The ITO, Ward-2(3), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Urmilaben G.Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 355/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63228 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TALSANIA A RS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Salary income; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 THE I.T.O., WARD-2(3) AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. SMT. URMILABEN G. SHAH VIHAN, B/H BOMBAY GARAGE, SHAHIBAUG, AHMEDABAD-380 004 PAN-AJVPS6790D RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T. SANKAR, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI & SHRI ANKIT TALSANIA, A.RS. DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.12.2012 / ORDER PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A)-VII, AHMEDABAD DATED 01.12.2009. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY/PENSION AND INTEREST INCOME. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.217875/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U /S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2008 AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.421787 5/-. ASSESSEES BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 2 ORDER DATED 01.12.2009 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY TH E REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.40,00,000/- BEI NG THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK BONDS BY TREATI NG THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOL D PERSONAL PAINTING FOR RS.4201500/- AND ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE SHE WAS NOT LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS AS THE PAINTING WAS HER PERSONAL EFFECT AND FURTHER BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION SHE HAD INVESTED THE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF PAINTINGS IN PURCHASING BONDS OF NATIONAL HOUSING BOARD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF PAINTING. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID PAINTING OF THE RENOWNED ARTIST, SHRI M.F . HUSSAIN WAS PURCHASED AROUND 1965 FOR RS.10000/- FROM THE ARTIST HIMSELF. THIS PAINTING HAS BEEN SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE W ITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ON 11.12.2008 WHEREIN IT WAS REITERATED THAT SHE HAD A CTUALLY SOLD A PAINTING AND HAD RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT ING TO RS.42,01,500/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SU BMIT ANY PROOF TO AUTHENTICATE THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS MADE BY HER: (A) THAT THE PAINTING IN QUESTING HAD EVER BEEN OWNED B Y HER; IT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE, SHRI GUN VANT MANGALDAS, HAS STATED IN A RECEIPT DATED 09-01-2005 ISSUED TO ONE SMT. RAISA HUSSAIN THAT THE ALLEGED PAINTING BE LONGED TO HIM. (B) THAT THE PAINTING IN QUESTION HAD BEEN EVERY PURCHA SED BY HER AT ANY POINT OF TIME. (C) THAT THE PAINTING IN QUESTION HAD BEEN A PROPERTY O R AN ASSET, WHICH WAS EXCLUSIVELY OWNED BY HER. (D) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 LACS INVESTED BY HER IN NA TIONAL HOUSING BANK BONDS HAD BEEN EMANATED FROM ANY OF HE R DECLARED SOURCES OF INCOME. I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 3 SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES TO AUTHENTICATE ANY OF HER CLAIMS, THE INVESTMENT OF R S40 LACS MADE BY HER IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK BONDS CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE OUT OF ANY DISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED A MOUNT WARRANTS TAX TREATMENT U/S 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE FINDING, IS IS A LSO PERTINENT THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE ASSET BEING LONG TERM IN NATURE, IS VOID OF ANY SOUND FOOTING. THE ONUS TO PROVE THE DATE OF A CQUISITION OF ANY ASSET IS WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH SHE HAS NOT FULFI LLED. THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEE N CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND THE ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATION OF THE SAME NARRATED AS UNDER:- ASSESSEES CONTENTION OBSERVATION THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED THE PAINTING FROM THE M F HUSSAIN IN NEW DELHI, AROUND 1965, FOR RS.10,000/- NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS MADE AVAILABLE. AS PER THE I.T. RECORDS, NOWHERE SUCH PURCHASE OR ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS EVIDENT/INDICATED. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THE PAINTING WAS PURCHASED BY HER. FURTHER, THE ALLEGED PAINTING WAS SOLD BY SHRI GUNVANT MANGALDAS. PAINTING WAS CAPITAL ASSET, AND STOCK IN TRADE AND SAME EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE PAINTING WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET, THE PROVISIONS; OF SEC. 54EC NOT APPLICABLE ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN NHB BONDS. FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET, THEN THE INVESTMENT AND SALE WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SO SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY BENEFIT U/S 54EC OF THE I.T. ACT. PAINTING SOLD FOR RS.42,01,500/- ON 21/06/2005 NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SHOW HOW THE SALE WAS EFFECTED. WHETHER THE PURCHASER APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY AT THE ASSESSEES PLACE OR THROUGH AN EXHIBITION OR PUBLIC AUCTION AND HOW THE PRICE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.42,01,500/-, NOT CLARIFIED. PAYMENT BY CHEQUE NO.196779 DATED 21/06/2005 OF THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI THE ABOVE CHEQUE IS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF GUNVANT MANGALDAS (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE) ON 24/06/2005 FROM A JOINT ACCOUNT OPERATED BY RAISA HUSSAIN / MANEESHA CHAWALA DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING HER OWN BANK A/C. THE SAID AMOUNT IS TRANSFERRED BY HER HUSBAND TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 24/09/2005. FURTHER AS PER COPY OF I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 4 RECEIPT ISSUED BY SHRI GUNVANT MANGALDAS HE SAYS THAT THE PAINTING BELONGED TO HIM. MOREOVER, MERELY RECEIVING A PAYMENT BY A CHEQUE DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HER RETURN THAT THE PAINTING WAS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND NO CAPITAL GAIN ARISES. ANY PROFIT/SURPLUS RECEIVED ON SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IS NOT EXEMPT FROM INCOME-TAX PURPOSE. THE ALLEGED PAINTING WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD F OR RS.42,01,500/- ON 21/06/2005. HOWEVER, INQUIRIES CONDUCTED U/S 133(6 ) REVEALED THAT A CHEQUE NO.195779 DATED 21/06/2005 OF HSBC LTD., MUM BAI WAS ISSUED BY RAISA HUSSAIN / MANEESHA CHAWLA IN FAVOUR OF SHR I GUNVANTBHAI MANGALDAS AND SAME WAS CREDITED IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA ON 24/06/2005. SO, THE TRANSACTION ITSELF GIVES DOUBT AND APPEARS FICTITIOUS. IF THE PAINTING WAS OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE CHEQUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN HER NAME. MOREOVER, AS PER COPY O F RECEIPT ISSUED BY SHRI GUNVANTBHAI MANGALDAS, HE SAYS THAT THE PAINTI NG BELONGED TO HIM. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE CANDID N EGLIGENCE/REFUSAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF FUNDS EMPOWERS ME TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON THE LINES OF THE SHOW CAUSE ISSUED TO HER, AS REPRODUCED SUPRA, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE I.T. ACT AND TAX THE SAME UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.40 LACS IS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C ) ARE INITIATED FO R CONCEALING THE TAXABLE INCOME BY FILING WRONG AND INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- I. PENSION/SALARY INCOME RS. 73,167 II. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE 1. INTERESTINCOME AS PER STATEMENT RS. 1,44,7 08/- 2. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN NHB BONDS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS. 40,00,000/- TOTAL INCOME RS. 42,17,875/- I.E. RS. 42,17,8880/- ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. RECALCULATED THE T AX. CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234 B/234 C OF THE I.T. ACT. ISSUED D.N. & CHA LLAN, AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR THE PREPAID TAXES. ISSUED PENALTY NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C )OF THE I.T. ACT. I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 5 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.69B, ADDI TION CAN BE MADE IF THE INVESTMENT IS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SECTIO N 69 DEALS WITH INVESTMENTS NOT RECORDED AT ALL IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 4.1 IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE INVESTMENT IN NHBS WA S DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HIMSE LF ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.42,01,500/- WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SPOUS OF THE APPELLANT SHRI GUNVANT MANGALDA S ON 24.06.2005 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RAISA HUSSAIN / MANEESHA C HAWLA. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED BY HIM TO THE APPELLANTS BA NK ACCOUNT ON 24- 09-2005. INVESTMENT IN BONDS WAS MADE BY THE APPEL LANT ON 27-10- 05. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F INVESTMENT IS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADD ITION EITHER U/S 69 OR 69B. THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE HER CLAIM THAT THE PAINTING T HAT HAS BEEN SOLD BELONGED TO HER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID PAINT ING WAS NEVER DISCLOSED IN ANY OF THE PAST BALANCE SHEET THAT WERE FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THUS, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE AS SESSEE BEING THE OWNER OF THE PAINTING AND THEREBY SHE BEING THE OWNER OF THE CAP ITAL ASSET. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF PAINTING AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD FOR MORE THAN RS.42,01,500/- AND OUT OF WHICH RS.40 LACS HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE BONDS OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK BONDS. THUS THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE OUT OF DISCLOSED INCOME. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 6 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT M R. M.F. HUSSAIN, THE RENOWNED PAINTER, WAS A FAMILY FRIEND OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PAINTING IN THE YEAR AROUND 1965 FOR RS.10,000/- FROM MR. HUSSAIN HIMSELF. THE PAINTING BEING A PERSONAL EFFECT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS. THE LD. A.R . SUBMITTED THAT THE PAINTING WAS SOLD TO MS. RAISA HUSSAIN, THE DAUGHTER OF MR. M. F. HUSSAIN, FOR RS.42,01,500/- AND OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF RS.40 LAC S WAS INVESTED IN BONDS OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT I N THE NOTE BELOW THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE FACT OF SALE OF PANTING WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B ARE NOT APP LICABLE. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF LETTER FROM MS. RAISA HUSSAIN ACKNOWLED GING THE SALE OF PAINTING ALONG WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PAINTING. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PORTRAIT OF ASSESSEE AND HER HUSB AND DRAWN BY MR. HUSSAIN TO PROVE THAT THE PAINTER WAS KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AN D WAS A FAMILY FRIEND OF ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS SAID TO HAVE SOLD A PAINTING FOR RS.42,01,500/- WHICH SHE HAS CLAIMED T O HAVE PURCHASED IN 1965 FOR RS.10,000/- AND INVESTED THE PROCEEDS IN ACQUIRING BONDS OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PAINTING W AS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PAST BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY HER. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE SAME WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED AS I T WERE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EFFECTS. THE DISPUTE THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS REALLY THE OWNER OF THE PAINTING? NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE PAINTING WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST AND SHE WAS THE OWNER OF THE I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 7 PAINTING. FURTHER IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAINTIN G OF MR. M.F. HUSSAIN HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DAUGHTER (MS. RAISA HUS SAIN) OF THE PAINTER MR. M.F. HUSSAIN FOR RS.42,01,500/-. ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM MS. RAISA HUSSAIN WHEREIN SHE INTERALIA CONFIR MS THE PURCHASE OF PAINTING FROM ASSESSEE FOR RS.42,01,500/-, THE AMOUNT BEING PAID BY CHEQUE DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF MR. GUNVANT MANGALDAS. IT FURTHER STATES THAT THE PAINTING WAS PAINTED BY HER FATHER, MR. M.F. HUSSAIN AND BOUGHT BY MANGA LDAS FAMILY AROUND 1965. HOWEVER, WE FIND FROM THE LETTER THAT IT DOES NOT H AVE HER ADDRESS, PAN NUMBER ETC. FURTHER THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEE N MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUE DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF MR. GUNVAN MANGALDAS. FURTHER T HE LETTER DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT THE PAINTING WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ON THE CONTRARY IT STATES THAT THE PAINTING WAS PURCHASED BY MANGALDAS FAMILY. FURTHER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TH E A.O. MADE INQUIRIES MORE SO WITH RESPECT TO THE PAN NUMBER OF RAISA HUSSAIN, IN QUIRED ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF BALANCE IN HER ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUING OF CHEQUE, WHAT SHE HAS DONE TO THE PAINTING PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEE? WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN RETAINED BY HER OR HAS IN TURN BEEN SOLD BY HER? FURTHER IT LO OKS IMPROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE KNOWN THE PAINTER PERSO NALLY, WOULD SELL THE PAINTING DRAWN BY A RENOWNED PAINTER WHICH WAS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 1965 TO THE DAUGHTER OF THE SAME PAINTER FOR RS.42 LACS, MORESO WHEN THE PAINTER HIMSELF WAS ALIVE (MR. M.F. HUSSAIN DIED IN 2011). FURTHER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PAST HAD SOLD HER PERSONAL EFFECTS (LIKE PAINTINGS) AND CLAIMED THE PROFIT/INCOME AS E XEMPT FROM TAX. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ASPECTS NEED VERI FICATION. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A .O. FOR VERIFICATION OF THE I.T.A. NO.355/AHD/2010 A. Y. 2006-07 8 AFORESAID FACTS. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO MAKE THE NECESSARY INQUIRIES ON THE AFORESAID FACTS AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOW ING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.12.2012 SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY N.K. CHAUDHARY, SR. P.S. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# *