Shri Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

ITA 447/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6254 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTONY PARIATH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC/D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08) MUKESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL, C/O V. P. PATEL & CO. ADV., A-102, AKSHARDHAM, SHAHIBAUG, AHMEDABAD 4 AP PELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, GANDHINAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: ACKPP7110L /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI ANTONY PARIATH , SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 006-07 AND 2007-08 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A), GANDHINAGARS SEPARATE OR DERS, BOTH DATED 12.11.2014 IN CASE NOS. CIT(A)/GNR/541/2013-14 & CIT(A)/GNR/542/2 013-14, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS IDENTICAL ACTION INITIATING REO PENING PROCEEDINGS THEREBY DISALLOWING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION OF RS.4,04,1 47/- AND RS.1,15,370/-; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 144 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/15 [MUKESHBHAI V. PATEL VS. ITO] A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 2 - 2. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE FIRST OF A LL SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS FOR FORMER IDENTICAL GROUND CHALLENGI NG VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAID FORMER LEG AL GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. WE COME TO LATTER IDENTICAL ISSUE ON MERITS PERT AINING TO SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION CLAIMED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST AS DECLINED IN BOTH THE LOWER PROCEEDINGS. THE PROJECT IN QUESTION IS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF SHALIN TENEMENTS. LEARNED COUNSEL IS VERY FAIR IN THE BEGINNING ITSELF IN SUB MITTING THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FOLLOWED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 DENYING A SIMILAR CLAIM QUA THE VERY RESIDENTIAL PR OJECT. HE STATES THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS PEN DING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO FIND OUT NECESSARY DETAILS OF ASSESSEES ALLEGED APPEAL STATED TO BE PENDING. WE ARE INFORMED THAT A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 HAD DECIDED ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 372/AHD/20 09 REMITTING THE VERY ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 22.07.2011. CASE RECORDS IN BOTH THESE APPEALS REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY FINAL IZED CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS WELL BEFORE ISSUING 148 NOTICES IN QUESTION. THERE IS NO OTHER APPEAL PENDING IN THIS TRIBUNAL AS PER OUR RECORDS. WE THEREFORE UPH OLD THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE DENYING THE SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION IN QUESTION WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 5. THE SECOND & THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AGAIN ST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4,04,2010/- 5.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB(10) OF RS.12,71,980/- AND U/S 40A(3) OF RS.80,000/- WAS RE JECTED BY A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL ORDERS PASSED U/S. 143(3) FOR AY 2005-06. THE APPEL LANT PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, WHO UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE AO DENYING THE CLAIM. THE MATTER THEN WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD WHO WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 372/AHD/2009 DATED 22/7/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL REGARDING ALLOWABILIT Y OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: '7, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2004-05, IT IS NOT DEAR WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) DURING THE AT 20 04-05 WAS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROJECT- THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FI LE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/15 [MUKESHBHAI V. PATEL VS. ITO] A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 3 - FRESH ADJUDICATION TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE A.O.' THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED FOR AY 2005- 06, WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, R ELYING ON THE VIEW TAKEN IN AY 2005-06, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U /S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 5.2 APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS CONTEND ED BEFORE ME AS UNDER: 'BEING AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER, WD-3, GANDHINAGAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE A.O.) DT.0 6-03-2014; THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AP PENDED WITH THE APPEAL MEMO, IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID GROUNDS THE APPELLANT HEREBY SUBMIT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS UNDER. 1) THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND SINCE LONG. IT HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX SINCE LAST 20 YEARS. 2) THE APPELLANT HAD CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION W ORKS OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISE AS PER APPROVED PLAN UNDER THE NAME SHALIN TENEMANTS. THE LAND AREA OF SAID PROJECT IS MORE THEN 1 ACRE AND RESIDE NTIAL UNIT CONSTRUCTED ARE ALSO LESS THEN 1500 SQ.FT., WHICH WAS STARTED FROM MAY 2002 (A PHOTOCOPY OF PERMISSION IS ENCL. HEREWITH), (PL. REFER PG.34/35) . 3) THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCO UNT REGULARLY AS PER THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT AND GOT IT AUDITED. 4) THAT A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A,Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 FURNISHED ON TOTAL INCOME AT RS,209320 AND RS.215250/- AFTER CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.404170 AND RS.115370/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 80 1B(10) OF INCOME TAX ACT, AS ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED UN DER THE PROVISION HAS BEEN FULLY SATISFIED, IN RETURN OF INCOME WE ENCLOSED CO PY OF AUDIT REPORT AND FORM 10CCB AS PER PROVISION. 5) IT IS NOTE WORTHY THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN REST ORED BACK BY HON'BLE ITAT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, WITH CLEAR DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PROJECT IS SAME OR NOT AS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. A. O. HAD IGNORED THE COGENT EVIDENCES / AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CLEAR DIRE CTION GIVEN BY THE ITAT AND REOPENED THE EASE ON MISTAKE OF AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT WITH THE ABOVE SET OF THE FACTS, WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 'THE LD.A.O. HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAWS IN DISA LLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT; WHERE THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULLY SATISFIED, HENCE THE SAM E MAY PLEASE BE DELETED.' THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND CO NSTRUCTION WORKS OF THE HOUSING SCHEME (SHALIN TENEMENTS) UNDER THE NAME M/ S. MUKESH ORGANIZERS, AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN ON THE LAND MORE THAN 1 AC RE. THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED BY COLLECTOR ON DT.26-06-2002. IT HAS COMM ENCED THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS ONWARD JUNE 2002. THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS COM PLETED IN NOV. 2007 (I.E. PRIOR TO DT.31-03-2008). THUS ALL THE CONDITI ONS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN FULLY SATISFIED, HENCE THE SAID DEDUCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED IN THE PRECEDING YE ARS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF PRECE DING YEAR, WE PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AND HE ACCEPTED THE SAM E AND GRANTED THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS IN EARLIER YEAR S. THERE HAS BEEN ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/15 [MUKESHBHAI V. PATEL VS. ITO] A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 4 - AMENDMENT W.E.F 1-04-2005 IN SAID PROVISION; AS PER THE SAID PROVISION THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED ONWARD SAID DATE ARE REQUI RED TO SUBMIT THE PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, WE FU RNISHED THE SUMMARY OF MEMBERS YEAR WISE COLLECTION (PI. REFER PAGE NO.62) ; WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THERE HAD BEEN NO ANY COLLECTION ONWARD NOV. 2007 A S THE HOUSING PROJECT COMPLETED AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WE ALSO SUBMITTED T HE COPY OF LAY OUT PLAN OF HOUSING PROJECT AND BROCHURE OF THE SCHEME (PI. REF ER PAGE NO.36 TO 38); WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THE HOUSING PROJECT CONSIST BY 32 RESIDENCES, THE SUMMARY OF ALL 32 MEMBERS COLLECTION FROM 2002 TO 2007 AND CON JOIN READING OF AFORESAID EVIDENCES CLEARLY SHOW THE PROJECT IS ONE ONLY. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS CLEARLY DIRECTED THAT THE LD.A O IS TO VERIFY THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FOR THE SAME PROJECT OR NOT WIDE PARA -7 OF SA ID ORDER, WHICH REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. 'AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, AND PERUSING THE R ECORD AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05, IT IS NOT DE AR WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) DURING THE A.Y. 2004-0 5 WAS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROJECT.' FURTHER, THE OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCES LIKE A S AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AT INITIAL STAGE WITH THE MEMBERS (PG-39 TO 45) AND THEY FORMED THE NIC (THE SHALIN CO-OP, HOUS. SERVICE SOC. LTD) FOR THE PROPE R ADMINISTRATION ON GETTING POSSESSION OF THEIR BOOKED PREMISES CLEARLY INDICAT ES ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN RESIDING IN THEIR NEW ABODE AT SHALIN TENEMENT S PRIOR TO DEC.2007, THE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RAGISTAR OF SAHAKARI MANDLI AND AUDIT REPORT SIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUDITOR FOR THE FIR ST YEAR FROM DT. 1-4-2007 TO 31-03-2008 ENCLOSED HEREWITH (PL. REFER PAGE NO.63 TO 77); WHICH CLEARLY TRANSPIRES THE PROJECT COMPLETED WELL BEFORE THE ST IPULATED TIME LIMIT. THE OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO PROJECT COMP LETION ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE LD.AO IN FORM OF NEXT YEARS RETURN OF INCOME; W HICH CLEARLY INDICATES NO ANY SUCH DEDUCTION CLAIMED ONWARD A.Y. 2009-10. EVE N FOR THE A.Y.2008-09 ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION, TH OUGH HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT (PI. R EFER PAGE NO.97 TO 100). THUS THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH FORM 10CCB SIGNED BY LD. CA COULD NOT BE IGNORED IN CURSORY MA NNER, (PL. REFER PG 8 TO 33 AND 81 TO 96). NOW, IN REGARD TO CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VAVOL G RAM PANCHAYAT, WHICH APPEARS TO CONTAIN SOME ERROR PRIMA FACIE, WHICH OC CURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MISTAKE (PL. REFER PAGE NO. 14 OF ASST, ORDER). THE SAID MISTAKE MIGHT BE OCCURRED AND FORGOT TO MENTIONED THE WORD 'DUPLICAT E' ON IT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMPLY SOUGHT A CERTIFICATE IN REGARD TO WHEN THE M EMBERS HAVE RESIDED AND PAID THEIR HOUSE TAX FIRST TIME ON THE BASIS OF THE IR RECORD, WITH A VIEW TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PROJECT COMPLETED IN NOV.2007. IT APPEARS THE LATTER PAD USED, SEAL PRESSED AND SI GNED BY THE EXISTING SARPANCH CLEARLY SHOW THE SIGNING PERSON IS NOT MUC H EDUCATED AND AWARE OF SUCH WORKS, THUS THE CERTIFICATE RECEIVED FROM THE STATE AGENCY IS NOT BOGUS AS HELD BY THE LD.AO IN BODY OF ORDER. THE LD. AO HAD MISINTERPRET WHOLE ISSUE ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/15 [MUKESHBHAI V. PATEL VS. ITO] A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 5 - AND DRAFT VERY LENGTHY ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CONTA IN MORE THAN 18 PAGES. IN ANY CASE THE LD.AO COULD HAVE INFORMED THE CONCERNE D HIGHER AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD. THE LD.AO SHOULD ASK FOR PRODUCE OTHER GOVE RNMENT AGENCY PROOF IN REGARD TO COMPLETION OF PROJECT. CONSIDERING ABOVE COGENT EVIDENCES, IT IS AMPLE CLE AR THE HOUSING PROJECT COMPLETED WELL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT, TH E OTHER CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ALSO FULFILLED AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AO THE AUDIT REPORT AND SUCH EVIDENCES ALSO REVEALS THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED / DEVELOP ED ONLY ONE PROJECT FROM 2002 TO 2007, AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE WE RELY ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. 1. CIT VS. RADHEY DEVELOPERS - (2012) 341ITR 403 (G UJ.). 2. MEDHA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. - (2014) 41 CCH 007 HYD TRIB. 'IT IS HELD - CONCLUSION - EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FURNISH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, SINCE PROJECT WAS A PPROVED BEFORE 01- 04-2005 AND COMPLETED ON DT.31-03-2008.........VERI FY FACT RELATING TO DEVIATION OF SITE PLAN.' PRAYER : THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY URGE THAT - THE CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 8016(10) MAY PLEASE BE ALLO WED AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH MAY DEEM FIT PROPER AND OBLI GE.' 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ME FOR AY 2005-06 IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: '5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF CASE, ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE AO AFTER GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GNR AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, T HE COPY OF AGREEMENT AND ALL DETAILS/DOCUMENTS/CLARIFICATIONS ETC. FURNI SHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF I. T. ACT. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER HAS MENTIONED THAT CIT(A) HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE A PPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE APP ELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCES REGARDING THE COMPLETIO N OF PROJECT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED FOR CLAIMING DEDU CTION U/S 80IB(10). FURTHER, AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT AS CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN AY 2004-05, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN AY 2005-06 WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED BEFORE THE HON'BL E ITAT THAT SUCH CLAIM IS ALLOWED IN AY 2004-05 IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROJEC T. THE AO HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. I FIND THAT AO HAS REEXAMINED ALL ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IN APPEAL RE LATED TO THE CLAIM OF 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGAIN, APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH 'CERTIFICATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION' AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM MADE B Y THE APPELLANT OF RS.12,71,980/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. AS NARRATED IN PARA.2 OF THIS ORDER, DESPITE GRANTI NG NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, HE HAS FAILED TO ATTE ND BEFORE ME TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. IN A BSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALL OWED. SINCE, THE AO HAS LOOKED INTO THE MATTER AT LENGTH FOLLOWING THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, ITA NOS. 447 & 448/AHD/15 [MUKESHBHAI V. PATEL VS. ITO] A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - 6 - WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.12,71,980/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE, HELD JUST IFIED AND IS CONFIRMED.' SINCE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAVE DECIDED FOR AY 2005-06, REPRODUCED AS ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE AY 20 06-07 OF RS.4,04,147/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. WE THEREFORE AGREE WITH LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVES CONTENTIONS AND REJECT ASSESSEES LATTER SUBSTANTIV E GROUND ON MERITS AS WELL. 5. THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 16/01/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0