Shri Manoharlal Kanaiyalal Dave, Baroda V. The Incom tax Officer,Ward-5(3), Baroda

ITA 43/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 4320514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKAR SHARMAAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 40A(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. , ! ! ! ! ITA NO. 43 /AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 MANOHARLAL KANAIYALAL DAVE, 4 TH FLOOR, STEEL CHAMBERS, LAKKADPITHA ROAD, BARODA V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), BARODA PAN NO. A CUPD3437A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 113 /AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), BARODA V/S . MANOHARLAL KANAIYALAL DAVE, 4 TH FLOOR, STEEL CHAMBERS, LAKKADPITHA ROAD, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ' # $ / BY REVENUE SHRI J. P. JHANGID, SR.D.R. # $ /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. %& # /DATE OF HEARING 10.03.2014 '() # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.03.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T. R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AND REVENUE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, BARODA, DATED 23.11.2010 FOR A.Y. 07-0 8 IN BOTH APPEALS. THE SOLE GROUND IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITIO N OF RS.13,18,736/- OUT OF ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 2 PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR, WHEREAS THE REVENUE S GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1(I). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.43,95,785/- TO RS.13,18,736/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 1(II). THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOW ANCE @ 30% OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.43,95,785/-, WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT IN RESPONSE TO LETTER U/S. 133(6) ISSUED, THE SUPPLIERS VIZ. M/S. ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND M/S. MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES HAVE CATEGORICALLY DE NIED TO HAVE SOLD ANY GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ALSO CONFIRMED THAT ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WERE ISSUED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LA MEDICA 250 ITR 575, IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT IF THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE, THE ENTIRE SUM OF BOGUS PURCHASE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. 2. THE LD. A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE IT ACT TO VARIOUS SUPPLIER. ON VERIFICATION OF THE REPLY RECEIVED, IT IS SEEN T HAT FOLLOWING PARTIES HAD NEVER SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1. M/S ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPN. 31,56,405 2. M/S MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES 12,39,380 TOTAL 43,95,785 THE LD. A.O. HAS REPRODUCED THE REPLY OF ABOVE PART IES AS UNDER: ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 'PLEASE REFER TO YOUR AFORESAID LETTER SENT TO ME. IT IS STATED THAT SHRI NARENDRA JIVARAM BISHNOI HAS SHOWN PURCHASES FOR TH E F.Y. 2006-07 FROM M/S ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION . I WISH TO STATE THAT 1 HAVE SENT DETAILED REPLY TO THE DDIT(INVESTIGATION)-I, BARODA VIDE LETTER DATED 31.08.2006. WHEREIN I HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT NO ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 3 GOODS ARE SOLD BY ME TO SHRI MANHARLAL K DAVE, OR A NY OTHER PERSON/COMPANY, BUT I HAVE ONLY GIVEN TO VARIOUS PA RTIES FOR THE AMOUNT PAID TO ME IN CHEQUE AND THE SAME ARE RETURNED BACK TO THEM IN CASH ALONG WITH SALES BILL AND FOR THIS WORK, I USE TO G ET SOME DALALI. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE SHRI MANOHARLAL K DAVE THAT I HAVE SOL D GOODS TO THEM IS FALSE, I HAVE NOT SOLD ANY GOODS TO THEM. I HAVE JU ST ISSUED SALES BILLS TO THEM IN THE NAME OF M/S ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION . MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES 'PLEASE REFER TO YOUR AFORESAID LETTER SENT TO ME. IT IS STATED THAT SHRI MANOHARLAL K DAVE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES FOR THE F.Y. 2006-07 FROM M/S MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES. I WISH TO STATE THAT I HAVE SENT DETAILED REPLY TO THE DDIT(INVESTIGATION)-I, BARODA VIDE LETTER DATED 31.08.2006. WHEREIN I HAVE CLEARLY SLATED THAT NO GOODS ARE SOLD BY ME TO SHRI MANOHARLAL K DAVE OR A NY OTHER PERSON/COMPANY, BUT I HAVE ONLY GIVEN TO VARIOUS PA RTIES FOR THE AMOUNT PAID TO ME IN CHEQUE AND THE SAME ARE RETURNED BACK TO THEM IN CASH ALONG WITH -SALES BILL AND FOR THIS WORK, I USE TO GET SOME DALALI. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE SHRI MANOHARLAL K DAVE THAT I HAVE SOL D GOODS TO THEM IS FALSE, I HAVE NOT SOLD ANY GOODS TO THEM. I HAVE JU ST ISSUED SALES BILLS TO THEM IN THE NAME OF M/S MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD , WHICH WAS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE A.O. HELD AS UNDER: A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY DAY TO DAY STOCK, PURCHASE AND SALES. THEREFORE, PURCHASE AND CORRESPONDING SA LES ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE. B) IN THE STATEMENT OF THE ABOVE PARTY RECORDED U/S .131 OF THE ACT, BY DDIT(LNV.) ON 31-08-2009, AND IN A STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S.131 OF THE ACT ON 10-11-2009, BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THEY HAVE NOT ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 4 SUPPLIED ANY GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HA S CATEGORICALLY STATED. C) THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED DO NOT SHOW THE PLACE OF T HE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS, MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, LIKE LR NO., REGN. NO. OF THE VEHICLE ETC. D) THERE IS NO ENDORSEMENT ON THE DELIVERY TO ESTAB LISH THE FACT THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY RECEIVED. E) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTIES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. F) THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE. AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAD BEEN DENIED HAVING BEEN MAD E ANY SUPPLY TO THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.43,95,785/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS A FACT THAT BEFO RE THE DEPARTMENT THAT IT IS ADMITTED BY M/S. ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND M/S. MINAKSHI ENTERPRISES THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL SALES ON COMMISSION BASIS. IT IS FOUND THAT THE APP ELLANT CARRIES ON BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING OF IRON AND STEEL AND HIS SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY DELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORTATION DETA ILS AND COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF MATERIAL PURCHASED AND SOLD. 5.4.1. THERE IS HOWEVER, ADVERSE EVIDENCE ON RECORD , SHOWING THAT THE SUPPLIERS ISSUED BOGUS BILLS. THERE IS STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLYING PARTIES THAT THERE WAS A REGULAR ARRANGEMENT FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS. THE BURDEN WAS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE P URCHASES WERE ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 5 GENUINE, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN QUANTITAT IVE TALLY OF MATERIALS PURCHASED AND MATERIALS SOLD. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE BY CHEQUE FROM EXPLAINED FUNDS OF THE BUSINESS. THAT LEAVES O NLY ONE ALTERNATIVE. THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE OPEN MAR KET INCURRING CASH PAYMENT AND BILLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM PAPER CONCER NS LIKE M/S. ARUN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND M/S. MINAKSHI ENTERPRISE S. IN THE PROCESS THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED SEC. 40A(3) WHICH PROHIBITS CASH PURCHASES AND ALSO THERE WERE ACCOMPANYING GAIN AS THE PURCHASES OF MATERIALS MADE FROM UNREGISTERED PARTIES ESCAPEMENT OF SALES TAX A ND OTHER STATUTORY DUTIES. 5.4.2. HOWEVER, AS PER VARIOUS DECISIONS OF ITAT SU CH AS VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. 58 ITD 528, ENTIRE COST OF PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN SUCH CASES. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF ITA T IN THE CASES OF OMKAR PHARMA, SHREE RAJ INDUSTRIES, AMIT PROCESSORS , PREM KUMAR RATHI ETC. 5.4.3. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS O F THE CASE, I FIND THAT 30% OF THE PURCHASE COST WILL BE A REASONABLE AMOUN T WHICH CAN BE ADDED IN THIS CASE TO COVER THE GAIN OF THE APPELLA NT. THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) BY MAKING CASH PURCHASE S FROM THE OPEN MARKET AND ALSO THE SAVINGS IN TERMS OF NON PAYMENT OF SALES TAX, OCTROI AND OTHER STATUTORY DUTIES. THEREFORE, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.43,95,785/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS P URCHASES, AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,18,736/- BEING 30% OF THE SAID PURC HASES IS CONFIRMED. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE US. LD. A.R. FOR TH E ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS A TRADER DEALI NG IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF DIFFERENT STEEL ITEMS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. MAYUR STEEL (INDIA) AS PROPRIETARY CONCERN SINCE QUITE A GOOD NUMBER OF YE ARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT AND HAD SHOWN INCOME AT RS.1,55,760/-. THE APPELLANT IS IN STEEL TRADE AND SUPPLIED THE STEEL ITEMS DIRECTLY FROM SUPPLIER TO THE CUSTOMER AND THEREFORE, EARNED DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE INDEPENDENT ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 6 SUPPLIES MADE BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. THE ROLE OF APPELLANT IN THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY IS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT OF INDENTING AGE NT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. A.O. THAT APPELLANT INFLATED ITS PURCHASES BY A CCOUNTING BOGUS PURCHASES SO AS TO REDUCE ITS TAXABLE PROFITS AS A PART OF DE VICE TO EVADE PAYMENT OF LEGITIMATE TAXES. THE FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE APPELLANT DID PURCHASE STEEL AND SUPPLY THE SAME DIRECTLY FROM THE PLACE OF SUPP LIER TO THE PLACE OF ITS CUSTOMERS FROM WHICH IT RECEIVED PAYMENTS AND DISCL OSED THE SAME AS SALES. IN SUCH TYPES OF CASE, TESTING & WEIGHING WERE ALSO MADE, WHERE THE GOODS SOLD TO THE CUSTOMERS. IF LATER ON ANY DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY THE CUSTOMER WITH REGARD TO QUALITY, QUANTITY AND RATE DIFFERENC ES, THE APPELLANT GIVES CREDIT ACCORDINGLY AFTER CONFIRMATION WITH THEM. THE GENU INENESS OF THE SALES SO MADE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. A.O. IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE THAT IN ORDER TO EXECUTE SALES ONE HAS TO MAKE PURC HASES THAT TOO AT LEAST OF EQUAL QUANTITY. THE LD. A.O. MADE INQUIRY U/S. 133 (6) OF THE IT ACT BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BACK CASH ON THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE SUPPLIERS WORK FOUND IN E XISTENCE AT THE TIME OF VERIFICATION. THUS, GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE CA NNOT BE DOUBTED. FURTHER, HE REITERATED THE ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GP @ 5% IN A.Y. 05-06 , 3.43% IN A.Y. 06-07 AND 3.86 IN A.Y. 07-08. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATT ENTION ON PAGE NO.44 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE A.O. DUR ING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING AND CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAME QUANTI TY AND SOLD THE SAME QUANTITY AS THERE IS NO OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK I N THE BALANCE SHEET. THE LD. ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 7 CIT(A) HAD APPLIED THE DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. 58 ITD 528 , WHEREIN HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD CONFIRMED THE NET PROFIT @ 25% BUT IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A MANUFACTURER AND IT HAS BEEN PRO VED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED THE PURCHASE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE IS TRADING OF STEEL ITEMS AND HAVE LOW MARGIN OF PROFIT. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. LD. A.R. RELIED IN CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH [2013] 38 TAXMANN.COM 385 (GUJARAT), WHEREIN ESTIMATION OF PROFITS ON BOGUS PURCHASES IN CASE OF TRADING IN STEEL ON WHOLESALE BASIS AND PURCHASES WERE FOUND BOGUS BUT CIT(A) FOUND THAT THESE PURCHASES W ERE MADE FROM THE GREY MARKET FROM OTHER PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE ADDITION ON 30%, HOWEVER, ITAT REDUCED IT TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5%. T HEREFORE, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. HE FUR THER RELIED UPON IN CASE OF HONBLE ITAT B BENCH IN CASE OF ITO VS. SUNSTEEL, IN ITA NO. 2641/AHD/1997, FOR A.Y. 1994-95, WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAD NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN SUPPLIERS. THE A.O. DOES NOT HAVE MATERIAL TO PROVE THE PAYMENTS OF PURCHASES CAME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. I T IS POSSIBLE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASE FROM UNREGISTERED DEALER S TO GET BENEFIT OF MARGIN OF PURCHASES. THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED T O RS.50,000/- ON BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS.5,80,485/-. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION ON PAGE NO.78, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TIN NO. HIS PURCHASE HAD BEEN DI SCLOSED IN THE VAT RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMERCIAL TAX D EPARTMENT, VADODARA, HAD ACCEPTED THESE PURCHASES AS GENUINE. THUS, NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 8 LD. CIT(A) @ 30% IS HIGHER SIDE AND SAME MAY BE EIT HER REDUCED OR TREATED THE PURCHASE AS GENUINE. 4(I). AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. OPPOSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF BOGUS PURCHAS E WHEREAS THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF FULL AMOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE OF R S.4,39,578/- BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CIT VS. LA-MEDICA [2001] 250 ITR 575 (DEL, . THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR DECIDING NET PROFIT @ 3 0%. LD. A.O. VERIFIED THE PURCHASES, WHICH WERE FOUND BOGUS. THE PARTIES HAD DENIED IN STATEMENT U/S. 131(1). LD. SR. D.R. FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF CIT VS. LA-MEDICA [2001] 250 ITR 575 (DEL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THERE IS AN AMPLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE THE ENTIRE SUM OF BOGUS PURCHASE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS IN TRADING OF STEEL ON WHO LESALE BASIS. THE LD. A.O. VERIFIED THE PURCHASES AND TWO PARTIES AS REFERRED ABOVE HAD DENIED HAVING BEEN MADE ANY SALES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FACT TH AT ASSESSEES PURCHASES WERE FOUND BOGUS. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT WITHOUT PUR CHASE, NO SALES CAN BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GP @ 3.86% DURING THE YEAR. IN THE TRADING OF STEEL, THE MARGIN IS LESS COMPARED TO OTHER BUSI NESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS OBTAINED THE BILL FROM TH ESE PARTIES BUT ACTUAL PURCHASE THE GOODS WERE FROM OTHER PARTIES FROM GRE Y MARKET. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHET H (SUPRA) REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT 12.5% NET PROFIT ON BOGUS PURCHA SE COULD BE ADDED TO THE ITA NOS. 43 & 113/AHD/11 FOR A.Y. 07-08 MANOHARLAL KANIYALAL DAVE VS. ITO PAGE 9 ASSESSEES INCOME AS A PROFIT ELEMENT. THE ISSUE I S IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION I N CASE OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA), WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT 12.5% NET PRO FIT ON BOGUS PURCHASE IS REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE GETS PARTLY RELI EF. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 43 / AHD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 113/AHD/201 1 IS DISMISSED. THESE ORDERS ARE PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/03/2014 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA * * * * # ## # +, +, +, +, -,) -,) -,) -,) / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ' / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. 11 2 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 2- / CIT (A) 5. ,67 +% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79: ;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ * , =/ 1' , !