Khetiwadi Utpanna Bazar Committee, Kalol V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3, Mehsana

ITA 520/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 52020514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: T K KUNJUNI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences; Competent authority; Assessment record; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI, MARKET YARD, NR, BALIYADEV CROSSING, KALOL. PAN: AAALT 0181H VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEHSANA WARD-3, MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI T.K. KUNJUNI, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 13/03/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/03/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR, DATED 11.11.2009. THE A SSESSEE HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS ANNEXED ALONG WITH FORM NO .36, REPRODUCED BELOW: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN NOT DECIDING THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LOSS OF THE EARLIER YEAR. T HE LOSS BEING ASSESSED, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME O F THE YEAR. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS MAY BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTI ON FROM THE ASSESSED INCOME. 1.1 LATER ON, THE APPELLANT HAS REVISED THE GROUNDS AND THESE GROUNDS WERE DULY CONTESTED BEFORE US, REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.3, 87,014/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF P.F., GRATUITY AND INTE REST ON P.F. MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 2 - IN THE ORDER PASSED, MERELY ACCEPTING THE VIEW TAKE N BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT, AT RS.1,65,593/- BY THE APPELLANT, MERELY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHICH IS UNLAWFUL AND THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE AL LOWED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED AND CONFIRMED AN AMOU NT OF RS.1,98,968/- BEING WRONGLY CALCULATED AND ADDED BY THE LD. AO. I N CONNECTION WITH DEPRECIATION, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4 THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 5,280/- MADE BY THE AO BEING INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT, IN RESPECT OF A DVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. THE SAME BEING THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPE LLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES MAY KINDLY BE AL LOWED IN FULL. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 77,500/- MADE BY THE AO, BEING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPEC T OF LEGAL EXPENSES. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN FULL, AS THE SAID AMO UNT IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN INCURRED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANTS OFFICE. 6. FULL OF RESPECT IS PLACED FOR ACCEPTING THE APPE AL, THEREBY CONDONING THE DELAY OF 32 DAYS BY THE HONBLE ITAT BEING THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO THE REASON THAT FOR FILING OF APPEAL THE SAME HAS TO BE DECIDED BY NEWLY ELECTED COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE ONLY CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FIL ING OF THE APPEAL. 7. THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SEC. 271(1)(B) OF THE A CT, FOR NON-ATTENDING OF THE OFFICE, BY THE APPELLANT WAS DUE TO REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT, THEREBY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDANCE ON THAT P ARTICULAR DAY, HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, AND THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED. T HE PENALTY LEVIED MAY THEREFORE BE DELETED TO SECURE LAW AND JUSTICE. 8. THE INITIATION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY LEV IED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSES SMENT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, BEING WITHOUT INDICATING ANY FACTS OR R EASONS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED, TO SECURE LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE PERUSED TH E COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT AN ASSESSMENT W AS MADE U/S.143(3), DATED 20 TH OF DECEMBER, 2007 AND THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.9,23,482/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING BUT TH E ASSESSEE EITHER REMAINED ABSENT OR REMAINED SILENT. THE AO HAS CATE GORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE. ONE MR. G.B. PATEL, SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY HAD ATTENDED THE HE ARING; WHO HAVE BEEN INFORMED THE QUERIES SO AS TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSME NT BUT THEREAFTER THE ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 3 - SECRETARY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE REMAINED ABSE NT. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE MAY LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN THAT THE ASSESSEE B EING AN AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, THEREFORE, ENGAGED IN PRO VIDING MARKETING FACILITIES TO THE FARMERS; HENCE, SECRETARY OF SUCH TYPE OF SOCIETIES SHOULD BE VIGILANT TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE FARMER S. IT IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF A SECRETARY TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF FARMERS. AS AGAINST THAT, RECORDS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT THE OFFICE BEARERS OF T HIS COMMITTEE HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. EVEN BEFO RE ITAT ONCE NO ONE WAS PRESENT; HENCE AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 14 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2013 AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED F OR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, LATER ON VIDE AN ORDER DATED 13 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2013 IN MA NO.134/AHD/2013 (ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 A.Y . 2005-06) THE REQUEST WAS ACCEPTED AND ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 WA S RECALLED. WE, THEREFORE, HOPE THAT AFTER NOTICING OUR CONCERN ABO UT THE NON-APPEARANCE, IN FUTURE THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THIS AOP SHALL BE A TTENTIVE AS ALSO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 3. FURTHER, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY OF ABOUT 32 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN AND THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) VS. MST KATIJI AS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3.1 APROPOS TO GROUND RAISED AS REPRODUCED ABOVE PE RTAINING TO THE SET OFF LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS, WE HEREBY RESTORE THIS I SSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE SAME AS PER LAW. THE FACTS AND FIGURES IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 4 - THE LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS IS NOT ON RECORD, THEREFO RE, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE A CORRECT FINDING IN THIS REGARD; HENCE, KEEPING NA TURAL JUSTICE IN MIND RESTORE THIS GROUND BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AS PER LAW, NATURALLY AFTER EXAMINING THE PAST YEARS RECORD OF ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED ONLY FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSE. 4. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE A O HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS ALSO AN INQUIRY LETTER THROUGH WHICH ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: PF AND GRATUITY EXPENSES: VIDE SR. NO. (I) OF LETTER DATED 17/10/2007, YOU WE RE ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWANCE OF PF/GRATUITY AS CLAIMED BY YOU BY 06/12/2007. BUT, Y OU HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE AFORESAID REQUIREMENT. YOU ARE THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY YOUR CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF PF OF RS.99,337/- AND GRATUITY OF RS.1,30,000/- AND PF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.1,49,0 14/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL INCOME. 4.1 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS REQ UIRED, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE RECOG NITION OF THE PROVIDENT FUND BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, THE AO HAD DISALLOW ED THE SAME. NOW BEFORE US, IT IS PLEADED BY LEARNED AR THAT THE STA FF PROVIDENT FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.99,337/- AND GRATUITY OF RS.1,30,00 0/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK; HENCE, THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME WHI CH WAS WRONGLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE REVENU ES SIDE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RECOGNITION OF TH E PROVIDENT FUND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR SUCH CLAIM. THE ADMITT ED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY EVID ENCE PERTAINING TO RECOGNITION OF PF, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION BEING ONE OF THE CONDITION FOR GRANT OF D EDUCTION WAS NOT FULFILLED. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW BEING INFRINGED; HENCE, WE HEREBY ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 5 - AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE FORM OF FDR IN THE BANK HAS NO LEGAL SANCTION BECAUSE THE LAW DO NOT PERMIT SUCH RECOURS E, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO FORCE; HENCE, DISMISS ED. 5. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.2, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS.5,51,978/- A ND CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S.24 OF RS.1,65,593/-. THE AO HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE AN ASSET-WISE DEPRECIATION. THE AO HAS ALSO ASKED TO SUBMIT THE BUILDING-WISE DETAILS OF THE RENT RECEIPT. THERE WA S NON-COMPLIANCE BEFORE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). IN SPIT E OF THE FACT THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BUT WE ARE ON THE FUNDAM ENTAL QUESTION THAT WHETHER A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.24 IN RESPECT OF I NCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTY IS ALLOWABLE TO A TAX PAYER WHO HAS SHOWN A RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SECTION 24 P RESCRIBES THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION, NAMELY, A SU M EQUAL TO 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE. THIS DEDUCTION IS LIKE A STANDARD DEDUCTION IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION. THEREFORE, ON THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.5,51,978/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 30% OF THE SAME, I.E., RS.1,65 ,593/-. ONCE, THE AO HAD ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THEN HE WAS EXCEPTED TO GRANT THIS MANDATORY DEDUCT ION TO THE ASSESSEE. BUILDING-WISE DETAIL WAS NOT VERY RELEVANT FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.24 OF IT ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW TH E DEDUCTION AS PRESCRIBED U/S.24 OF IT ACT. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 6 - 6. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3, THE OBSERVATION OF THE A O WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.18,37,181/- . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A WORKING OF THE DEPRECIATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE AMOUNT OF DEPRE CIATION WAS RS.16,43,543/-. THAT DISCREPANCY WAS DULY NOTED BY THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED DEPRECIATION OF RS.18,37,181/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE BIFURCATION OF THE DEPRECI ATION CLAIM AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED OUT THE DEPREC IATION ALLOWABLE AT RS.16,43,543/-. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF THE DEPR ECIATION STATEMENT SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTICED THAT HE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING (AS PER AUDIT REPORT), THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON BUILDING COMES TO RS.14,96,717/- AND ON CARS RS.1,0 8,380/- AS AGAINST RS.13,50,000/- AND RS.1,13,710/- CLAIMED IN THE STA TEMENT FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, CO NSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE AS PER STATEMENT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RS.16,43,543/- LESS: EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR (RS.1,13,710 RS.1,08,380) RS. 5,330/- RS.16,38,213 THUS, AS AGAINST DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.18,37,181 /-, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION OF RS.16,38,213/- ONLY AND THEREFOR E, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,98,968/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PEN AL PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED ON THIS ISSU E. 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ARGUMENT, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE AO HAS COR RECTLY EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF THE DEPRECIATION AND THEREUPON THE DIFFE RENCE WAS RIGHTLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED TH AT EVEN BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED THE SUPPORTING M ATERIAL TO CONTEST THE ACTION OF THE AO. RESULTANTLY, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE; HENCE, THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 7 - 8. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.4, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.55,280/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT. I N THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF DETA ILS OF TDS, WHETHER DEDUCTED, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THERE WAS NO IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAID CLAIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS BACK GROUND, WE ARE ALSO OF THE O PINION THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION REMAINED UNANSWERED THAT WHY A N ADVERTISEMENT WAS REQUIRED FOR THIS AOP AND WHETHER THE ALLEGED E XPENDITURE WAS THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT OR NOT. ONLY AN EXPENDITURE, W HICH IS EXPANDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSIN ESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS REQUIREME NT, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE CLAIM WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES. THIS GROUND IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 9. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.5, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LEGAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.77,500/- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISITE DETAILS THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. NOW BEFORE US, IT IS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL EXPENDITURE W ERE VERY MUCH IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD BEFORE THE AO. FURTHER, IT WAS CO NTESTED THAT THE RETURN WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AN AUDITORS REPORT. UNDISPUTEDL Y THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AUDITED AS REQUIRED U/S. 44AB OF I T ACT. THE LEGAL EXPENDITURE WAS EXAMINED BY THE SAID AUDITOR, AS CO NTESTED BY LEARNED AR BEFORE US. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTI ON ON FEW BILLS OF THE ADVOCATE AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF LEGAL EXPENDITURE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE ITA NO.520/AHD/2010 KHETIWADI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. ITO MEHSANA. A.Y.2005-06 - 8 - CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLA IM OF LEGAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.77,500/-; HENCE, WE HEREBY DIRECT TO GRANT TH E SAME, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 10. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.6, THE SAME IS IN RESPECT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 32 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HON BLE ITAT. IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH TH IS ISSUE BY GRANTING THE CONDITION; HENCE, GROUND NO.6 DEEMED TO BE ALLO WED. 11. GROUND NOS.7 & 8 ARE IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF PENA LTY WHICH IS PREMATURE AT THIS STAGE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION; HENC E DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/03/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD