Shri Amrishbhai H.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 315/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0366 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.315/AHD/2011 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 AMRISHBHAI H. PATEL 58, SHANKER SOCIETY-1 NARANPURA AHMEDABAD. PAN : ALCPP 9045 P VS ITO, WARD - 9(4) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRITESH SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH SOLANKI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/09/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A )-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.12.2010 PASSED FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2007-08. 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL, VIDE W HICH, HE HAS IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.32,00,000/- AND RS.13,72,5 00/- MADE BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED HIS RETURN ON 13.7.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,83,560/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.7.2008. THE LD.AO H AS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM AIR WING EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA. ACCORDING LY, HE INITIATED AN ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 2 INQUIRY. ON SCRUTINY OF THE BANK STATEMENT IT REVE ALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.27 LAKHS TO NINE P ERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HIS MATERNAL UNCLE VIZ. RAMESHBHAI MOTIBH AI PATEL IS AN NRI HAVING UK CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDING IN LONDON. HE HAS DEPO SITED NRE DEPOSITS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITH BANK OF BARODA, PIPLAV BRANCH , TALUKA ANAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN AFTER TAKING MONEY FROM HIS MATERNAL UNCLE TO 9 PERSONS. PERIOD OF LOAN RANGES BETWEEN 5 DAYS TO 2 13 DAYS. DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ITSELF ALL THE MONIES HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS SQUARED UP THE ACCOUNTS. THE A SSESSEE HAS COMPILED THESE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM AND PLACED BEFORE ME ON PAG E NO.149. (COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A WITH THIS ORDER). THE LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.32 LAKHS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED HIS CONTE NTIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AO. BUT, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, CONCURRED WITH THE AO. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAV E GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO 9 PERSONS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, AND THESE LOA NS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK. THUS, ADDITION OF RS.27LAKHS DESERVES NOT BE CONFIRMED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CONFIRM ATION, BECAUSE, THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR ITS ELF, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTION, AS THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE FACTS BR OUGHT TO MY NOTICE, I DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDING RECOR DED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITH ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 3 REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSA CTION IS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH-3 AND 4 READ AS UNDER: 3. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES OF THESE PERSONS - SH RI MUKESHBHAI, GIRISHBHAI, VIKRAM GOHIL, VINUBHAI, HEMENDRABHAI PA TEL, PANKAJBHAI, J.B. GOHIL, BJ.GOHIL, KAUSHIK A. PATEL - ARE NOT CO NFIRMED COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS. SECONDLY, THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDI A ACCOUNT NO.SB-44 OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT SHOW DEPOSITS THROUGH CHE QUES RATHER THE ENTRIES ARE MENTIONED AS VC TYPE WHICH MEANS A TYPE OF DEMAND DRAFT. FOR INSTANCE THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MUKESHBHAI SHOWS THAT RS.4,00,000 WAS PAID TO MUKESHBHAI ON 4.7.2006 BY THE APPELLANT . THE CENTRAL BANK ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT SHOWS THE NAME MUKESH APP EARING IN THE ACCOUNT ON 4.7.2006 AND THE PAYMENT TO HIM THROUGH CHEQUE, MENTIONED AS CH IN THE BANK STATEMENT. NOW THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MUKESHBHAI SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000 WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIM ON 8.11.2006. THE ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MENTION ED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT CHEQUE WAS RECEI VED FROM MUKESHBHAI, BUT THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THAT ON 8. 11.2006 THERE WAS VC DEPOSIT OF RS.2.00.000, NO NAME APPEARS IN THE N ARRATION. SAME IS WITH ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000 APPEARING ON 9. 11.2006 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH ENTR IES THE AO IN MY VIEW WAS VERY RIGHT IN ASKING FOR CONFIRMATIONS OF THE P ERSONS LIKE MUKESHBHAI ETC. BECAUSE THE DEPOSITS THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS ARE AS GOOD AS CASH DEPOSITS, THE APPELLANT HAD TO PROVE T HAT THE DEPOSITS WERE FROM THE SAME PERSONS TO WHOM HE IS STATING TO HAVE GIVEN ADVANCES. THIS ONUS CAST UPON THE APPELLANT OF PROVING THE ID ENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS HAS NOT BEEN D ISCHARGED. 4. ABOVE ALL THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS HAS NO T BEEN PROVED BECAUSE WHY SHOULD ADVANCES GIVEN FOR SCHOOL AND HO TEL EXPENSES BE REFUNDED BACK TO THE APPELLANT ? THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY. CENTRAL BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPEL LANT DOES NOT PROVE THE THEORY OF REPAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT BY SHRI MU KESHBHAI, GIRISHBHAI, VIKRAM GOHIL, VINUBHAI, HEMENDRABHAI PA TEL, PANKAJBHAI, J.B. GOHIL, B.J.GOHIL, KAUSHIK A. PATEL ETC. REFERENCE IS INVITED TO THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT GIVEN TO THE AO REPRODUCED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THU S WHEREVER THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE AMOUNTS (TOTALING TO RS .27,00,000) AS ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 4 RECEIVED BACK FROM THE PERSONS NAMED IN THE TABLE - SHRI MUKESHBHAI, GIRISHBHAI, VIKRAM GOHIL, VINUBHAI, HEMENDRABHAI PA TEL, PANKAJBHAI, J.B. GOHIL, B.J.GOHIL, KAUSHIK A. PATEL - THE ADDIT ION IS UPHELD AS IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS (VCS) AS OBVIOUS FROM ACTUAL BANK STATEMENT WERE RE CEIVED BACK FROM THE SAME PERSONS. THOUGH IN THE REPLY IT HAS BEEN I NFORMED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BACK THROUGH CHEQUES THE TRUT H IS THAT VCS I.E. SUBSTITUTE OF DEMAND DRAFTS WERE DEPOSITED. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATIONS GENUINENESS OF THE BANK DEPOSITS DOES NOT STAND PROVED. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET ME EXAMINE DETAIL S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TABULAR FORM. FIRST AMOUNT WHICH WA S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A SUM OF RS.4.00 LAKHS. IT WAS GIVEN TO SHRI MUKES HBHAI ON 4.7.2006. THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN THROUGH CHEQUE NO.44430. AS FAR A S ADVANCEMENT OF THIS LOAN IS CONCERNED, THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE MUCH OF DIS PUTE, BUT THE LD.CIT(A) DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF RS.4.00 LAKHS. TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUE NO.3196 AND 3199. I HAVE PERUSED THE ALLEGED BANK STATEMENT AV AILABLE AT PAGE NOS.39 AND 42, 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE PAGE NO .42 WOULD INDICATE THAT A SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE ON 8.11.2006. IN THE BANK STATEMENT UNDER THE HEAD PARTICULARS OCLG IS BEING MENTIONED. UNDER THE HEADING TYPE VC IS BEING MENTIONED. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSTRUED THE MEANING OF THIS TRANSAC TION. ACCORDING THE LD.CIT(A), VC TYPE MEANS A TYPE OF DEMAND DRAFT . THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT BANK STATEMENT IS BEING PREPARED IN S UCH A MANNER WHICH HAS GIVEN AN IMPRESSION THAT MUKESH HAS ISSUED A BANK D RAFT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IT IS NOT CLEAR. NAME OF THE MUKES H IS NO WHERE DISCERNIBLE. UNDER THIS SITUATION, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXPECTED CO NFIRMATION FROM MUKESHBHAI. AFTER ANALYSING THIS FLAW, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT COMPLETE DETAILS ABOUT ITS ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH 9 PERSONS. ALMOST SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO OTHER LOANEE. ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 5 8. AS FAR AS THE LOAN OF RS.5 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT IT WAS RECEIVED FROM HER MATERNAL AUNT, AND IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF PRAYED THAT IT CAN BE SENT FOR VERIFICATION AT LEVEL OF THE AO. BEFORE ME, A REFERENCE WAS MADE T O THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALKABEN TEJPAL PATWA & ORS. VS. ITO AND SHRI SA NJEEV KERJIWALA VS. ITO, KOLKATA (COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS OF THE TRIB UNAL HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD). SIMILARLY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SUDHIRBHAI PRAVINKANT T HAKER VS. ITO. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THESE DECISIONS, BUT THEY ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SUCH DRA WING OF INFERENCE FROM THE DECISIONS WOULD COME WHEN THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A) AN ATTEMPT IS BEING MADE TO MISLEAD INCOM E-TAX AUTHORITIES BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK THR OUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE F ACTS THAT ACCOUNTS OF PAYEES WERE DEBITED WHILE ISSUING CHEQUE/DRAFT IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE, AND WHOSE NUMBERS ARE SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. THERE IS NO CLAR ITY ABOUT THE ACCOUNTS FROM WHERE SUCH CHEQUES/DRAFTS WERE ISSUED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT COPIES OF BANK S TATEMENTS, FROM WHERE THESE ALLEGED 9 PERSONS HAVE EITHER ISSUED CHEQUES OR OBTAINED BANK DRAFT. IT SHOULD CLEARLY EMERGE OUT THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THES E PERSONS HAVE BEEN DEBITED BEFORE THE AMOUNTS ARE BEING CREDITED IN TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THES E LOANEES, OTHERWISE, THE AO WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO DRAW INFERENCE ACCORDING T O THE LAW. THE LD.AO SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 6 10. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.13,72,500/- IS CON CERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE CASH FROM BANK AND SAME WAS RE- DEPOSITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO REA DS AS UNDER: SOURCES OF SAID CASH DEPOSITS: RS. 7,00,000/- OPENING CASH ON HAND AS ON 1/4/06 B .O.B. BOPAL A/C OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL ON 28/03/06 BY CH. NO. 919276 RS. 9,00,000/- (COPY OF LEDGER A/C BANK STATEMENT SUBMI TTED H/2, COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR F.Y. 2005-06 ALSO SUBMIT TED TO VERIFY BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE). RS. 2,70,000/- CASH DEPOSITED BY A.M. PATEL OUT OF HIS CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM B.O.B. BOPAL A/C ON 28/03/06 BY CH. NO. 919275 RS. 9.00.000/- . THE COPY OF HIS LEDGER A/C FOR F.Y. 20 05-06 SUBMITTED H/W TO VERIFY BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE. RS. 5,06,500/- OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWD RS. 5,46,125/- FROM B.O.B B OPAL (SAME A/C). THE COPY OF CASH A/C BANK STATEMENT SUB MITTED H/W. RS. 14,76,500/- TOTAL DEPOSIT FURTHER OVER AND ABOVE, I HAVE ALSO WITHDRAWED CASH FROM B.O.B. BOPAL A/C FOR EXPENSES AND REMAINING ON HAND ALSO. THE COPY AMRIS H H. PATEL CURRENT A/C FOR F.Y. 2006-07 ALSO SUBMITTED H/W IN WHICH CASH WITHD RAWALS FROM BANK A/C SHOWN. IN SHORT CASH DEPOSITED ARE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS ON DIFFERENT DATES AND WHOLE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM R.M. PATEL A/C FROM MARCH - 06 ONWARDS. THE BANK STATEMENTS OF B.O.B. BOPAL/CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, B OPAL TOGETHER WITH CONTRA BANK STATEMENTS OF B.O.B, PIPLAV OF R.M. PATEL ALREADY S UBMITTED, WHICH ARE EVIDENCES ON RECORD. THERE WERE NO UNACCOUNTED CASH. THEREFOR E YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO MAKE ADDITIONS OF RS.13,72,500/-. 11. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD.AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BUT THE SAME ARE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AS THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED PROPERTY | ALONG WITH NECESSARY PROOF. MOREOVER, IN ASSESSEE'S REPLY THAT HIS MAIN SOURCE ARE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS REDEPOSIT'S IN CASH IN HIS S.B ACCOUNT IS NOT FOUND CONVINCING ONE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK CLAIMED TO HAVE EXPENSES FOR T HE HOTEL AND SCHOOL AND HOW CAN HE REDEPOSIT THE SAME AMOUNT INTO HIS BANK ACCO UNT. THE CASH BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT FOUND FULLY E XPLANATORY ONE AS NOTHING IS MENTIONED ABOUT THE SOURCE AGAINST THE MAJOR PART O F CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE FROM CASH WITHDRAWALS IS NOT CONVINCING ONE OR SUPPORTED WITH ANY EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN BOTH ACCOUNTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED ONLY DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS WITHOUT TH E SOURCE THEREOF. ITA NO.315/AHD/2011 7 3.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT A SSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON WHICH AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED OUT OF HIS . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS REMAINED UNEXPLAIN ED. I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT 13,72,500/- CASH DEPOSITED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS HIS INCOME OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E U/S.68 OF THE IT. ACT. I SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALED INCOME THEREFORE, INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT. 12. THE LD.AO HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BA NK ACCOUNT FOR MEETING HOTEL AND SCHOOL EXPENSES. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE IS A MANAGING DIRECTOR OF AMITAS HOTEL AND RESTAURANT PVT. LTD. AND HE IS ON E OF THE TRUSTEES OF NIRMAL MATHA EDUCATION TRUST, BUT THE LD.AO HAS NOT BROUGH T ANY MATERIAL ON THE RECORD THAT DURING THIS VERY PERIOD, EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN THE SCHOOL OR IN THE HOTEL, WHICH WERE INCURRED OUT OF THE WITHDRAWA LS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FUNDS WHICH WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK, AND HIS CLAIM IS THAT HE H AS RE-DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS. THEN, SUCH SOURCES CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED M ERELY ON SIMPLE LOGIC THAT THESE AMOUNTS MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE SCHOOL OR IN THE HOTEL. IT IS ONLY PASSING REMARKS AT THE END OF THE AO WITHOUT S UBSTANTIATING IT. THEREFORE, I ALLOW SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, AND DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,72,500/-. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/09/2016