA T THE CLOSING STOCK OF ONE YEAR BECOMES THE OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR. THUS, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS AMO UNT OF CLOSING STOCK THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL CARRY FORWARD THE SAME TO TH E NEXT YEAR AT LESSER VALUE WHICH SHOWS THERE WILL BE NO EFFECT ON THE TA X LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF ONE YEAR WILL SHIFT TO ANOTHER YEAR. MOREOVER, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BENEFITED BY SHOWING LESS AMOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK AS IT WILL BECOME OPEN ING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SHOWING LESS CLOSING STOCK CANNOT BE SAID AS DE LIBERATE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN LESS AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THUS, THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BEAR MORE BURDEN OF TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - 8.2 ON A QUESTION FROM THE BENCH TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHETHER ANY EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT Y EAR. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DENIED MAKING SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT. THUS , IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ADJUSTMENT, THEN IT WILL BEAR MORE BUR DEN OF THE TAX. IT IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N HAS DECLARED THE HIGHER AMOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK, BUT IN THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS AMOUNT OF OPENING STOCK WHICH WILL L EAD IN THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THERE CANNOT BE A DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DECLARING LESS AMOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK. IN THIS CONNECTION, W E FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL TAXTILES (SUPRA) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 22. IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY, 2 FACTORS MUST CO-EXIST, (I) THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCES LEADIN G TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT DOES REPRESENT THE ASSES SEES INCOME. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY THAT THE AMOU NT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME AND (II) THE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANIMUS, I.E., CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR ACT OF FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLAN ATION HAS NO BEARING ON FACTOR NO. (I) BUT IT HAS BEARING ONLY ON FACTOR NO. (II). THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONC LUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT ASSESSED WAS IN FACT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES ARE EQUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT CONCEALED INCOME AS WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT IT DOE S. IF AN ASSESSEE GIVES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISP ROVED, I.E., IT IS NOT ACCEPTED BUT CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT LEAD TO THE REASO NABLE AND POSITIVE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS FALSE, THE EX PLANATION CANNOT HELP THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 10 - 8.3 THE CASE LAW I.E. A.M. SHAH & CO. RELIED ON BY THE LD CIT(A) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE INSTANT FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NOT THE ONLY UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING ST OCK BUT ALSO UNDER- REPORTING OF SALES. IN THE INSTANT CASE ON HAND, TH ERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF UNDERREPORTING OF SALES. THEREFORE, WE ARE RELUCTAN T TO TAKE THE GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.M. SHAH & CO. (SUPRA) . 8.4 SIMILARLY, WE NOTE THAT THE CASE LAW, I.E. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY LD CIT(A) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CA SE ON HAND. IT IS BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS ABOUT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS, THE ISSUE IN THE I NSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE UNDERREPORTING OF CLOSING STOCK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, WE REVERSE THE SAME. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/09/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/09/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.3137/AHD/2016 INDIAN TEXDYES INDUSTRIES V. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 11 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD