The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3465/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94807 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Bad and doubtful debts; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE DCIT, CIR - 4, NAVJIVAN TRUST BLDG. OFF. ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2, SHANTISADAN SOCIETY , NR. PARIMAL GARDEN, AHMEDABAD PAN: 31 - 126 - CZ8720 (RESPONDENT) GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2, SHANTISADAN SOCIETY, NR. PARIMAL GARDEN, AHMEDABAD PAN: 31 - 126 - CZ8720 (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIR - 4, NAVJIVAN TRUST BLDG. OFF. ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (RE SPONDENT) I T A NO . 3465 / A HD/20 04 A SSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 IT A NO. 3386 /AHD/20 04 A SSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 ITA NO. 2342 /AHD/20 06 A SSESSME NT YEAR 19 97 - 98 I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 2 THE DCIT, CIR - 4, NAVJIVAN TRUST BLDG. OFF. ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2, SHANTISADAN SOCIETY , NR. PARIMAL GARDEN, AHMEDABAD PAN: 31 - 126 - CZ8720 (RESPONDENT) GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2, SHANTISADAN SOCIETY, NR. PARIMAL GARDEN, AHMEDABAD PAN: 31 - 126 - CZ8720 (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIR - 4, NAVJI VAN TRUST BLDG. OFF. ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI R.K. GUPTA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI S.N. SOPARKAR , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 11 - 2 0 15 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 11 - 2 015 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS IS A BATCH OF FOUR APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE FILED QUANTUM APPEALS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 AGAINST CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 2 7 - 09 - 2004 IN ITAS 3386 & 3486/AHD/2004 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN ITA NO. 3416 /AHD/20 08 A SSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 3 SHORT THE ACT. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE S APPEAL ITA 3416/AHD/2008 AGAINST CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 29 - 02 - 2008 IN CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 INVOLVES REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 2342/AHD PREFERRED AGAINST THE CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 05 - 09 - 2000 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. WE PROCEED ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE. IT IS TO BE SEEN THA T FO RMER ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 IN V OLVES THREE APPEALS I.E. QUANTUM CROSS APPEALS FILED AT ASSESSEE AND REVENUE S BEHEST ITAS 3386 AND 3465/AHD/2 004. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY ASSES SEE S APPEAL IN CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEARING ITA NO. 3416/AHD/2008. WE TAKE FIRST OF ALL ABOVE STATED QUANTUM CROSS APPEALS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL 3386/AHD/2004 RAISES SOLITARY GROUND OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,71,92,701/ - ON ASSETS SOLD AND LEASED BACK. THE CIT(A) RELIES UPON TRIBUNAL S SPECIAL BENCH DECISION I N ICICI LTD VS. DCIT DECIDED ON 14 - 08 - 2003 AT MUMBAI BENCH FOR REJECTING ITS DEPRECIATION CLAIM . THE RE VENUE S CROSS APPEAL IN TURN ASSAILS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER DELETING DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 74,78,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INVESTMENTS TREATED CAPITA LO SS IN REASSESSMENT AND BUSINESS LOSS IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITS SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO RESTORE DEPRECIATION CLAIM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 38,24,344/ - IN RESPECT OF ASSETS GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S RAJENDRA STEELS LTD., KANPUR. I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 4 4. TH E ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE WITH TRADING IN SHARES AND OTHER INVESTMENTS. IT FILED ITS RETURN ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 61,11,200/ - ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND P & L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPL ETED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 24 - 03 - 1999 DETERMINING THE SAME VERY INCOME. THEREAFTER, HE FORMED REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE S INCOME LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . HE ACCORDINGLY ISSUED SECTION 148 NOTICE DATED 29 - 1 1 - 1999 FOR THE FOLL OWING REASON : - AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDI (INV) UNIT - II, KANPUR UNDER NO. F.NO. G - 18/DD - II/KNP/2 ( 35)/98 - 99 DT. 16.6.1999 IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSE DURING THE F.Y. 1995 - 96 CORRESPONDING TO A.Y. 1996 - 97 PURCHASED AND LEASED THE MACHINERY (AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT F UME EXTRACTION GUM SCRUBBING SYSTEM) COST OF RS. 76,56,687.50 TO RAJENDRA GROUP OF COMPANIES AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS DEDUCTION AGAINST ITS INCOME IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY THAT EITHER DID NOT EXIST OR THE REAL WORTH OF THESE MACHINERY WA S ONLY 10% TO 20% OF THE VALUE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BOGUS DEPRECIATION ON NON - EXISTENT MACHINERY . SINCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF INCOME HAS APPEARS TO BE ESCAPED FROM TAXABLE INCOME FOR A.Y. 1996 - 97, IT IS MANDATORY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT TO COVER THE ABOVE INCOME AND TAX THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY , A NOTICE U/S. 148 IS THEREFORE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS PURPOSE . 5 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP RE - ASSESSMENT. HE NOTICED IN COURSES TH EREOF A BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED ON SALE OF INVESTMENT S OF RS. 74,78,000/ - . HE WOULD DISALLOW THE SAME IN IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 28 - 03 - 2002. THE OT HER HEAD OF DISALLOWANCE WAS OF DEPRECIATION ON SOLD AND LEASED BACK ASS ETS OF RS. 2,10,20,315/ - COMPR ISING OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM ON PURCHASE AND LEASED BACK MACHINERY I.E. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FUME EXTRACTION GUM I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 5 SCRUBBING SYSTEM HAVING COST OF RS. 76,56,687.50 IN CASE OF M/S. RAJENDRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, KANPUR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT EXACT DEPRECIATION CLAIM FIGURE IS RS. 38,28,244/ - @ 50% OF THE LATTER FIGURE. THE REMAINING DEPRECIATION CLAIM IS OF RS. 1,71,96,071/ - HEREINABOVE. 6 . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL INTER ALIA RAISING FOUR SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF REOPENI NG AS WELL AS CORRECTNESS OF THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCES ON MERITS. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION ON LEGAL GROUND AND QUA DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 1,71,96,71/ - . HE TREATS THE ABOVE STATED LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS AS BUSINESS LO SS INSTEAD OF CAPITAL ONE AND ALSO ALLOWS DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 38,24 ,344/ - . THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION SEEKING NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO ADOPT NETTING FORMULA AFTER ADJUSTING THE LEASE RENT ALREADY SHOWN INCOME THEREBY TAKING ONLY T HE INTEREST COMPONENT AS INCOME OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAME STANDS ACCEPTED IN LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER ARGUED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT ALL DISALLOWANCES HEREINABOVE HAVE TO BE DELETED SINCE IMPUGNED REOPENING ITSELF IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SOLE REASON RECORDED RESULTING IN CORRESPONDING DISALLOWANCE STANDS DELETED. THE CIT(A) DECLINES THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VERY MUCH COMPETENT IN THE COURSES OF REASS ESS MENT TO OPEN ANY CLAIM NOT CORRECTLY WORKED OUT EARLIER IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT. I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 6 THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS LEAVES BOTH PARTIES AGGRIEVED TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PLEADINGS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 7 . THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO IT S LAST ARGUMENT RAISED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . I T STATES THAT THE DEPRECIATION DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 38 ,24, 244/ - FORMING THE ONLY GROUND OF REOPENING STANDS DELETED IN THE L OWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS THE SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 3465/AHD/2004. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITS THAT IN CASE WE UPHOLD LOWER APPELLATE ORDER TO THIS EFFECT, THE ENTIRE REOPENING DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. CASE LAW OF CIT VS. MOHMED JUNED DUDANI (2014) 355 ITR 172 (GUJ), CIT VS. LIVI NG MEDIA INDIA LTD (20 13) 35 TAXMANN.COM 105 (DEL), ASHA KANSHAL VS. ITO AGRA (2014) 62 SOT 146 (AGRA) AND THAT OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.222/ASR/2014 DECIDED ON 11 - 06 - 2015 IS QUOTED IN SUPPORT. THE REVENUE S ARGUMENTS STRONGLY BACK TH E LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE QUA THIS ISSUE. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTION S . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THIS CASE ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 38,44,244/ - @ 50% OF THE COST OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FUME EXTRACTION GUM SCRUBBING SYSTEM COSTING RS. 76,56,687.50/ - PURCHASED AND LEASED BACK TO M/S. RAJENDRA STEELS LTD. KANPUR. HIS RE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 28 - 03 - 2002 RESULTED IN TWO OTHER DISALLOWANCE S O F SALE ON SHARES OF RS. 74,78,000/ - AND THE ONE PERTAINING TO DEPRECIATION OF RS. I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 7 1,71,92,701/ - (SUPRA). THE CIT(A) HAS REVERED ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION ON THE ISSUES OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 38,44,244/ - AND LOSS HEREINABOVE. THE QUESTION THAT ARIS ES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN TH E SE CIRCUMSTANCES IS AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE REOPENING HAS TO BE QUASHED ON ASSESSEE S LEGAL PLEA IN CASE WE AFFIRM CIT(A) S FINDINGS ON THE SOLE REASON OF REOPENING ON MERITS OR NOT. WE SEEK GUIDANCE FROM THE ABOVE STATED C ASE LAW IN DECIDING THIS QUESTION. THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN DUDANI CASE (SUPRA) DEALT WITH AN INSTANCE WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED ASSESSMENT ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 80HHC DEDUCTION. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE VERY ISSUE BUT DISALLOWED OTHER ITEMS IN REASSESSMENT. A CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL QUASHED REOPENING IN THESE FACTS. THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UPHELD THE SAME. THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) CAME ACROSS A CASE WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENING ASSESSMENT ON A GROUND FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL REASONS B & C LATER ON. THIS A GROUND WAS THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED/ADDED VARIOUS AMOUNTS UNDER ALL OF THESE GROUNDS. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ONE PERTAINING T O BAD DEBTS. BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED CROSS APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A CO - ORDINATE BENCH THEREIN AFFIRMED CIT(A) S ORDER IN REVENUE S APPEAL AND REVERSED THE CORRESPONDING FINDINGS ON B & C GROUNDS HEREINABOVE . THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER QUA B & C ISSUES ONLY. THEIR LORDSHIPS UPHELD TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN THESE FACTS BY OBSERVING THAT THE LATTER REASONS HAD BEEN WRONGLY COMBINED WITH THE SOLE REASON OF REOPENING ON THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBTS FORMED EARLIER. THEIR LORDSHIPS I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 8 TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL ON BAD DEBTS ISSUE ORIGINAL REOPENING REASON . IT WAS NOT KEPT ALIVE IN OTHER WORDS. NOW, WE COME TO AGRA BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACTU AL BACKDROP APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR TO ABOVE STATED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED ASSESSMENT ON THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 3,98,950/ - . HE ADDED THE SAME ALONG WITH TWO OTHER HEADS OF RS. 3,98,593/ - AND RS. 3,97,955/ - . THE CIT( A) DELETED THE FIRST ADDITION FORMING SOLE REASON OF REOPENING. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE REVENUE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CIT(A) S ORDER THEREIN QUA THE FIRST ADDITION. THE LD. CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES QUASHES REOPENING BY QUOTING CASE LAW OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (2011) 331 ITR 236 BY TAKING NOTE OF THE REVENUE S INACTION IN NOT PREFERRING ANY APPEAL QUA SOLE REASON OF REOPENING. THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ABOVE STA T ED JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS ARE NOT ON IDENTICAL FOOTING TO THOSE FORMING SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE US SINC E THE REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 3465/AHD/2004 DULY CHALLENGES THE LOWER AP PELLATE ORDER DELETING DEPRECIATION DISALLOWANCE FORMING SOLE REASON OF RE OPENING . 9. THIS LEAVES US WITH DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SAID CASE REOPENED ASSESSMENT ALLEGING ASSESSEE S LOAN REPAYMENT IN FAVOUR OF OUTGOING PARTNERS OF A DISSOLVED FIRM TO BE MORE THAN HIS INCOME. HE FRAMED REASSESSMENT MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER VARIOUS OTHER HEADS AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF REOPENING AS I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 9 WELL CORRECTNESS OF ALL ADDITIONS. THE CIT(A) INTER ALIA REJECTED LEGAL GROUND, DELETED ADDITION FORMING SUBJECT MATTER O F REOPENING REASONS AS CONFIRMED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS OVER AND ABOVE THE REOPENING REASON. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DECISION RAISING SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT ONCE THE ADDITION MADE ON SOLE REASON OF REOPENING STOOD DELETED, THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT ITSELF WAS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE REVENUE DID NOT COME IN APPEAL AGAINST LOWER APPELLATE ORDER INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THE LD. CO - ORDINATE BENCH QUOTES CASE LAW OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 101 (SC) FOR OBSERVING THAT IT IS O PEN FOR AN ASSESSEE TO OBJECT TO REOPENING REASON AT THE VERY FIRST STAGE OR DURING REASSESSMENT. IT PROPAGATES ASSESSING AUTHORITY S DU AL ADJUDICATION ACCORDINGLY AS UNDER: - 14. THERE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ANY TWO OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ENUNCIATION OF LAW BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IN MAJINDER SINGH KANG'S CASE (SUPRA). HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS DECISION, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, TO BE INAPT. IN MAJINDER SINGH KANG'S CASE, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE NOWHE RE HELD THAT THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN THEREIN TO BE APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE CASES WHEREIN EVEN WHEN REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ARE HELD TO BE INCORRECT, AND THUS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN STILL GO AHEAD AND M AKE ADDITIONS IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF REASONS OTHER THAN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE REASSESSMENT. HON'BE HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAJINDER SINGH KANG'S CASE (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE ALTERED, EVEN SUB SILIENTIO, THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS A SINE QUA NON FOR ANY ADDITIONS BEING MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS - WHETHER IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS RECOR DED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OR IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS OTHER THAN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 10 15. MOREOVER, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCHEME OF LAW AS VISUALIZED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF GKN D RIVESHAFTS VS ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 101 (SC)], SUCH A SITUATION WOULD BE RATHER RARE . 16. THE REASON IS THIS. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AS IS THE SCHEME OF LAW VISUALIZED AND SET OUT BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE GKN DRIVESHAFT'S CASE (SU PRA), ARE TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THESE REASONS. THIS IS A STAGE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDING WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE REASONS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE DROPPED ANYWAY. 17. THERE IS NO BAR ON THE NATURE OF MATERIAL THAT THE ASSESSEE MA Y SEEK TO RELY UPON, EVEN AT THE FIRST STAGE, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND EVEN THIS ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUBJECT MATTER OF LEGAL SCRUTINY BY THE APPELLATE, AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF THE SAME APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SCHEME OF LAW, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFT'S CASE, THUS PROVIDES FOR DUAL ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT - ONE AT THE STAGE OF DEALING WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND THE OTHER AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN, DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAK E A CALL ON ADDITIONS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THESE REASONS. THAT IS WHERE THERE IS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS POST GKN DRIVERSHAFT DECISION. IN A SITUATION IN WHICH, DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THESE REA SONS TO BE SO INCORRECT THAT HE CONCLUDES THAT NO INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ADDITIONS ON THAT COUNT ARE UNWARRANTED, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE POSITION AT THE STAGE OF ADJUDICATING ON THE CORRECTNESS OF TH E REASONS RECO RDED IN THE PRE - R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LATTER PROCEEDIN GS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS THE LIABILITY TO BRING THE MATERIAL, OTHER THAN THAT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS RECORDS, THAT NO INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE CONCLUSIONS IN THESE TWO SETS OF SO MEWHAT PARALLEL EXERCISES CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE ORDINARILY DIFFERENT. IN OTHER WORDS, I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 11 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS OF REOPENING, AS RECORDED BY HIM, HE HAS TO DROP THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AT THIS INITIAL STAGE ITSELF. WHEN THE EXAMI N AT ION OF C ORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS RECORDED COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THE APPROACH, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ANY DIFFERENT, EITHER. 18. IN THE CASE BEFORE HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, AS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FROM THE CIT(A)'S ORDER REPRODUCED THEREIN, THE REASSESSMENT WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'COULD NOT MAKE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH HAD NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH N O NOTICE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT'. THEIR LORDSHIPS APPRECIATED THAT TO THAT EXTENT THE LEGAL PROPOSITION WAS INCORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147, AND THE EARLIER JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS, WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT HOLD GOOD LAW, AS THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE CLEAR IN NO UNCERTAIN WORDS. THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS OF REOPENING WAS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS. THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS FOR REO PENING WAS NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN CHALLENGE. 19. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DISCUSSIONS EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE VERY REASONS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS WERE ALSO GOOD ENOUGH TO HOLD THA T THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW AND YET THE CIT(A) WAS FIGHTING SHY OF THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS THERETO AND NATURAL COROLLARIES TO THESE FINDINGS. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT (A), ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE DELETED AND WHICH WERE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, GOOD ENOUGH TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ITSELF, IS NOT EVEN CHALLENGED IN FURTHER APPEAL. THESE FIND INGS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE THUS REACHED FINALITY, AND ARE NOT EVEN IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. IF SUCH BE THE FACTS, THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING THESE FINDINGS TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS AND, BASED ON THESE UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS, QUASH THE REASSESSME NT ITSELF. WHAT HELD GOOD FOR DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED THE ASSESSMENT, ON THE FACT OF THIS CASE AND IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO HOLD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TO BE INCORRECT AS WELL. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE REASONS TO COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 12 THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT AS WELL. 20. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE, ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REASSESSMENT ITSELF IS QUASHED AS ABOVE, NOTHING ELSE SURVIVES F OR ADJUDICATION. IT IS ACCORDINGLY BEEN HELD THAT ENTIRE REOPENING AS WELL AS OTHER ADDITIONS NOT FORMING REOPENING REASONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ONE BASED ON WHICH REOPENING ITSELF WAS INITIATED STANDS DELE TED. WE REVERT BACK TO FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US. A SLIGHT VARIATION IS NOTICED SINCE THE REVENUE IS ALREADY IN APPEAL QUA THE SOLE REASON OF REOPENING ON DEPRECIATION ISSUE. WE HOLD IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IF LOWER APPELLATE ORD ER ON THIS ISSUE ALONE IS ULTIMATELY DECIDED IN REVENUE S FAVOUR, THEN ONLY WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE ON OTHER ISSUES. THE NECESSARY COROLLARY IN CASE OF OUR ADJUDICATION GOING IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR IS THAT THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT CULMINATING IN OTHER ISSUES IN CROSS APPEALS WOULD BE HELD UNSUSTAINABLE AS DONE BY LD. CO - ORDINATE BENCH. THE QUESTION FRAMED HEREINABOVE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. WE TAKE UP REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 3465/AHD/2004 AND ITS SECOND SUBSTAN TIVE GROUND CHALLENGING THE CIT(A) S ACTION IN DELETING DEPRECIATION DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 38,24,344 / - ON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 13 EQUIPMENT PURCHASED AND LEASED BACK TO M/S. RAJENDRA STEELS, KANPUR FORMING SOLE REASON OF RE OPENING . THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDIN GS DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR AS FOLLOWS: - GROUND NO. 3 : THIS RELATES TO DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 38,24,344/ - IN RESPECT OF ASSETS LEASED TO M/S. RAJENDRA STEELS LTD., KANPUR BY THE APPELLANT. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN PARA 3 PAGE 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE ORDER THE CLAIM RELATES TO AIR POLLUTION EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, KANPUR AND THEREAFTER THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN LEASED TO M/S. RAJENDRA STEELS LTD. SINCE THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSETS WERE PUT INTO USE WERE LESS THAN 180 DAYS, 50 PER CENT OF THE ELIGIBLE CLAIM OF RS. 76,56,687.50 I.E. RS. 38,28,344/ - WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THE APPELLANT'S LETTER DATED 4.2.2002 AND 19.3.2002 AS REFERRED ABOVE. THE ASSESSMENT IS ALSO REOPENED PRIMARILY ON ACCOUNT OF NON - EXISTENCE OF THE SAID ASSETS AS PER PHYSICAL INVENTORY PREPARED AT THE PREMISES OF RAJENDRA STEELS LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S. 132 AT KANPUR BY DDIT (INV) UNIT - 2. THIS HAS BEEN REFERRED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS. THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM AS PER PARA 3.1 OF THE ORDER GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS. '3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSES COMPANY AND FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE.. IN ASSESSEE'S CASE REAL OWNERSHIP OF THE OWNER IS QUESTIONED AND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION BY DEPARTMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO ASSETS AVAILABLE AT THE PREMISES OF RAJENDER STEEL LIMITED. IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS AS REFE RRED ABOVE ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS OPERATING LEASE AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH LEASE IS NOT ALLOWABLE.' 3.1 THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, BEFORE ME, SHRI N B SHAH HAS STRONGLY REITERATED, THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 4.2.2002 AND 19.3.2002 AND ALSO THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME HAVE BEEN REITERATED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE SAID CONCERN M/S. RAJENDRA STEELS LIMITED HAS SINCE GONE INTO LIQUIDATION AND THE APPELLANT COMPANY AL ONGWITH 18 OTHER COMPANIES HAVE TAKEN UP THE MATTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD FOR WINDING UP OF THE COMPANY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PRAYED AS PER THE SAID PETITION NO. COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 2000 U/S. 446(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 BEFORE I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 14 THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD TAKEN UP IN JANUARY, 2001 THAT A DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, TO GIVE BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE LEASED ASSETS TO THE RESPECTIVE LESSORS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY SHRI SHAH IN HIS SUBMISSIONS THAT ALL SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE PURCHASE INVOICE, DELIVERY CHALLAN ETC, HAD BEEN DULY FURNISHED TO THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASES OF THE SAID ASSETS AND DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION AT THE PREMISES OF RAJENDRA STEELS LTD. THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D AS PER ARMEXURE - 4 TO LETTER DATED 4.2.2002 AND A CERTIFICATE FROM VARIOUS PERSONS OF RAJENDRA STEELS LIMITED WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AS PER ANNEXURE - 2 TO LETTER DATED 4.2.2002. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS NARRATED AND CITE D BY THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE ISSUES RAISED, NAMELY, THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS AND SUBSEQUENT EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE SAID ASSET WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED AND INSTALLED AT THE PREMISES O F RAJENDRA STEEL LTD. NO INQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSES TO M/S. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, KANPUR, FROM WHOM THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE SAID FUND DID NOT BELONG TO T HE APPELLANT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSETS AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE SAME FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIOD. 11 . WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL ARGUMENTS. THE REVENUE S CONTENTION IS THAT IT HAD CARRIED OUT A SEARCH IN CASE OF KANPUR ENTITY WHICH DID NOT REVEAL ANY SUCH ASSET SUBJECT MATTER OF THE IMPUGNED DEPRECIATION CLAIM. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE REVEA LS THAT PAGE 40 IS THE INSTALLATION REPORT OF THIS ASSET. PAGE 41 OF THE PA PER BOOK REVEALS LEASE RENT INCOME THEREFROM IN ASSESSEE S P & L ACCOUNT. PAGE 43 IS SALES TAX CH ALLAN OF THE ASSET. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THIS KANPUR ENTITY WENT INTO LIQUIDATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPANY APPLICATION BEFORE HON BLE ALLAHBAD HIGH COURT FOR INSPECTION AND POSSESSION OF ITS LEASE ASSET. MORE I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 15 PARTICULAR , THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION BJY SPECIFICALLY STATING VALUE THEREOF AS PER LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 18 - 03 - 1996. THEIR LORDSHIPS PASSED ORDER 11 - 12 - 2002 AT PAGE 147 OF THE PAPER BOOK ISSUING NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. HE ISSUED INTIMATION TO ASSESSEE ON 08 - 01 - 2003 APPOINTING A VALUER FOR INSPECTING THE FACTORY SITE. THIS VALUER VISITED THE FACTORY SITE. HIS REPORT IS AT PAGES 202 SPECIFICALLY TO BE DULY LOCATE D THERE. HIS IDENTIFICATION REPORT IS AT PAGE 203. WE CONFRONTED LD. DEPARTMENT REP RESEN TA TIVE WITH ALL THESE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE . HE SOUGHT TIME T O PRODUCE THE SEARCH INVENTORY. THE SAME STANDS SUBMITTED IN THE COURSES OF HEARING. PAGE 53 THEREOF REVEALS THAT THE VERY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE OBSERVE ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF ITS DEPRECIATION CLAIM QUA THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION LEASED OUT TO M/S RAJENDRA STEELS LTD, KANPUR. THE REVENUE S ARGUMENT ACCORDINGLY ARE DECLINED. WE AFFIRM THE CIT(A) S FINDINGS EX TRACTED HEREINABOVE GRANTING DEPRECIATION RE LIEF TO ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS . 38,28,244/ - . THE REVENUE S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND FAILS. WE REFER TO OUR DETAILED FINDINGS HEREINABOVE IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS AND HOLD THAT THIS FAILURE OF REVENUE S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RENDERS ENTIRE RE - ASSESSMENT UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ALL OTHER DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS OF LOSS ON SHARES AND INVESTMENTS OF RS. 74,78,000/ - AND THAT OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,71,92,701/ - (SUPRA) ARE DELETED AS A NECESSARY COROLL ARY. THE REVENUE S APPEAL 3465/AHD/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEE S CROSS APPEAL I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 16 3386/AHD/2004 IS ACCORDINGLY ACCEPTED ITS APPEAL ITA 3416/AHD/2008 CHALLENGING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY OF RS. 67,73,023/ - RELATING TO DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 1,71,92,701/ - HEREINABOVE IS ALLOWED SINCE THE MAIN DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION DOES NOT SURVIVE. 12 . THIS LEAVES US WITH REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 2342/AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. ITS SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES THE CIT(A) S ORDER DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS. 38,28,344/ - ON PLANT AND MACHINERY LEASED TO M/S RAJENDRA STEELS LTD. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE VERY ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR IN REVENUE S APPEAL ITA 3465/AHD/2004. W E ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE REVENUE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND . ITA 2348/AHD/2006 IS DISMISSED. 13 . TO SUM UP, ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ITA 3386/AHD/2006 AND 3416/AHD/2008 ARE ALLOWED. REVENUE S BOTH APPEALS ITAS 3465/AHD/2004 AND 2348/AHD/2006 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 30 - 11 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 30 /11 /2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORW ARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE I.T.A NO S . 3465&3386 /AHD/20 04, 2342/AHD/20 0 6 & 3416/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1996 - 97& 97 - 98 PAGE DCIT VS . GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 17 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,