Enrich Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 3322/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63252 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: K P SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3322/AHD/2010 & 835/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ENRICH INDUSTRIES LIMITED 105, SHAJANAND COMPLEX, C. G. ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S . ITO, WARD 4(1), AHMADABAD. PAN NO. A AACE4174E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI K. P. SHAH, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI Y.P. VERMA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 01.11.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.12.2012 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL FOR QUANTUM ADDITION FOR A.Y. 06-07 IN ITA NO.3322/AHD/2010 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XX , AHMEDABAD, ORDER DATED 16.09.2010 AND APPEAL FOR PENALTY FOR A.Y. 06 -07 IN ITA NO.835/AHD/2011 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD, DATED 25.01.2011. BOTH APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF ITA NO.3322/AHD/2010 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 ON 16/09/2012 FOR A.Y . 2006-07 BY CIT(A)-XX, AHMADABAD, ENHANCING THE IMPUGNED DISALL OWANCES ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 2 MADE BY THE AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAI NST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 251 OF THE ACT EMPOWERED HIM TO ENHANCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS TO RS.46,2 4,380/- AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,09,826/- MADE BY AO. 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,63,390/- BEING THE LOSS INCURRED ON DISPOSAL/DELISTING OF INVESTMENTS. 4.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.46,24,380/-. 5.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE IRRECOVERABLE LOANS ADVANCED IN NO RMAL CAUSE OF BUSINESS WAS CAPITAL LOSS WHICH WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. 5.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED TO BE A BUSINESS CARRIED ON WITHOUT VALID LICENSE OF RBI, THE LOSS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT ADVANCED IN COURSE OF SUCH BUSINESS WAS A TRADING LOSS U/S 28/29 OF THE ACT AN D AS SUCH ADMISSIBLE. GROUNDS OF ITA NO.835/AHD/2011 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) XX, AHMADABAD, GROSSL Y ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.15,26,045 /- U/S 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LEVYING PE NALTY WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR APPLICABILI TY OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) 3. (I) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN REJECT ING THE LEGAL ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 3 PRECEDENT THAT NO CASE FOR LEVYING PENALTY CAN BE MADE OUT WHEN TWO OPINIONS WERE ARRIVED AT ON THE SAME FACTS AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION 166 ITR 29 (CAL.) (II) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN REJECTI NG THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.46,24,380/- BY RELYING ON DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION EVENTHOUGH THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VII). 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPREC IATING LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT VIDE LETTER DT. 20.01.2011. AND THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY EX PLANATION OR DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. ITA NO.3322/AHD/2010 (APPEAL FOR QUANTUM) 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE , THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NOS. 2.1, 4.1 & 5.2 OF QUANTUM APPEAL ARE AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS AT RS.46,24,380/- MADE BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED BAD DEBTS AT RS.46,24,380 /- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE HAD W RITTEN OFF RS.46,24,380/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS BAD DEBT IRRECOVERABLE. BU T, ON VERIFICATION, THE LD. A.O. FOUND THAT IN CASE OF PARI MANHARLAL AMRUTLAL, THE APPELLANT HAD WRITTEN OF RS. 11,35,338/-. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO PARI MANHARLAL AMRUTLAL IN PAST. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY COPY OF AGREEMENT TO THE A.O., T HE APPELLANT FILED THE COURT ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 4 SUIT AGAINST THE LOANEE, WHICH WAS STILL PENDING IN THE COURT. THE A.O. HELD THAT THIS LOAN WAS NOT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF B USINESS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, HE DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT CLAIMED OF RS. 11,35,338/-. FURTHER, HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT CLAIMED IN THE NAME OF RAVI INDUSTRIES AT RS. 74,448/-, WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE APPELLANT HAD NOT ABLE TO ESTABL ISH THAT THIS LOAN WAS GIVEN IN EARLIER YEAR BY IT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMADABAD, WHO NOT ONL Y CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BUT ENHANCED THE ADDITION UP TO RS. 46,24, 380/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT INDULGE IN THE B USINESS OF MONEY LENDING, UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED AS A NON-BANKING FINANCE CO MPANY WITH R.B.I. THE APPELLANT HAD LICENSE FOR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, B UT WHICH WAS CANCELLED BY THE R.B.I. IN THE YEAR 1999. HE ALSO GAVE REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE CLAIM O F BAD DEBT AMOUNT TO RS.46,24,380/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK SINCE AFTER 1999 GIVING AND TAKING OF LOAN COULD NOT BE THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. F URTHER, BAD DEBT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL WRITTEN OFF. THE APPELLANT F ILED THE REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 10.09.2010 WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, HE MADE DETAILED DISCUSSION FROM PAGE NOS.5 TO 16 AND HAS HELD AS UNDER: (I) POWER U/S. 251 FOR ENHANCEMENT ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 5 (II) THE A.O. HAD MADE ERROR BY DISALLOWING ONLY 12 ,09,826/- INSTEAD OF RS. 46,24,380/- (III) THE CIT(A) HAD POWER TO CONSIDER THE MATTER N OT ONLY ARISING OUT OF APPEAL PROCEEDING. OTHERWISE, ALSO BECAUSE IT WAS HELD IN CASE OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE, 53 ITR 225 (SC), THAT CIT(A) HAS CO-TERMINOUS POWERS WITH THOSE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (IV) AS PER SECTION 36(2), THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM B AD DEBTS, IF THE MONEY WAS LENT OUT BY HIM IN ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BANKI NG OR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CARRIED ON. (V) THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, IN CASE OF COMPANY IS GOVERNED BY R.B.I. ACT, 1934 AND GUJARAT MONEY LENDING ACT, FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED UNDER BOTH THE ACTS. (VI) IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION, THE APPELLANT CAN BE PENALIZED UNDER BOTH THE ACTS AND THE ASSESSEES FAULT IS PUNISHABLE WIT H IMPRISONMENT. IT IS VIOLATION OF EXPLANATION BUT SECTION 37(1), WHEREIN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ILLEGAL BUSINESS IS NOT ALLOWABLE. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) HAS CO-TERMINUS POWER WITH TH E A.O. BUT ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME U/S. 251 IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE WHO LE BAD DEBT IS ALLOWABLE U/S.36 (2) OF THE IT ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT N O VALID LICENSE IS REQUIRED FOR DOING FINANCE BUSINESS BY THE COMPANY. THUS, THE B AD DEBT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME ON THESE LOA NS, THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE PAST. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN IN MEMORANDUM OF ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 6 ASSOCIATION, LEASING, FINACE AND TRADING BUSINESS A S PER PAGE NOS. 82 AND 92 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. DR VEHEM ENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE INTERES T INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION WHEN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS NOT RECOVERED IN CASE OF FINANCE BUSINESS, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CLAIMED A S BUSINESS LOSS UNDER HEAD BAD DEBT AS INCOME EARNED ON PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SHO WN BUSINESS INCOME. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS, IN CASE OF AJAR ENTRADE (P.) LTD. V. ACIT 2 SOT 511 (TAHD) AND ITAT, DELHI A BENCH IN CASE OF DCIT VS. SREI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. IN ITA NOS. 4643 & 4881/ DEL/2003 FOR A.Y. 2000-01, WHEREIN ANY ADVANCES MADE BY THE NBFC BECOME IRRECO VERABLE AS HELD ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT. LEASING AND FINANCE BUSINES S INCOME IS BUSINESS INCOME. THUS, WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL, ON ALL THREE GROUNDS, ARE ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NOS. 3.1 & 5.1 OF QUANTUM APPEAL ARE AGAI NST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,63,390/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 06-07 ON 29.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.5,35,007/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 132( 2) OF THE IT ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 04.10.2007. ON VERIFICATION OF P&L ACCOUNT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF COMPUTER OF RS. 43,826/- AND LOS S ON SALE OF INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,63,371/- WAS DEBITED. THE A.O. GA VE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 7 OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENT WAS ASSESSED LOSS FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH WAS NOT ALL OWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. THUS, LOSS ALLOWED TO BE CARR Y FORWARDED AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN IN FUTURE AT RS.1,63,390/-. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., THE ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING T HE ASSESSEES REPLY, HE FOUND THAT LOSS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL ASSETS NO T STOCK IN TRADE IN SHARES. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT AS PER A.OS. ORDER FOR A.Y. 06-07 B USINESS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AND FINANCE. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTIO N TO THE ORDER OF A.Y. 02- 03 AT PAGE NOS. 82, 84 & 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND C LAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FIANC BUSINESS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THI S LOSS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DE- LISTING OF SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. AT THE OUTSE T, LD. SR. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) & A.O. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN IN PAST THESE SHAR ES AS INVESTMENT. NOW, HE DE-LISTED AND ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCO ME AND LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF SHARES INVESTMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF CON SIDERED VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THE AS SESSEES APPEAL, ON BOTH GROUNDS, IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 835/AHD/2011 (APPEAL FOR PENALTY) 11. THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITIONS UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 8 I. LOSS ON COMPUTER SALE : RS.43,826/- II. BAD DEBT : RS. 11,35,338/- III. BAD DEBT : RS.74,448/- AND PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED FOR FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALING INCOME. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO HAS ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.34,14,554/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) IN HIS ENHANCEMENT ORDER DATED 16.09.2010 AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR 28.10.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND FINALLY, HE FI LED REPLY ON 30.11.2010 VIDE LETTER DATED 21.11.2010, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [322 ITR 158 (SC)], WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY THE CIT(A). THE APPELLANT HAD OBTA INED LICENSE FOR THE FINANCING BUSINESS FROM R.B.I., WHICH WAS CANCELLED IN 1999. AS PER OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CIT(A), HE COULD NOT CARRY ON THIS BUSINESS. HE ALSO RECOVERED THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF R.B.I. ACT AND ALSO GUJARAT MONEY LENDING ACT IN PENALTY ORDER. THE APPELLANT FURTHE R RELIED UPON IN CASE OF COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION VS. ITO, 146 CTR 250 ( SC), DEPUTY CIT VS. SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (2010) 5 ITR (RTIB.) 1 (MUMBAI) (SB), T.R.F. LTD. VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), CIT VS. STAR CHEMICAL (BOM BAY) PVT. LTD. 313 ITR 126 & DIT(INTERNATIONAL) VS. OMAN INTERNAITONAL BAN K 313 ITR 128 (BOMBAY). ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFI LLED OTHER CONDITIONS U/S. 36(1)(VII). THEREFORE, HE IMPOSED 100% PENALTY OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 9 EVADED ON ADDITION OF RS.46,24,380/- AT RS.15,26,04 5/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 13. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT FILED PAPER BOOK AND RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASES: I. CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. II. CIT VS. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPN. [1986] 28 TAXMAN 530 (CAL.) III. ITAT D BENCH, AHMADABAD, DECISION IN CASE OF SHRI JAYENDRA G SONI IN ITAT NO. 3250/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 1993-94, AND CON TENDED THAT A MERE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING O N DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE MERE REJECTI ON OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RENDER THE EXPLANATION FALSE, WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED, IS A PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN ENUNCIATED IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P.K. NARAYANAN [1999] 238 ITR 905 (KER.). SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IJN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION (SUPRA). AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN QUANTUM APPEAL. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN D ELETED BY THIS BENCH ON THE BASIS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF T.R.F. LTD. (SUPRA). THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DEBATABLE, H AD TWO OPINION. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) I.E. THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM IS FALSE AND NOT ITA NOS. 3322/AHD/10 & 835/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 10 APPLICABLE. THUS, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF HE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR QUANTUM IN ITA NO.3322/AHD/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR P ENALTY IN ITA NO.835/AHD/2011 IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2012 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;