The ITO, Ward - 3(3)(8), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Atmiya Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

ITA 3339/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5743 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3339/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ITO WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE 3 RD FLOOR, SANIDHYA, OPP. ANAND NAGAR, 100FT. ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN NO. AAFRA9848H ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING 03.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.04.2021 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DA TED 27.03.2014 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-9(2), AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 2. THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,00,000/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE US. 3. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. ON 31.12.2009 AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN ONE SHRI DEEPAKKUMAR VADILAL PATEL AND M/S. VADILAL MAGANLAL & CO. WITH A COMPANY NAMELY TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (TIPL) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KEYUR BABULAL MODI FOR SELLING OF TWO PLOTS OF LAND LYING AND SITUATED AT SURVEY NOS. 1712 & 1713 ADMEA SURING ABOUT 6186 SQ. MTRS. AND 708 SQ. MTRS. RESPECTIVELY AT BAVLA F OR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,14,82,000/- WHEREUPON THE SAID TRIPADA INF RASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. COMPANY PAID A CASH OF RS. 1 LAKH TO THE SELLERS AN D FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS TO THE SELLERS BETWEEN 09.06.2010 TO 31 .07.2010. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID COMPANY CONVEYED THE SELL ERS ITS UNWILLINGNESS TO PURCHASE THE SAID LANDS AND THEN T HE APPELLANT CAME INTO THE PICTURE AS THE INTENDING PURCHASER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES. AS A RESULT, A NEW TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BEING BANAKHAT DATED 07. 09.2010 WAS ENTERED INTO AND EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SAID SELLERS NAMELY S HRI DEEPAKKUMAR VADILAL PATEL AND M/S. VADILAL MAGANLAL & CO. AND T HE APPELLANT M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE AS THE PURCHASER. TRIPADA IN FRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN MADE A CONFIRMING PARTY TO THE SAID TRIPAR TITE BANAKHAT DATED 07.09.2010 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SAID CONFIRM ING PARTY WOULD BE PAID RS. 3,50,00,000/- FOR WAIVING ITS RIGHT ON THE SAID LANDS IN TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL BANAKHAT DATED 31.12.2009 AND THE ORIG INAL SELLERS WOULD GET ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - RS. 1,37,55,466/- . IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT ON 12.10.2010 THE ORIGINAL BANAKHAT DATED 31.12.2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SELLERS AND THE TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.(TIPL) WAS CANCELLE D AND RESULTANTLY THE PURCHASER I.E. THE APPELLANT HEREIN PAID A TOTAL SU M OF RS. 3,54,00,000/- TO THE SAID TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.(TIPL) THR OUGH BANKING CHANNEL BY CHEQUES. RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE CANCELLATION DEED SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED OF RS. 4 LAKHS PAID BY THE TIPL TO THE SE LLERS AS ADVANCE AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE ORIGINAL BANAKHAT DATED 3 1.12.2009. IN FACT, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 4,38,06,069/- AND RS. 4 9,49,397/- AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 01.11.2010 AND DATED 25.10.2010 RES PECTIVELY FOR BOTH THE PLOTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,87,55,466/- OUT OF W HICH 3,50,00,000/- WAS PAID TO TIPL WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SELLERS FOR WA IVING THEIR RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF BANAKHAT DATED 31.12.2009 AS RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT AND PROFIT ON THE SAME. 5. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SINCE THE CONFI RMING PARTY NAMELY TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (TIPL) DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT IN TERMS OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE LD. AO, THE AMOU NT PAID TO THE SAID COMPANY HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I T IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE SUMMONS COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON T HE SAID PARTIES AS THEIR OFFICE WAS FOUND CLOSED. IN APPEAL THE ADDIT ION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US BY REVENUE. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - ADDITION WAS MADE ENTIRELY ON SURMISE AND CONJECTUR E AND WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION AND APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE DULY SUPPORTED BY COMPREHENSIVE EVIDENCES FURNISHED AS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. IN FACT, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ENTIRE SET OF DOCUMENTS NAMELY THE BANAKHAT DATED 31.12.2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SELLERS AND THE TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECT OR KEYUR BABULAL MODI, THE TRIPARTITE BANAKHAT DATED 07.09.2010 ENTERED IN TO BY AND BETWEEN THE SELLERS, THE PURCHASER I.E. THE APPELLANT AND TIPL AS THE CONFIRMING PARTY, THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 31.12.2009, THE REGISTE R SALE DEED OF BOTH THE LANDS LYING AND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 1712 & 1 713 AT BAVLA, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF LANDS PURCHASED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM, THE DETAILS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT D ULY REFLECTING THE PAYMENTS OF THE CONFIRMING PARTY I.E. TIPL, THE LED GER ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID TIPL FROM THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CONT RA ACCOUNT DULY CONFIRMED BY THE SAID PARTY WERE DULY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE TIPL IN REGARD TO RECEIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF 3.50 CRORES, THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE TIPL FOR T HE YEAR IN QUESTION A.Y. 2011-12 WAS ALSO MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. AO AS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLER MADE THE STATEMENT CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMING THAT IN NO U NCERTAIN TERMS THE APPELLANT HEREIN HAD PAID 3,54,00,000/- TO TRIPADA. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THERE WAS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE TH E GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE SAME. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE C ONFIRMING PARTY I.E. TIPL THE ASSESSEE FILED A DECLARATION MADE BY THE D IRECTOR OF THE SAID ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - COMPANY TIPL DECLARED ON 28.02.2014 ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 19.03.2014 WHICH CLARIFIES THE ENTIRE FACTS O F THE MATTERS AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENT IRE FACT OF THE MATTER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION DENYING THE APP LICABILITY OF THE SECTION 69 OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPIC ION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR, THEREFORE, REL IED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L D. AO. FURTHER THAT HE HAS QUESTIONED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID TIPL WHICH REMAINED UNVE RIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID PARTY BEFORE THE LD. AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE DELETING T HE ADDITION OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- IN AS MUCH AS GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.3. 50 CRORES TO TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., THE CONFIRMING PARTY IS C ONCERNED, I AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE E VIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE FOR DOUBTING THE GENU INENESS OF THE PAYMENT MADE ESPECIALLY IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROU GHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE EVIDENCES IN FORM OF LEDGER ACC OUNT OF TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF LAND S PURCHASED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCO UNTS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WHICH DULY REFLECTS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SELLER S AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY VIZ. TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., WHICH FACT H AS NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE AO COUPLED WITH THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY TRIPADA IN FRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT OF RS.3.50 CRORES RECEIVED BY THEM FROM THE APPELLANT FIRM ALONGWITH THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND AUDITED B ALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - IN QUESTION ARE IN MY VIEW SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT. THAT APART, AS ADMITTED BY THE AO HIMSELF IN THE ORDER THAT THE SELLERS IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED SUCH PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE FURTHER SUB STANTIATES THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT MADE. THUS, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO R EASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT IN ABSENCE OF EVEN AN IO TA OF, CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. I ALSO FIND THAT THE SOURCE OF P AYMENT OF RS.3.50 CRORES TO TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO, THE SAME HAVING BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND DULY REFLECTE D IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT BUT THE ADDITION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MAD E MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID PARTY DID NOT ATTEND IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISS UED. MERE NON-ATTENDANCE ON PART OF THE CONFIRMING PARTY VIZ. TRIPADA INFRAS TRUCTURE PVT. LTD. DOES NOT WARRANT ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE IN CASE OF THE APPELL ANT, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN VIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EVIDENCES FURNISHED AND M ORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RECEIVING PARTY HAS CONFIRMED SUCH RECEIPT BY T HEIR DECLARATION FILED BEFORE THE AO WHEREIN INTERALIA IT IS ALSO STATED T HAT THE COMPANY IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS DULY REF LECTED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE CONFIRMING PARTY VIZ. TRIPADA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. L TD. IS FALSE IN AS MUCH AS THE AVERMENTS MADE THEREIN. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS HAD SHIFTED TO THE AO WHO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISC HARGE THE SAME BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN SUPPOR T OF HIS SUSPICION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONFIRMI NG PARTY. COMING TO LEGAL ASPECT OF THE ISSUE, I AGREE WITH T HE A.R. THAT SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION FOR WHICH THE SAID PART PAYM ENT OF RS.3.50 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE TO THE CONFIRMING PARTY HAVING BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AR E NOT APPLICABLE AS SUCH SINCE THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR INVOKING THE SAID S ECTION IS THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH AT THE OUTSET IS NOT THE CASE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE RATIO OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M.B. PATEL 221 TAXMANN 143 ( GUJ.) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, WHICH IN FACT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY T HE AO. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO OBSERVATI ON OF THE AO THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFA CTORY. THUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ID. A.R. THAT THE AO HAS MERELY DOUBTED PART OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS I.E. PAYMENT OF RS.3.50 CRORE S MADE TO THE CONFIRMING PARTY OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.4,87,55,466/- AS P ER SALE DEEDS AND HAS ACCEPTED THE OTHER PART OF THE SALE DEED BY ACCEPTI NG THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SELLER IS WHOLLY ILLOGICAL AND CONTRARY TO EACH OTH ER, HAS SUFFICIENT FORCE SINCE ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - THE SALE DEED IS DULY REGISTERED AND THE VERACITY O F THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED AS A WHOLE BY THE AO AT ANY STAGE. FURTH ER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT SUSPEC TED OR QUESTIONED THE TRANSACTION WITH THE CONFIRMING PARTY ON THE GROUND OF ADEQUACY/INADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION BUT HAS MERELY DOUBTED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE PAYMENT MADE SOLELY ON THE GROUND OF NON-ATTENDANCE OF THE SAID PARTY IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED. IT IS BY NOW SETTLED LAW THAT MERE SUSPICION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKIN G AN ADDITION TO INCOME U/S.69 OF THE ACT, 1961. THUS, CONSIDERING THE FACT S IN TOTALITY AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN VARIOUS CASE LAWS (SUPRA) THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. UPON PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE SET OF DOCUMENTS AS MAD E AVAILABLE BEFORE US IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT PAYMENT WERE MADE TO TIPL THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO DISPROVE SUCH FACTS. THE STATEMENT OF TIPL CONFIRMING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 3.5 0 CRORES MADE BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORTED BY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE B EING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION KEEPS NO SCOPE OF QUESTIONING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPEL LANT HAS NEITHER BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LD. AO. THEREFORE, UNDER THE CIRCUM STANCES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICA BLE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIMARY CONDITION FOR INVOKING THE SAID SECTION THA T THE INVESTMENT MADE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RATI O LAID BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. B. PATEL 221 TAXMANN 143(GUJ.) IS RIGHTLY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE ; THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY SHOWN; THE SOURCE OF INVE STMENT AS MADE FROM THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT HAS NEITHER BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LD. AO. THE PLEA OF THE LD. AO OF NOT BEING ABLE TO VERIFY THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH TIPL IN THEIR ABSENCE CANNOT BE SA ID TO BE JUSTIFIED WHEN ITA NO.3339/AHD/2015 ITO VS. M/S. ATMIYA INFRASTRUCTURE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - ALL OTHER EVIDENCES SPEAK OTHERWISE. THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE CONFIRMING PARTIES AS WELL REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TA X AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS DULY REFLECTED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS. NEITHER IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DECLARATION MADE BY TH E CONFIRMING PARTY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR IS FALSE AND, THEREFORE, CONSI DERING ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW FACT OF WHICH HAS RIG HTLY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING ADDITION AS IT REF LECTS FROM THE ORDER IMPUGNED WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY SO AS TO WARRANT INT ERFERENCE AND HENCE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS FOUND TO BE DEVO ID OF ANY MERIT AND THUS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/04/2021 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/04/2021 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD