Shri H.K. Ramani, Bharuch V. The ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

ITA 3138/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5873 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 43B; 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3138/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI H K RAMANI A/3/63, NAQRAYAN RESIDENCY NEAR SRAVAN CHOKDI DAHEJ BY PASS ROAD BHARUCH 392 001 / VS. THE ACIT BHARUCH CIRCLE BHARUCH 392 001 $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABMPR 2185 A ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : NONE ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : MR.SANTOSH KARNANI, DR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 18/05/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/ 05/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, BARO DA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 03/06/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R EAD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRE3D IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.23,579/- AS LATE PA YMENT OF PF U/S.43B OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.3,26,932/- AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING TELESCOPING OF ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS.3,26,932/- AND DISALLOWANC E OF EXPENSE OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.3,21,855/-. 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE MATTER IS PROCEEDED EX-PARTE . 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') WAS FINALIZED ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.79,49,006/- AGAINS T THE RETUNED INCOME OF RS.67,76,640/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF PF BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED B UT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO DISALL OWED A PAYMENT OF RS.23,579/- UNDER S.43B(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON-PAYME NT OF PF IN TIME IGNORING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. REPORTED AT (2009) 319 ITR 306 . THE AO ALSO ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN CREDITING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CREDIT BEARIN G IN THE TDS STATEMENT OF RS.3,26,932/-. THE AFORESAID DIFFERE NCE OF RS.3,26,932/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED 10% OF THE LABOUR EXPE NSES QUANTIFIED AT RS.3,21,855/-. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TELESCOPING OF THE ADDITION OF INCOME4 OF RS.3,26,932/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.3,21,855/-. 6. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAI SED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 4. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS F OLLOWS:- '1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRE D IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,579/- AS LATE PAYMENT OF PF U /S 43 B OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,26,932/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - TELESCOPING OF ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS.3,26,932/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.3,2 1,855/-.' . 5. GROUND NO. 1 5.1 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 23,579/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO PF. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE'S CONT RIBUTION TO PF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 23,579/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RE LYING ON 242 ITR 114 (KER.) AND 218 ITR 149 (KER.) HELD THAT THE RIGHT T O DEDUCTION WOULD BE LOST IF THE CONTRIBUTION IS CREDITED BEYOND THE DUE DATE AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY IF PAYMENTS ARE MA DE WITHIN THE DUE DATE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED RS. 23,579/-. 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS- '1. ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX AFTER DUE DA TE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER PF ACT, HE HAS PAID THE SAME MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS WELL AS ACTUAL DATE OF FILLING OF RETURN OF INCOME. FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 438 ALLOWS PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS SAME IS PAID ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF RETURN FILING U/S 139(1) O F THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT AMOUNT IS PAID MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN. HENCE, ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE SAID PROVISO AND MADE DISALLO WANCE WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE, NO. OF COURTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND APEX COURT HAS DE CIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT AS REPRODUCED HERE IN B ELOW: (A) ALLIED MOTORS PVT. LTD. V/S CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC ) ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - (B) CIT V/S ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. 319 ITR 306 (SC) (C) CIT V/S ALLEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. 279 ITR 331 (GUJ) (D) CIT V/S LAKHANI RUBBER WORKS 326 ITR 415 (P & H ) (E) CIT V/S DHARMENDRA SHARMA 297 ITR 320 (DEL) (F) CIT V/S MANOJ KUMAR SINGH 349 ITR 230 (ALL) (G) ITO V/S SCI INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED 34 CCH 237 (AHD TRI)(2012)' 5.3 HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN ITS DECISION DA TED 26.12.2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORA TION AND ORS IN TAX APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2013, HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE W.R.T . LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI AND HAS HELD T HAT S. 43B WHICH PERMITS A DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS MADE UPTO THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE ROI APPLIES ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND ETC. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION. T HE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYER-ASSESSEE IS D EEMED TO BE INCOME IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS U/S 2(24)(X) AND IF THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT CREDITED THE SAID SUM TO THE EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN THE RELEV ANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO S. 36(1)(VA), THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS OF SUC H AMOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN S. 28 OF THE ACT. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THI S CASE IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. GROUND NO.2 6.1 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH ADDITION OF RS.3,26,932/- AS UNDISCLOSED SALES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED CONTRA CTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.13,96,70,826/- IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. H OWEVER, AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES, THE RECEIPT WAS RS.13,99,97,752/-. TH E DIFFERENCE WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO VA RIOUS CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENC E OF DISCOUNT ALLOWED, AS CLAIMED, IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE C OULD NOT EVEN FURNISH ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - THE BASIC DETAILS LIKE NAME AND ADDRESS, PAN ETC. O F THE PARTIES TO WHOM DISCOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. SINCE, T HE CLAIM OF EXPENSES WAS NOT VERIFIABLE, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER- '1. TOTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT OF RS,13,96,70,826/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. H OWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT RS.3,26,932/ - IS STILL SOUGHT TO BE SHOWN IF COMPARED TO CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS A S PER TDS CERTIFICATES. ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE DIFFE RENCE WITH CORRESPONDING LEDGER OF (HE PARTIES BY EXPLAINING T HAT DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE SAID PARTIES, C ONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT WHICH IS ONLY AT 0.23% OF TOTAL INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE, IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE AMOUNT IS DUE TO DISCOUNT GIVEN. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE STATED SUBMISSION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT IS CONTENDED HEREBY THAT ONLY PROFI T PERCENTAGE OF THE SAID DIFFERENCE CAN BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INC OME. AS PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF 5.01% IS DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE AND AC CEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME RATIO IS A/SO REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OUT OF THE SAID TRANSA CTIONS, IN OTHER WORDS, RS.49,857/- (15.25% OF RS.3,26,932) IS ONLY REQUIRED TO BE ADDED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION WE RELY ON FOLLOW ING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL (CHHOT UBHAI R. PATEL V/S ITO (AHD)(ITA NO. 705/AHD/2012). 3. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IF YOU R HONOR IS NOT CONVINCED WITH ABOVE STATED DETAILED SUBMISSION IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO TELESCOPE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED SALE S OF ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - RS.3,26,932/- WITH THE UNDISCLOSED LABOUR CHARGES O F RS.3,21,855/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED SUBMISSION WE REQUEST YOUR HONOR TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,579/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LATE PAYMENT OF PF AND ADDITION OF RS.3,26,932/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES.' 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD T OTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 13,99,97,752/- AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFF ERED TO TAX ONLY RS. 13,96,70,826/-, CLAIMING THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,26,932/- REPRESENTED DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE CUSTOMERS, HOWEVER, AS NOTE D IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH AN Y EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION AND COULD NOT ESTABLISH T HAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,26,932/- WAS NOT ITS INCOME. NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF THE SAID CONTENTION IS FILED BEFORE ME. THEREFORE, IT IS CLE AR THAT RS. 3,26,932/- IS ASSESSEE'S INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE TO EARN THIS INCOME. SINCE PROFIT RATE TO CALCULATE THE TAXABLE INCOME IS APPLIED WHERE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL EXPENS ES (IN THE SAME PROPORTION) TO EARN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE, AND SINCE AIL THE OTHER EXPENSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSES HAVE B EEN INCURRED, IT IS HELD THAT THE WHOLE OF RS. 3,26,932/- IS ASSESSEE'S UNACCOUNTED INCOME, LIABLE TO BE TAXED. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE DISTINGUISH ABLE, THE SAME IS NOT FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.3,26,932/- WAS U TILIZED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE LABOUR, THEREFORE, TELESCOPING OF T HIS INCOME WITH THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PAYMENTS TO LABOUR CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED AND THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - 7. GROUND NO.3 7.1 THE LAST GROUND OF CHALLENGES DISALLOWANCE OF 10% O F LABOUR EXPENSES, THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.7,75,93,293/- ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES DURING THE YEAR HAVE INCREASED BUT THE TURNOVER HAD GONE DOWN. VERIFICATION OF THE EXPENSE S REVEALED THAT PAYMENT OF RS.32,18,555/- WAS MADE IN CASH AND THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT PROPERTY DATED AND THE SIGNATURES WERE IDENTICAL IN MANY OF THEM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,21,855/- TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUBMISSIO N ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, EXCEPT FOR REQUESTING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,26,932/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME BE TELESCOPED WITH TH IS ADDITION OF RS. 3,21,855/-, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN BENEFIT OF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND THIS ADDITION MAY BE DELETED TO AVOID DOUBLE ADDITION. 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 32,18,855/- WERE MADE TO THE LABOUR AND THE VOU CHERS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT WAS NOT PO SSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DISA LLOW A PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF UNVERIFIABLE NATURE, DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES IS, IN MY VIEW, REASONABLE. I HAVE ALREADY HELD IN PARA 6.3 ABOVE THAT, '... THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O ESTABLISH THAT THIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 3,26,932/- WAS UTILIZED T O MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE LABOUR, THEREFORE, TELESCOPING OF THIS INCOME W ITH THE DISALLOWANCE ON ITA NO.3138/AHD /2014 SHRI H.K. RAMANI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PAYMENTS TO LABOUR CANNOT B E ALLOWED.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE, IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APP EAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL TO THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A) FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED EX-PARTE . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 / 05/2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 05 /2017 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) 8 , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD