M/s. Luthra Dyeing & Printing Mills, Surat V. The DY.CIT., Circle-1, Surat

ITA 3236/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 323620514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR TEKRIWAL SRDR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .. , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3236/AHD/2008 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2003-04) LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PROP.LUTHRA CHEM TEX INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. PLOT NO.252/2, GIDC PANDESARA, SURAT & & & & / VS. THE DEPUTY CIT CIRCLE-1, SURAT ( '# ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 4038 Q ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+/ RESPONDENT ) (+ . '/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, SR.ADV. WITH JAIMIN GANDHI ,-(+ / . ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. &0 / #/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 13/03/2012 12' / # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/4/12 '3/ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, SURAT DAT ED 15/07/2008 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2003-04. THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFOR E US ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE LEVYING OF PENALTY OF RS .17,21,775/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.46,85,104/- MADE ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 2 - ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS. 2) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE PENALTY CON FIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) MAY PLE ASE BE DELETED. 3) THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR GRANTING SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MAY BE DEEMED JUST AND PROPER BY YOUR HONOURS CONSIDERING THE FAC TUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DE LETE, SUBSTITUTE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF GROUNDS OF APPE AL. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDIN G PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 14 /03/2008 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S.143(3) DATED 17/03/2006 W ERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRO CESSING OF FABRICS I.E. DYEING AND PRINTING ON JOB-WORK BASIS. WHILE FINA LIZING THE ASSESSMENT, AN ADDITION OF RS.46,85,104/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS. VALUE OF THE WO RK-IN-PROGRESS WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.29.49 LACS. IT WAS STATED TO BE T HE COST OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE B ASIS OF THE SAID VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE WORKING OF THE WIP AS UNDER:- TABLE A VALUATION OF WIP METERS RATE (RS.) VALUE (RS.) SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS LYING AT VARIOUS STAGES UNDER WASHING, SCOURING, BLEACHING, ETC. 1433850.50 0.85 12,18,773 SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS LYING AT VARIOUS STAGES UNDER PRINTING TOTAL. 532573.35 1966423.85 3.25 17,30,863 29,49,636 ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 3 - 2.1. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE BASIS OF METERS ADOPTED AND THE BASIS OF RATES ADOPTED COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID QUERY, A GAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A DETAILED WORKING OF WIP, WHEREIN FURNIS HED THE DETAILS OF THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMED, DETAILS OF TOTAL PRODUCTION AND THEN ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF COST OF PRODUCTION AS WELL AS FURNISHED T HE QUANTITY OF SEMI- PROCESSED GOODS LYING AT VARIOUS STAGES, SUCH AS, W ASHING STAGE, WR STAGE, BLEACHING STAGE, ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE QUANTITY OF SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS UNDER PRINTING. FOR THE SA KE OF BREVITY, THAT CHART AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE NOT REPRODUCED. IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS ABOUT THE METERS UNDER PROCESS AT DIFFERENT STAGES AND ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS OF THE COSTING AT EACH STAGE. STILL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT TABLES, REFERRED AS TABLE-A AND TABLE- B. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THEREAFTER WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE VALUATION SHOWN IN THE SAID TWO DIFFERENT TABLES IN THE FOLLO WING MANNER:- SR.NO. PARTICULARS TABLE-A (RS.) TABLE-B (RS.) DIFF. (RS.) 1. SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS UNDER PROCESS OF WASHING, SCOURING, ETC. 12,18,773 12,21,220 2,447 2. SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS UNDER PROCESS OF VARIOUS STAGES OF PRINTING 17,30,863 29,49,636 17,23,397 29,44,617 7,466 5,019 ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 4 - 2.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THEN DISCUSSED AN AN OTHER CASE AND HELD THAT IN THE SAID LIGHT OF BUSINESS THE METHOD OF WO RKING OUT THE VALUE OF WIP IS @ 50% OF THE COST OF MANUFACTURING. ACCORDI NG TO ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE SIMILAR TYPE OF BUSINESS THE VALUE OF THE WIP WAS DISCLOSED @ 50 % OF THE COSTING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THEREAFTER WORKED OUT THE UNDERSTATED VALUE OF WIP AS FOLLOWS:- - TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION = RS.7.76 - 50% THEREOF = RS.3.88 - FABRICS UNDER PROCESS = 19,66,423 METERS - VALUE OF WIP (1966423 X 3.88) = RS.76,29,721/- - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE = RS.29,445617/- - EXTENT OF UNDERSTATED = RS.46,85,104/- 3. THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AN D FINALLY THE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NOS.500 AND 3880/AH D/2007 FOR A.YS. 2003-04 & 2004-05 TITLED AS LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. ACIT AND ITA NOS.514 & 3875/AHD/2007 FOR A.YS.2003 -04 & 2004-05 TITLED AS THE DCIT VS. LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MI LLS VIDE ORDER DATED 29/04/2010 HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS WAS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINA TE BENCH FOR A.Y. 2003-04, THERE WERE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF AN ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT AND AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCTI ON OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ARRIVED AT T HE CONCLUSION THAT, QUOTE HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE O9THER ADDITIONS ON ACCOUN T OF GROSS PROFIT, BOGUS PURCHASES AND PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE SAME ADDITIONS ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 5 - BECAUSE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER-VALUA TION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS WOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL THESE ADDIT IONS. THE ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT WOULD BE PART OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HIGHER ADDITION IS ALREADY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS. UNQUOTE. WHILE LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE COMPUTATION OF THE VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VEHEMENT CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT A DETAILED EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AND ACCORDING TO THE SAID EXPLANATION THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION AT DIFFERENT STAGES WE RE TAKEN ON APPROXIMATE BASIS BASED UPON THE PAST EXPERIENCE OF THE BUSINESS AND THAT METHOD WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM LAST 25 YEARS. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE MOVEMENT OF THE GREY CLOTH DURING THE PROCESS WAS NOTED IN THE JOB CARDS BUT THOSE JOB CA RDS BEING INTERNAL RECORDS COULD NOT BE PRESERVED. IT WAS ALSO INFORM ED THAT THE JOB CARDS WERE IN RESPECT OF EACH PROGRAMME AND THEY WERE NUM EROUS IN NUMBER AND PRESERVED TILL THE INVOICES WERE GENERATED. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED AND SINCE THE ADDITION WAS CONFIR MED AT THAT STAGE BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HENCE LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 4. WITH THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT LENGTH. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LD.AR H AS PLACED RELIANCE OF AN ORDER OF ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF DC IT VS. M/S.AMEEN SILK MILLS LTD. BEARING ITA NO.2565/AHD/2 010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 08/04/2011, CIT VS. H.P.STATE FOREST CORPN.LTD. 202 TAXMAN 422 (HIMACHAL PRADESH), CIT VS. PIONEER BREE DING FARMS 295 ITR 78 (MAD.), CIT VS. RUDRAPPAN & CO. 147 ITR 204 (MAD.) AND ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 6 - LAKSHMI JEWELLERY 171 ITR 646 (A.P.). ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED- SUPRA THROUGH WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS CONFI RMED. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE OF CIT VS. CHANDRAVILAS HOTEL 291 I TR 202 (GUJ.), A.M.SHAH & CO. VS. CIT 238 ITR 415 (GUJ.) AND ACIT VS. SMT. CHANDRAKANTA 205 ITR 607 (M.P.). 5. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN REVEALED THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING WIP AT RS.29,46,636/- AND THAT VALUATION WAS BASED UPON THE METHOD CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE PAST SO MANY YEARS. AS AGAINST THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ATLEAST 50% OF THE COST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS THE VALUE OF THE WIP. BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS HELD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE AT RS.7.76 ATLEAST 50% OF THE SAME, I.E. RS.3,88 SHOULD BE APPLIED ON THE FABRICS UNDER PROCESS. AS FAR AS THE FABRICS UNDER PROCESS; AS T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MEASURING 1966423 METERS, NO SPECIFIC OBJEC TION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MEANING THEREBY THE QUANTIT Y OF SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS LYING AT VARIOUS STAGES OF WASHING, BLEACHING AND THE QUANTITY OF SEMI-PROCESSED GOODS LYING AT VARIOUS STAGES OF PRI NTING HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS SHOWN I N THE ABOVE REPRODUCED CHART (TABLE A) AT 1966423 METERS. AN ANOTHER ASPECT IS ABOUT THE COST OF PRODUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 7.76 METERS AND THAT TOO WAS NOT OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE VALUED THE WIP @ 50% OF THE COST OF PRODUCTION. HE HAS ADOPTED TH E RATE OF 50% BY ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 7 - QUOTING CERTAIN OTHER CASES BUT THE FACTS AND REASO NS OF THOSE CASES WHETHER SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO T BEEN DELIBERATED UPON IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOR THOSE F ACTS OF THE COMPARABLE INSTANCES WERE DISCUSSED WHILE LEVYING T HE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. AS FAR AS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE STAGE-WISE DETAIL S OF THE QUANTITY IN METERS OF THE CLOTH WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, THE METERS WERE SH OWN ON APPROXIMATE BASIS BUT THOSE FIGURES IN METERS HAVE STATED TO BE TALLIED WITH THE TOTAL PRODUCTION AND THE OTHER RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-PRODUCTION OF JOB CARD S. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THOSE JOB CARDS, HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SAID INTERNAL RECORD C OULD NOT BE PRESERVED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT THIS FACT CAN ALSO NOT BE OVE RLOOKED THAT REST OF THE RECORD WAS DULY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIGURES OF THE PRODUCTION HAVE TALLIED WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY ADOPTING AN ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSIT ION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION I N RESPECT OF THE BASIS AND THE METHOD OF DISCLOSURE OF VALUE OF WIP AND TH AT METHOD WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE OR THE ASSESSEE HAS AC TED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ALSO INDIC ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS A GUILTY OF CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT OR A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION TO FURNISH THE PAST AVA ILABLE RECORD FOR FILING OF INCOME-TAX RETURN. BONA FIDE OF AN ASSESSEE, AS IN DICATED IN EXPLANATION-1(B) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS ALWAYS A Q UESTION OF FACT OF EACH ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 8 - CASE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL ASPECT, THE TRIB UNAL HAS IN THE CASE OF M/S.AMEEN SILK MILLS LTD.(SUPRA) HAS PLACED RELIANC E ON CIT VS. J.H. PARABIA (TRANSPORT) PVT.LTD. 284 ITR 361 (GUJ.) AND THEREAFTER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED THE SAM E METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, HENCE IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE A BONA FIDE BELIEF ABOUT THE TRUTHFULNESS OF I TS ACCOUNTS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF H.P.STATE FOREST CORPN.LTD.(SUPRA), THE HON 'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION, QUOTE THE WORD INACCURATE AS USED IN THE ACT WOULD MEAN SOMETHIN G WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR NOT CORRECT. SOMETHING WHIC H IS UNTRUE IS INACCURATE. THE SAME FACTS CAN BE GIVEN TWO INTERP RETATIONS. IF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN IS PLAUSIBLE, THOUGH NOT ACCEP TED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE STATEMENT OF PARTICULAR IS SO INACCURATE OR ERRONEOUS AS TO INVITE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNQUOTE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT IT WAS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUDGED THE AMOUNTS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR TRIED TO CREATE FALSE EVIDENCE. AS FAR AS THE DECI SIONS CITED BY THE LD.DR ARE CONCERNED, THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES HAVE INDICA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PARTICULARS AND FURNISHED INCORR ECT INCOME. IN ONE OF THE CASES, AN APPARENT DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS DETECTED AND ON THAT BASIS IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS UNTRU E DISCLOSURE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF THE FALSI TY IN THE FIGURES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY WAS UPHELD. THAT WAS THE CASE OF RECORDING OF BOGUS PURCHASES AS WELL AS NON-RECORDI NG OF SALES AND WHEN THAT CAME TO THE LIGHT TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, T HEN THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED AND THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. LIKEWISE, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2008 LUTHRA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 9 - CHANDRAVILAS HOTEL(SUPRA) HAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A GROSS AND WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALS O NOTED THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PERSISTENTLY MAINTAINED INCO RRECT AND INCOMPLETE ACCOUNTS. AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER, THE PENALTY WA S LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF THE VARY FACTS OF THOSE CASES UNDER SUCH PECULIA R CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE THE REASON ASSIGNED THEREIN BY THE HONBL E COURTS CANNOT BE GENERALIZED AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT APPLY ON THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN HAND. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERIN G THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY EXONERATE THIS APPELLANT FROM THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. SD/- S D/- ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13 / 4 /2012 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 49: ,& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <0 / GUARD FILE. '3& '3& '3& '3& / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY // = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD