Jewel Consumer Care Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 662/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6459 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S SOURYAWANSI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT ,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ITA NO.662/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2004-05) JEWEL CONSUMER CARE PVT. LTD., ( AMALGMATING GORADIA INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.) SUBHAG B-15/16 RAMIN PARIK, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA . V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE,BARODA. PAN: AAACG 7338N [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR , AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI G.S. SOURYAWANSI , DR ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 20-12-2007 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, BARODA FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.17,99,928/- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SAID INTEREST RELATED TO BORRO WED FUNDS WHICH WERE NOT USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE HONBLE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THE FOLLOWING FACTS: A) THE DISALLOWANCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ADVANCES/INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY: I) ADVANCES TO M/S. DENTAB RUSH PVT. LTD. OF RS.87,14,581/- II) INVESTMENT IN EQUITY S HARES OF RS.67,99,665/- B) THE ADVANCES TO M/S. DENT ABRUSH PVT. LTD., WHICH IS A SISTER CONCERN, WERE PROVIDED TO SET UP ITS BUSINESS FOR P URCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY TO ITS SISTER CONCERN WERE UTILIZED BY THE SAID CONCERN FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS AND HENCE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID OUT BY THE HON. ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 2 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR NON-BUSI NESS PURPOSE. C) INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES CANNOT BE SAID TO FUNDS UTILIZED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE AS EQUITY SHARES ARE INCOM E GENERATING ASSETS. THE HON. CIT A) HAS ERRED IN FAILI NG TO APPRECIATE THE RATIO LAID OUT BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CI T 288 ITR 1(SC). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO A PPRECIATE THAT THE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL, RESERVES AND SURPLUS TO COVER THE ABOVE REFERRED INTEREST FREE A DVANCES AND INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SHARES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS F AILED TO APPRECIATE THE RATIO LAID OUT BY THE HON. GUJARAT TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TORRENT FINANCIERS V. ACIT (2001) 73 TTJ 624 (AHD) AND GUJA RAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LTD. VS. DCIT 73 TTJ (AHD) 7 87. THE ORDER OF THE HON. CIT(A) IS WI THOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREVAILING IN THE MATTER . 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEA L, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER THE RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.23,45,164/- FILED ON 30- 10-2004 BY THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING MOULDING OF TOOTH BRUSH HANDLES AND OTHER PLASTIC MOULDED PRODUCTS ON JOB W ORK BASIS, AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 19-3-2005 U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INTEREST FREE LOANS/ADVANCES TO M/S. DENTABRUSH PVT. LTD., HAVING CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 87,14,581/- AS ON 31-3-2004 IN THE ACCOUNT . BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE MADE INVEST MENTS OF RS.67,99,663/- IN THE SHARES OF CERTAIN COMPANIES, LATER TAKEN OVER B Y THE ASSESSEE. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, SEEKING TO DISALLOW PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSE E WHILE RELYING ON THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS. BOMBAY SAMACHAR LTD. 74 ITR 723 (BOM),CIT VS. HOTEL SAVERA 239 ITR 795 (MAD.),ASHOK BROTHERS VS. ITO 76 TTJ 427 (HYD), ACIT ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 3 VS.ARUN KUMAR GUPTA 78 TTJ 288 (JOD) AND TORRENT F INANCIERS VS. ACIT 73 TTJ 624 (AHD.) CONTENDED THAT ADVANCE OF RS.87,14,581/ - WAS GIVEN TO M/S. S & G MOULDERS PVT. LTD., IN THE EARLIER YEARS. REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DIAMOND MOIULDERS P LTD., BARODA, PRECIMOULD P. LTD., S & G. MOULDERS P. LTD. , AND LILY MOULDERS P. LTD., WERE MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W.E.F. 1-4-20 03 AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE SAID COMPANIES OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS W ERE TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE .SINCE THE AFORESAID ADVANCES WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CONTENTIONS THAT INTEREST FREE L OANS WERE GIVEN OR INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF THEIR OWN SURPLUS FUNDS .WHILE RE LYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS. COIMBATORE SALEM TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., 61 IT R 480(MAD.); KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS. CIT 114 ITR 654(BOM.);R. DALMIYA VS. CIT 133 ITR 169 (DEL.); CIT VS. M.S. VENKATESHWARAN 222 ITR 163 (MAD.);K. S OMASUNDARAM & BROTHERS VS. CIT 238 ITR 939 (MAD.); AND CIT VS. MOTOR GENER AL FINANCE LTD., 254 ITR 449 (DEL.) , THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON T HE ASSESSE TO ESTABLISH THAT INTEREST WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OR INVESTMENT S WERE MADE OUT OF THEIR OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,99,928/- ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OF RS.87,14,581/- AND I NVESTMENTS OF RS.67,99,665/- WERE MADE FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSES OUT OF INTERE ST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS . 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A), UPHELD THE FI NDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ITR IS OBSERVED THAT THE GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONT ENTION THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN OUT OF OWN SURPLUS FUNDS AND THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD FAILED TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM BY FILING MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM HAS BEEN CANVASSED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN GENERAL TERMS BY STATING THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN THE NATURE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND, RESERVE AND SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS.4. 95 CRORE. BEFORE ME ALSO, IT HAS REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION. IT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 4 THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN , M/S. DENTABRUSH P. LTD. WERE UTILIZED BY THE SAID COMPANY FOR PURCH ASE OF MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDING. IT HAS FURNIS HED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND FIXED SCHEDULE FOR F.Y, 2003-04 I N CASE OF THE SAID SISTER CONCERN. FURTHER, IT HAS PLACED A VERY STRON G RELIANCE ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD. (SUPRA). FROM THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF TH E BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE YARDSTICK APPROVE D BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE IS IF THE TRANSFER OF BORROWED FU NDS TO A SISTER CONCERN WAS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW FOR EARNING PROFITS. IN THIS REGARD I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS APPROVED VIEW TAKEN IN THE MATTER EARLIER BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DALMIA CEMEN T (B) LTD, (2002), 254 ITR 377 TO THE EFFECT THAT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISH ED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF T HE BUSINESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF), THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN T HE ARM, SHARE OF THE BUSINESS MAN TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPE NDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS OBSE RVED THAT THIS VIEW IS NOT ABSOLUTE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE APEX COURT HAS CLARIFIED BY STATING THAT WE WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT I S NOT OUR OPINION THAT IN EVERY CASE INTEREST ON BORROWED LOAN HAS TO BE ALL OWED IF THE ASSESSEE ADVANCES IT TO A SISTER CONCERN. IN ALL DE PENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPECTIVE CASE. THEREFOR E, IN THIS BACKGROUND, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS IF THE A PPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH A NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPEN DITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND IF THE BORROWED FUNDS H AVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN FROM THE POINT OF VI EW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IN THIS REGARD IT IS OBSERVED THAT IT I S THE APPELLANT WHO IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDI TURE AND THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE FACT OF COMMERCIAL EXPE DIENCY. SEEN FROM THIS ANGLE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS F AILED TO ESTABLISH THIS NEXUS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THAT IS THE PRECISE REASON WHY HE HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS NOTED BY ME IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PARAGRAPH. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS REQUIREMENT HAS REMAINED UNFULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS ALSO BEFORE ME SINCE FILING OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND SCHEDULE O F ASSETS OF THE SISTER CONCERN FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD CANNOT BE SA ID TO SATISFY THIS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE ASSESSE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US A GAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MADE BY THE AO I N RELATION TO ADVANCE TO DENTA ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 5 BRUSH PVT. LTD. AS ALSO FOR INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SH ARES OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE IN RELATION TO ADVANCE TO D ENTA BRUSH PVT. LTD., THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 14-5-2010 OF A COOR DINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AMIGO BRUSHES PV T. LTD.,) AND CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIE W TAKEN IN THE SAID DECISION. FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RELATION TO INVESTM ENT IN EQUITY SHARES, THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE NOT BE EN UTILIZED IN INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. IN TH IS CONNECTION, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED A LIST OF JUDGMENTS REPORTED IN 26 SOT 141 (MUM.);125 TTJ 601 (MUM.); 310 ITR 421 (BOM.); 326 ITR 1 (SC); 323 ITR 518 (P & H) ;319 ITR 211 (DEL); 70 TAXMAN 458 (DEL.); 18 SOT 390 (MUM);313 I TR 340 (BOM.);134 ITR 219 (MAD.); 274 ITR 354 (ALL.); 252 ITR 878 (DEL.); 251 ITR 332 (M.P.);237 CTR 164 (KER);107 ITD 267 (CAL); 190 TAXMAN 131 (DEL.) ; 27 SOT 22 (DEL.) AND 22 SOT 368 (DEL.) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST ,HAVING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD. D. R. SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE C.I.T(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. AS IS APPA RENT FROM THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY I N THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN SA BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT ,288 ITR 1(SC). THE AO ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FOR SIMILAR REASON S WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSE TO ESTABLISH THAT INTEREST WAS D EDUCTIBLE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CL AIM THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN AN D INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE TRANSFEROR COMPANIES. APPAR ENTLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ITS CLAIM T HAT MONEY ADVANCED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN I.E. DENTABRUSH P LTD. WAS UTILISED FOR ACQ UIRING BUILDING AND MACHINERY FOR THEIR BUSINESS. BEFORE US ALSO NO SUCH EVIDENC E HAS BEEN PLACED AND INSTEAD ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 6 THE LD. AR MERELY RELIED UPON DECISION OF A CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AMIGO BURSHES PVT. L TD. AS ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF DECISIONS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RELATI ON TO INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES, HAVING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE AC T. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT , THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADVERT TO THESE NOR RECORDED ANY FINDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS. E VEN OTHERWISE, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISIONS NOW CITED BE FORE US. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CI T(A) DID NOT ANALYSE THE ISSUE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT NOR EVEN MADE A WHISPER IN HIS FINDINGS ON THAT ASPECT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND GROSSLY VI OLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, NAMELY, THAT EVERY JUDICIAL/QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUTHORITY MUST PASS RE ASONED ORDER, WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CON CERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES/POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE REQUIREM ENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS AND COMMUNICATION THEREOF HAS BEEN READ AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF FAIR PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARIT Y, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERAT IONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROC ESS. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEAN TH E CONCLUSION. IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION.[MUKHTIAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB,(199 5)1SCC 760(SC)]. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER, WE CONSIDER IT FA IR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE RAISED IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T IN GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL, TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AF RESH IN ACCORDANCE ITA.NO.662/AHD/2008 7 WITH LAW, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS , INCLUDING THOSE CITED ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF T HE ACT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISPOS ED OF. 6. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY THIS GR OUND IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 1006-2011 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 -06-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. JEWEL CONSUMER CARE PVT. LTD.,(FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GORADIA INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.)SUBHAG B-15/16 RA MIN PARIK, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA . 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1 ),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE,BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-I, BARODA 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-D, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD