P P Patel Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy,.CIT.,Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 841/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9879 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIANILKSHATRIYA; OBSERVINGTHATTHE; OBSERVINGTHATTHEREWASNO

Judgement Text

INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“A”BENCH BEFORE:SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBERAND SHRIT.R.SENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 (AssessmentYear:2009-10) PPPatelInfrastructure PrivateLimited 5/99,SundernagarFlats, NaranpuraCrossRoads, Ahmedabad-380013 V/STheDeputyCommissioner ofIncomeTax Circle-3(1)(1),Ahmedabad (Appellant)(Respondent) PAN:AAECP9304P Appellantby:ShriAnilKshatriya,Advocate Respondentby:Ms.SaumyaPandeyJain,Sr.D.R. ORDER Dateofhearing:25-10-2023 DateofPronouncement:29-11-2023 PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUTANTMEMBER: Theappealhasbeenpreferredbytheassesseeagainsttheorderofthe CommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-9,Ahmedabad(‘CIT(A)’inshort)dated 26.02.2019arisingintheassessmentorderdated18.03.2016passedbythe ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 2 AssessingOfficer(AO)unders.143(3)r.w.s.147oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961 (theAct)concerningAY2009-10.Theassesseehasraisedthefollowinggrounds: “1.Theld.AOaswellastheld.CIT-(A)haserredinlawandonthefactsinthecaseofthe appellantandhasmadehugeadditionamountingtoRs.3,22,31,590/-tothetotalIncomeof theappellant.Theld.AOhastreatedthesameastheunexplainedinvestmentandthushas madeadditionamountingtoRs.3,22,31,590/-undersection69oftheIncomeTaxAct.The additionmadebytheldAOisfactuallyincorrectthusneedstobedeleted. 2.Theld.AOaswellastheld.CIT-(A)hasmadehugeadditionsintheincomeoftheappellant justonthebasisofthenotingsobtainedinloosepapersfoundduringthesurveycarriedout undersection133AoftheActonthepremisesoftheShreejiDevelopers.Theld.AOrelying onthenotingsoftheloosepapershasmadeadditiontotheincomeoftheappellant consideringthesameastheunexplainedinvestmentundersection69oftheIncomeTaxAct. Theadditionmadeonlyonthebasisofthesurveymadeundersection133AoftheAct whichdoesnotcontainsanyevidentiaryvalueisbadinlawandthusneedstobedeleted. 3.Theld.AOaswellastheld.CIT-(A)hasmadeadditiononthebasisofthenotingsfoundon loosepapersfoundonthethirdparty.Theld.AOwithoutgivinganyopportunitytocross examinesuchpersonhasmadetheadditiontotheincomeoftheappellantandthushas violatedtheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Thesaidactionoftheld.AOisbadinlawandthus thesaidassessmentorderneedstobequashed. 4.Theld.CIT-(A)hasreliedonthedecisionoftheHonorableMadrasHighCourtinthecaseof ThiruS.ShyamKumarvsACITCentralCircle-III(3)andthushasconfirmedtheaddition madebytheld.AO.Thefactsofthecasearedifferentthanthecaseoftheappellantand thustheorderpassedbytheld.CIT-(A)needstobeset-aside. 5.Theld.AOhaserredinlawandonfactsofthecaseinlevyinginterestu/s234A/B/Cofthe Act. 6.Theld.AOhaserredinlawandonfactsofthecaseininitiatingpenaltyu/s271(1)(c)ofthe Act.” 2.Theassesseevideletterdated24 th July2023hasalsoraisedadditional groundofappeal,whichisreproducedasunder: “Onthepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.AssessingOfficerhaserred inassumingjurisdictionwithoutfollowingthelawlaiddownbytheHon’bleCourtsandthereby furthererredinpassingthere-assessmentorderu/s.143(3)r.w.s.147oftheI.T.Act,1961dated 18.03.2016whichisvoidab-initio,badinlaw,illegalandinvalid.” 3.ThelearnedARfortheassessee,attheoutset,submittedthatthe additionalgroundraisedbytheassesseevideletterdated24-07-2023goestothe rootofthematterandallthefactsrelatedtotheadditionalgroundareavailable ontherecord.Therefore,thesameneedstobeadmittedinviewofthejudgment ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 3 oftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofNTPCLtd.reportedin229ITR383 whereitwasheldasunder: Undersection254,theTribunalmayaftergivingboththepartiestotheappealanopportunityof beingheard,passsuchordersthereonasitthinksfit.ThepoweroftheTribunalindealingwith appealsis,thus,expressedinthewidestpossibleterms.Thepurposeoftheassessmentproceedings beforethetaxingauthoritiesistoassesscorrectlythetaxliabilityofanassesseeinaccordancewith law.If,forexample,asaresultofajudicialdecisiongivenwhiletheappealispendingbeforethe Tribunal,itisfoundthatanon-taxableitemistaxedorapermissibledeductionisdenied,thereisno reasonwhytheassesseeshouldbepreventedfromraisingthatquestionbeforetheTribunalforthe firsttime,solongastherelevantfactsareonrecordinrespectofthatitem.Thereisnoreasonto restrictthepoweroftheTribunalundersection254onlytodecidethegroundswhicharisefromthe orderoftheCommissioner(Appeals).BoththeassesseeaswellastheDepartmenthavearighttofile anappeal/cross-objectionsbeforetheTribunal.ThereisnoreasonwhytheTribunalshouldbe preventedfromconsideringquestionsoflawarisinginassessmentproceedingsalthoughnotraised earlier. ******** TheviewthattheTribunalisconfinedonlytoissuesarisingoutoftheappealbeforethe Commissioner(Appeals)takestoonarrowaviewofthepowersoftheTribunal.Undoubtedly,the Tribunalwillhavethediscretiontoallowornotallowanewgroundtoberaised.Butwherethe Tribunalisonlyrequiredtoconsideraquestionoflawarisingfromthefactswhichareonrecordin theassessmentproceedingsthereisnoreasonwhysuchaquestionshouldnotbeallowedtobe raisedwhenitisnecessarytoconsiderthatquestioninordertocorrectlyassessthetaxliabilityofan assessee. 3.1Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRdidnotraiseanyobjectiontothe admissionoftheadditionalgroundofappealraisedbytheassessee. 3.2Heardtherivalcontentionsofthepartiesandperusedthematerials availableonrecord.Theadditionalgroundraisedbytheassesseeislegalinnature andthereforethesamecanberaisedatanystageinpursuancetothejudgment oftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofNTPCLtd(supra).Hence,weadmit theadditionalgroundofappealraisedbytheassesseeandproceedtoadjudicate thesame. 4.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeinthepresentcase,aPrivate LimitedCompany,isengagedinthebusinessofdevelopmentof property/land/plots/townships/shoppingmallsetc.Theproceedingsintheyear underconsiderationwereinitiatedagainsttheassesseeunderSection147ofthe Actbasedontheinformationgatheredduringsurveyproceedingundersection ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 4 133AoftheActdated4 th March2010atthebusinesspremisesofM/sShreeji Developers.Duringsurveyoperation,thelanddetailswerefoundbearingdifferent surveynumberswhichwerepurchasedbytheassessee.Likewise,detailswere alsofoundshowingthecashandchequepaymenttotheparties,namely, RameshbhaiMaganbhaiPate,NareshbhaiBalubhaiSojitra&KishorbhaiBhailallbhai Sheladiawhoweretheconfirmingpartiesinthelandtransactiondeals. 5.Basedonthedocumentsfoundduringthesurvey,itwasoriginatedthatthe assesseehasenteredthelandtransactiondealsforpurchasesamountingtoRs. 4,72,31,590/-only(32914Sq.yardsxRs.1435/-persq.yd.).Thedocuments gatheredduringthesurveycontainedinformationaboutcashpaymentandcheque paymenttotheconfirmingpartiesdiscussedabove.Thechequepaymentwas recordedatRs.1,05,00,000/-inthenameofconfirmingpartieswhichalso matchedwiththeregistereddocuments.Likewise,thecashpaymentofRs. 2,90,00,000/-till19 th October2008bytheassesseetotheconfirmingpartieswere alsorecordedinsuchseizeddocuments.Thus,theAOwasoftheviewthatthere waselementofcashpaymentofRs.3,22,31,590/-beingthedifferenceinthe valuerecordedintheseizeddocumentsandactualcashtransactionvalue(Rs. 4,72,31,590/-–Rs.1,50,00,000/-).Thus,theAOproposedtomaketheadditionof Rs.3,22,31,590/-onaccountofdifferencebetweengrossvalueoftransactionvis- à-visactualvalueoftransaction. 6.Theassesseeduringassessmentproceedingsubmittedthattheactualarea ofagriculturelandpurchasedbyitis27,317sq.mtr.andnot32,914sq.mtr.as allegedbytheAO.Likewise,theassesseealsosubmittedthatthesurveybearing No.71/7wasnotpurchasedbytheassesseeandthereforethesamehasbeen wronglyconsideredbytheAO.Theassesseealsopointedoutthatithasnodeal whatsoeverwithM/sShreejiDevelopersandthereforeitisnotknowntoithowthe ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 5 documentsrelatingtothelandwerefoundfromthepremisesofM/sShreeji Developers.Theassesseealsosubmittedthattherewasnocorroborativematerial availableinsupportoftheseizeddocumentssuggestingthattherewascash paymentintheimpugnedlandtransactiondeal.Likewise,thevendorsofthe propertyhavenotadmittedthefactthattheyhavereceivedanyelementofcash fromtheassesseeintheimpugnedlandtransactiondeal.Similarly,thedocuments impoundedfromthepremisesofathird-partyduringsurveyproceedingswerenot inthehandwritingoftheassessee.Inanutshell,itwasthecontentionofthe assesseethatnoadditioniswarrantedonaccountofcashpaymentasalleged. However,theAOrejectedthecontentionoftheassesseebyobservingthatthe landbearingsurveynumberswerepurchasedbytheassesseeandsimilarly,the chequepaymentrecordedintheseizeddocumentsalongwiththeelementofcash justifiesthattherewascashpaymentmadebytheassesseeintheimpugnedland transactiondeal.Therefore,theAOtreatedthesumofRs.3,22,31,590/- unexplainedincomeandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 7.Aggrieved,theassesseecarriedthematterbeforetheLd.CIT(A) challengingtheinitiationofthevalidityoftheproceedingsunderSection147of theActaswellasonmeritoftheadditionmadebytheAObutfailedtosucceed. 8.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 9.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompageNos.1to123, writtensubmissionof10pagesalongwithannexuresandfiledabrief-noterunning fromPageNos.1to218andcontendedthattherewasanobjectionraisedbythe assesseeplacedinthepaperbookagainstinitiationoftheproceedingsunder section147oftheAct.ButtheAOwithoutdisposingofsuchobjectionhasframed ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 6 theassessmentwhichiscontrarytothesettledlegaljudicialpronouncements. TheLd.ARonthemeritofthecasealsocontendedthattherewasnoelementof cashinvolvedasthecompanycameintoexistencedated09.01.2009whereasthe elementofcashallegedtobeinvolvedisdated19.10.2008. 10.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRcontendedthattheassesseehasnever raisedanobjectiontothevalidityofinitiationunderSection147oftheAct.As such,theassesseemadeonlythesubmissionagainstthenoticeissuedunder Section148oftheActwhichcannotbeequatedwiththeobjectionsasclaimedby theassessee. 11.Ld.DR,onmeritofthecase,submittedthattheseizeddocumentcontained informationaboutthechequeandcashand,therefore,suchdocumentsaretobe treatedasincriminatinginnature.TheLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheordersof theauthoritiesbelow. 12.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Inthepresentcase,theproceedingsundersection 147oftheActwereinitiatedbytheAOafterrecordingthereasonstobelievethat theincomeoftheassesseehasescapedassessment.Thebasisofrecordingthe reasonstobelievewastheletterreceivedfromACIT,Circle-1(14)throughITO ward7(4),Ahmedabaddated03-05-2013whereinitwasallegedthatassesseehas paidunaccountedcashagainstthepurchaseofland.Aspertheletter,the informationwasgatheredinpursuancetothesurveyconductedattheBusiness PremisesofM/sShreejiDevelopers,dated04-03-2010undertheprovisionsof section133AoftheAct.Duringsurvey,thedocumentswereseizedcontainingthe informationofcashpaymentagainstthepurchaseofimpugnedlandbearing differentsurveyNos.asdiscussedabove.Assuch,theAOrecordedthereasonsto ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 7 believedated18-09-2014andsubsequentlynoticeundersection148oftheAct wasissueddated09-10-2014. 12.1Atthisjuncture,itisequallyimportanttonotethattheproceedingswere alsoinitiatedagainsttheassesseefortheassessmentyear2008-09byissuing noticeundersection148oftheActonaccountofescapementofincomewhich wassubsequentlydroppedbytheAOvideorderdated16-03-2016. 12.2Theassesseesubsequentlyvideletterdated22-06-2015raisedthe objectionfortheinitiationoftheproceedingsundersection147oftheActforboth theyearsi.e.assessmentyear2008-09andassessmentyear2009-10.Inthe objectionfortheassessmentyear2009-10,theassesseesubmittedthatthe informationreceivedfromthe3 rd partyi.e.ShreejiDevelopershasnothingtodo withthetransactionoftheassesseeforthepurchaseofland.Thus,ithasnoclue aboutitsnameappearinginthebooksofM/sShreejiDevelopers.Likewise,there wasamismatchintheareaofthelandtransactedbytheassessee.Asperthe assessee,thelandwaspurchasedfromthepartiesnamelyShriRameshbhaiM Patel,ShriKishorebhaiBhilalbhaiSheladiyaandNareshkumarBabubhaiSajitrafor anamountofRs.1,50,00,000.00forthelandadmeasuring20545Sq.Mts.against thepaymentthroughbankingchannel. 12.3Aspertheassesseetheobjectionraisedbyitasdiscussedabovewerenot disposedofbytheAOwhichiscontrarytotheprincipleslaiddownbytheHon’ble SupremeCourtinthecaseofGKNDriveshafts(India)PvtLtd.VsITOreportedin 125Taxman963.Accordingly,theassesseecontendedthattheassessment framedundersection147oftheActisnotsustainable.Aspertheassesseeitwas compulsoryfortheAOtodisposeoftheobjectionraisedbytheassesseeagainst theinitiationoftheproceedingsundersection147oftheAct.However,theAO ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 8 hasnotdisposedoftheobjectionandthereforetheassessmentframedunder section147oftheActisnotsustainable. 12.4ItisimportanttonotethattheAOhasdroppedtheproceedingsforthe assessmentyear2008-09buttherewasnoorderpassedbytheAOdisposingof theobjectionsraisedbytheassesseefortheyearunderconsideration.Theorder droppingtheassessmentproceedingfortheassessmentyear2008-09readsas under: TheAssessmentProceedingsreopenedvidenoticeu/s148dated09-10-2014 whichwasservedbyspeedpost,areherebydropped. 12.5ButtheAO,withoutdisposingoftheobjectionsforAY2009-10raisedby theassesseehasproceededtoframetheassessmentundersection147oftheAct. 12.6TheassesseecarriedthematterbeforethelearnedCIT(A)whohas dismissedthegroundofappealoftheassesseebyobservingthattherewasno objectionraisedbytheassesseeagainsttheinitiationoftheproceedingsunder section147oftheActvideletterdated22-06-2015.AsperthelearnedCIT-A,the assesseevideletterdated22-06-2015hasmadethesubmissionsonthevalidityof thecasebutwithoutraisinganyobjectionontheinitiationoftheproceedings undersection147oftheAct.Thus,thelearnedCIT-Adismissedthegroundof appealoftheassessee. 12.7Nowthecontroversybeforeusariseswhethertheassesseehasraisedthe objectionsfortheyearunderconsiderationagainsttheproceedingsinitiatedunder section147oftheAct.Onthethreshold,wenotethattheassesseehasmadethe submissionsvideletterdated22-06-2015forboththeassessmentyears2008-09 and2009-10inconnectionwiththeproceedingsundersection147oftheAct.The relevantsubmissionoftheassesseeisextractedasunder: ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 9 ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 10 ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 11 12.8TheAO,basedonthesubmissionasdiscussedabove,hasdroppedthe proceedingsfortheassessmentyear2008-09buttherewasnoordermadebythe AOfortheyearunderconsiderationbywayofdisposingoftheobjectionraisedby theassessee.Thus,itappearsthatthereisarbitraryapproachadoptedbytheAO foroneyearwhereintheproceedingsundersection147oftheActweredropped whereastheproceedingsforanotheryearundersectionwerekeptalivebut withoutdisposingoftheobjections.ThisactoftheAOappearstobecontraryto thejudgementofHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofGKNDriveshafts(India) PvtLtd.VsITOreportedin125Taxman963whereinitwasheldasunder: “Therewasnojustifiablereasontointerferewiththeorderunderchallenge.However,it wasclarifiedthatwhenanoticeundersection148isissued,thepropercourseofactionfor thenoticeeistofilereturnandifhesodesires,toseekreasonsforissuingnotice.The AssessingOfficerisboundtofurnishreasonswithinareasonabletime.Onreceiptof reasons,thenoticeeisentitledtofileobjectionstoissuanceofnoticeandtheAssessing Officerisboundtodisposeofthesamebypassingaspeakingorder.Intheinstantcase,as thereasonshadbeendisclosedintheproceedings,theAssessingOfficerhadtodisposeof theobjections,iffiled,bypassingaspeakingorder,beforeproceedingwiththe assessment” 12.9Inviewoftheabove,theprincipleslaiddownbytheHon’bleSupremeCourt inthecaseofGKNDriveshafts(India)PvtLtd.VsITO,isbeyonddoubtthatthe AOisundertheobligationtodisposeoftheobjectionraisedbytheassessee.In theabsenceofnon-disposaloftheobjection,theassessmentframedunder147of theActhasbeenheldasnotsustainable. 12.10Thecontroversyalsoariseswhethertheobjectionraisedbytheassessee wastheobjectionchallengingthevalidityoftheassessmentoritwasjustthe simplesubmissionfiledbytheassessee.Inthisregard,wenotethatthereisno formatprescribedundertheprovisionsofsection147oftheActfortheobjection toberaisedbytheassessee.Assuch,intheabsenceofanyformatitcanbegiven bytheassesseeinanyform,butthecontentshouldspeaksoi.e.challengingthe initiationoftheproceedings.Inthepresentcase,theAOforoneyearhas ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 12 acceptedthesubmissionmadebytheassesseefortheassessmentyear2008-09 fortheproceedingsundersection147oftheAct.Butonthesamesubmissionthe AOhasnotdoneso.Thus,thereisacontraryviewtakenbytheAOforthesame assesseeintwodifferentassessmentyears.Assuch,iftheAOwasnotconvinced withthecontentsoftheletterdiscussedyet,hewastodisposeofasmandatedby theHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofGKNDriveshafts(India)PvtLtd. 12.11Movingfurtherwenotethat,intheabsenceofanyspecificformat, whateverhasbeencontendedbytheassessee,theAOwithoutgoingintothe sufficiencyoftheobjectionandshoulddealwiththeobjectionbywayofdisposing ofthesamebyspeakingorder.Accordingly,weholdthatintheabsenceofthe disposaloftheobjectionraisedbytheassessee,theassessmentframedbytheAO undersection147oftheActisnotsustainable.Hence,thegroundofappealraised bytheassesseeisherebyallowed. 12.12Withoutprejudicetotheabove,itisalsoimportanttonotethatthebreakup oftheadditionof₹3.22croresforwhichtheadditionwasmadebytheAOwhich wassubsequentlyconfirmedbythelearnedCIT-Astandsasunder: S.No.MODEOF PAYMENTAS PERtheAO AMOUNTREMARK 1Cash1,90,00,000/-Nodatementionatanyofthe documentonwhichAOrelied includingtheassessmentorderbut thewasbefore19-10-2008 2Cash1,00,00,000/-19-10-2008datementiononloose paperfoundatsurveypremises TOTAL“A”2,90,00,000/-TheLd.AOmentionedinhis ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 13 assessmentorderthatthecashpaid up-to19-10-2008isRs. 2,90,00,000/- 3Cash31,40,650/-Norecordsavailablehowsuch paymentwasmade,nodateis available,inanyofthedocuments onwhichAOhasrelied 4Cash90,940/-Balancingfiguretreatedaspaidin cashhowevernoevidenceavailable forsuchpayment TOTAL“B”32,31,590/- GROSSTOTAL (A+B) 3,22,31590/- 12.13Outoftheabovesum,theamountof2.90croreswaspaidbeforethe IncorporationoftheCompanyi.e.AY2008-09,whichdoesnotrelatetotheyearin dispute.Therefore,thesamecannotbemadesubjecttoadditionintheyearunder consideration. 12.14Likewiseforthebalanceamountof₹31,40,650/-,therewasnodetail availablewiththeAOsuggestingthattheassesseehasmadethepaymentincash withoutrecordingthesameintheaccounts. 12.15Similarly,fortheadditionof₹90,940/-,therewasnodetailavailablewith theAOsuggestingthattheamountofRs.90,940/-representstheunexplained incomeoftheassessee.Thus,inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringthefacts intotality,wedonotfindanyreasontoupholdthefindingoflearnedCIT-A.Hence, ITANo.841/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2009-10(PPPatelInfrastructure Pvt.Ltd.vs.DCIT) 14 wesetasidethefindingofthelearnedCIT-AanddirecttheAOtodeletethe additionmadebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisallowed. 13.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisallowed. OrderpronouncedinOpenCourton29-11-2023 Sd/-Sd/- (T.R.SENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated29-11-2023