Smt. Shantaben Ratilal Sagar Through legal heir Rameshchandra R.Sagar, Modasa V. The Income tax Officer,S.K.Ward-4, Modasa

ITA 843/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67628 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 133A; 147; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CH ATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 843 /AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) SHANTABEN RATILAL SAGAR THROUGH LEGAL HEIR RAMESHCHANDRA R. SAGAR NR. MOTISAGAR PARK MALPUR ROAD, MODASA-383315 (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD 4 MODASA (RESPONDENT) PAN: AFQPS 1070 K APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID. SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02-09-201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-09-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.12.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE AS UNDER: 3. IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED UNDER S ECTION 139 OF THE ACT. A SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS C ARRIED OUT AT THE ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 2 BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 26.03.2008. T HEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 ON 3.09.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.10.2012 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND THERE AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2013 THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMI NED AT RS. 28,41,560/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) VIII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 FOR A.Y. 2 007-08 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING THE INCOME ASSESSED BY A SSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 2841556/- 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,41,556/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND. 5. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BEFORE US BUT HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSION WERE FILED. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DEC IDE THE MATTER EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI DILIP KUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SAGAR AND ON THE BAS IS OF MATERIAL ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 3 FOUND AND ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP R AMESHCHANDRA SAGAR GRANDSON OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SHANTABEN RATILAL SAG AR, ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED OF RS. 2 8,41,556/- ON SELLING OF PLOTS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NE ITHER MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOT HAD DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUN T AS INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE RECORD AND ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED. NO DETAILS ASKED FOR WERE FILED. HENCE, THERE WAS NO OPTION LEFT BUT TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ON BEST JUDGEMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL/INFORMAT ION AVAILABLE ON RECORDS U/S.144 OF THE IT. ACT. DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE FROM THE STATEMENT RECOR DED U/S.133A OF THE IT. ACT AND ON SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH AND CHEQUE FOR SALE OF LAND AND HAS D ISCLOSED RS.43,94,800/- DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH WA S A TOTAL DISCLOSURE AND WAS TO GIVE BIFURCATION YEAR WISE. S UBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED OR NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF YEAR WISE BIFURCATION OF INCOME DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE YEAR WISE BIFURCATION WAS MADE BY TH E AO. 2.4 THUS, ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, STATEMENT O F THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON OATH U/S. 133A DURING THE COURSE OF SUR VEY AND ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOUNDED REGISTERS WHICH ARE EXPLAINE D IN DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE NOTING IN VARIOUS PAPERS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OF RS. 28,41,556/- OUT OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AND HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BO OKS OF ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 4 ACCOUNTS AND HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME FOR TAXATIO N PURPOSE BY SHOWING IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE INCOME OF RS. 28,41,556/- WAS TREATED AS CONCEALED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND T HE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO . AS MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARA THE APPELLANT DID NOT AVAIL A NY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILA BLE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO. THEREFORE, I CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O IS CONFIR MED. 7. BEFORE US IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED AS UNDER: BRIEF FACTS THERE WAS SURVEY ACTION AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT'S GRAND SON SHRI DILIP SAGAR ON 26/03/2008. SHRI DILIP SAGA R WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE HAD TAKEN CONTRACTS TO CONSTRUCT HOUSE ON THE PLOTS WHICH BELONGED TO T HE APPELLANT . THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE NAMELY SHANTABEN SAGAR HAD EXPIR ED ON 05/08/2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING, SHRI DILIP SAGAR HAD MADE DISCLOSURE. THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BASED ON AMOUNT SHOWN AS RECEIVED FROM PARTIES. THE SURVEY TEAM AT THEIR OWN BIFURCAT ED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED INTO LAND SALE AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION. N O STATEMENT WAS RECORDED OF SMT SHANTABEN SAGAR AND SHRI RAMESH RAT ILAL SAGAR SON OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING CAPITAL GAIN AT RS NIL CONSIDERING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. HOWEVER, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION AND TAXED IT AS BUS INESS INCOME. THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICES BUT THE SAME WERE RECEIVED BY SOME BODY ELSE AND LATER ON GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND A CCORDINGLY HE COULD NOT RECEIVED NOTICES IN TIME AND IN TURN HE COULD N OT FORWARD TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR NECESSARY COMPLIANCE. SUBMISSION 1.0 THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 28,41,556/- BY THE LD A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE CIT APPEALS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPEL LANT SUBMITS THAT SHE HAD ONE PIECE OF LAND HAVING AREA ABOUT 17000 SQ YA RDS WHICH WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01/04/1981. THE APPELLANT HAD NO OTHER ACTIVITY AND NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON AND THEREFORE INCOME FROM S ALE OF PLOT OF LAND ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 5 CAN NOT BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT IT FALLS UN DER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS ADDED THAT THE APPELLANT OTHERWISE COUL D NOT HAVE SOLD LAND IN SEARCH OF SINGLE BUYER AND FURTHER IN THAT CASE PRI CE REALIZED WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER. 2.0 THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING SALES PRICE BY DOING BIFURCATION AT THEIR OWN. NO PAPER WAS FOUND WHICH MAY STATE THAT PLOT WERE SOLD OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENT PRICE AND THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED THE SAME. THE A.O. WAS AWARE THAT SHRI DIL IPSAGAR WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PLOT SOLD AND THEREFORE IF ANY AMOUNT IS RECEIVED THAT MAY BE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY . NOTHING WAS FOUND WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAD GIVEN TO TH E APPELLANT AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENT PRICE AND THEREFORE NO AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. 3.0 THE A.O. HAS TAKEN COST OF LAND (17000 SQ Y ARDS) AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGED INCURRED THEREON AT RS.5 LACS. THERE IS NO BASIS IN ADOPTING THE SAID AMOUNT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TAKEN AS BEST SUIT ED TO THE SURVEY TEAM. BY ESTIMATING THE SAME, THE A.O. HAS CALCULAT ED THE COST PER SQ YARDS AT RS.29.41, WHICH IS TOO LESS AS COMPARED TO MARKET PRICE SO ALSO INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 4.0 THE A.O. HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE LOOSE PAPER S WHICH CONTAINED EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES . 5.0 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT PROPER IN AS MUCH AS THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE MATTER. THE SURVEY TEAM HAD ALSO NOT RECORDED STATEMENT OF RAMESH RATI LAL SAGAR WHO HAD POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR SALE OF PLOT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WHEN NO STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RE CORDED, HOW ADDITION CAN BE MADE BASED ON STATEMENT GIVEN BY OTHER PERSO N. 6.0 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING, NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND WHICH MAY SUPPORT THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAD A CTUALLY RECEIVED MORE MONEY OVER AND ABOVE AMOUNT SHOWN IN REGISTERE D DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE NOTHING FURTHER CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. 7.0 THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVE RSE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED S O MUCH AMOUNT TOWARDS SALE OF PLOT, NO CONFIRMATION OF PARTY SHOW ING AMOUNT GIVEN OVER AND ABOVE FOR SALE OF PLOT IS ON RECORD. NO INQUIRY WAS MADE FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE IS N OT LEGAL. 8.0 THE A.O. FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SHRI DILIP SAGAR WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND EVIDENCE S WERE FOUND OF CONTRACTS OBTAINED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE ON THO SE PLOT OF LAND AND THEREFORE WHEN THERE WAS NO BIFURCATION OF AMOUNT I NTO SALE OF PLOT AND ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 6 CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS, AMOUNT CAN NOT BE ADDED IN T HE HANDS OF APPELLANT MERELY BASED ON BIFURCATION BEST SUITED TO THE SURV EY TEAM AND NO SUCH AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTS PRICE WAS RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT. 9.0 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE CALCULATED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BASED ON MARKET VALUE OF LAND A S ON 01/04/1981 SINCE THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THAT PERIOD AND APPE LLANT CAN NOT BE PRESUMED TO BE CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS. 10.0 THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NO WHERE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI DILIP SAGAR, IT IS STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN THE AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT WHICH MAY BE OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUM ENT PRICE. IT IS THE FACT THAT SHRI DILIP SAGAR WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION A CTIVITY AND TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, HE HAD RECEIVED THE SUM. NO WHERE HE HAD STATED THAT AMOUNT WAS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, NOTHING CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. THE APPELLA NT HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT BY CASH / CHEQUES AS PER DOCUMENTS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF CONCERNED PARTIES AND THEREFORE WHEN THERE IS NO AD VERSE MATERIAL AND SHOWN TO THE APPELLANT FOR HER COMMENTS, NOTHING CA N BE ADDED LEGALLY MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY. 11.0 THE HON'BLE CIT APPEALS HAS PASSED ORDER WHE REIN HE HAS SIMPLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED B Y HON'BLE CIT APPEALS IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. 12.0 THE ABOVE FACTS CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : - THE APPELLANT HAD ONE PIECE OF LAND HAVING AREA ABO UT 17000 SQ YARDS. THE SAME WAS SOLD IN PLOTS SINCE OTHERWISE THE APPE LLANT COULD NOT HAVE FOUND SINGLE BUYER. SHRI DILIP SAGAR WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOU SE ON PLOT SOLD BY THE APPELLANT. THE INCOME OF SHRI DILIP SAGAR HAS B EEN COMPUTED U/S 44AD. NO STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY AND THE REAFTER OF APPELLANT AND / OR RAMESH RATILAL SAGAR AND THEREFORE ADDITIO N SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BASED ON STATEMENT OF OTHER PERSON. NO WHERE IN THE STATEMENT, IT IS STATED THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD EARNED THAT INCOME , IF ANY. THE APPELLANT EXCEPT SALE OF PLOT, HAD NOT UNDERTAK EN ANY ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE INCOME RELATED TO SALE OF PLOT SHOULD HAV E BEEN COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE ALLO WED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 7 THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BASED ON BIFURCATION MAD E INTO SALE OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT H AD SOLD PLOT FOR THE PRICE OVER AND ABOVE DOCUMENT PRICE AND EARNED ANY INCOME OVER AND ABOVE DOCUMENT PRICE. THE HON'BLE CIT APPEALS HAS NOT CONSIDERED CONTENTI ONS AS STATED IN STATEMENT OF FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION MA DE BY THE A.O. IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 8. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPP ORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR NOR DID HE APPEARED BEFORE CIT(A). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO WAS FUL LY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSMENT WAS MADE EX PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE NON ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER FROM THE O RDER OF CIT(A) IT IS SEEN THAT CIT(A) HAS FIXED THE HEARING ON VARIOUS D AYS ON 5 OCCASIONS BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREF ORE PROCEEDED TO DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE. BEFORE US ALSO NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BUT HOWEVER, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, T HE ASSESSEE HAS INTERALIA HAS MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTE D THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) OR BEFORE US BUT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE SUBMISSIONS AND ITA NO 843/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2007- 08 8 PLACE THE NECESSARY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT O F ITS CLAIM. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ISSUED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A ) FOR HIM TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS A S PEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH TH E PARTIES. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO SUO MOTTO APPEAR BEFORE CIT( A) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT W AITING FROM THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND SUBMIT ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION S AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS SO AS TO ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO PASS AN APP ROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW AS DEEMED FIT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 -09- 2013. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ] DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD