THE ITO, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad V. M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS, Ahmedabad

ITA 968/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6620 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAVNESH KULSHRESTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. K. GARODIA , AM) ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 1993-94 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), C. U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD VS M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS, NR. JAGDISH FACTORY, PLOT NO. 299, VATVA ISANPUR ROAD, NAROL, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AACFA 6598 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NO. 106/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.968/AHD/2009: AY: 1993-94) M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS, NR. JAGDISH FACTORY, PLOT NO. 299, VATVA ISANPUR ROAD, NAROL, AHMEDABAD VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), C. U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AACFA 6598 B (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI BHAVNESH KULSHRESTHA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 20-01-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE FILED BEYOND 16 DAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. IT IS EXPLAINED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THAT TAX AFFAI RS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE LOOKED AFTER ENTIRELY BY SHRI HAII MOHD. A HMEDJI DEVDIWALA. HE WAS ILL IN LAST WEEK OF MAY, 2009 WHEN THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS TO BE FILED. HE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT; THEREFORE, T HE CROSS OBJECTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TIME . THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT NOMINAL DELAY MAY BE CONDONE D IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THERE IS A NOMINAL DELAY IN FILING THE CRO SS OBJECTION ON WHICH ALSO THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE D ELAY IS CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE CRO SS OBJECTION. 4. ON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLE NGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,38,2992/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOLDING CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED FOLDING CHARGES O F RS.2,38,2992/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID T O M/S. SAJID FOLDING WORKS AT RS.1,22,748/- AND M/S. AVKAR FOLDI NG WORKS AT RS.1,15,544/-. THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRIES WITH REGAR D TO THE PAYMENTS AND HE DID NOT ALLEGEDLY FIND ANY EVIDENCE LIKE BANK DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE FOLDING CHARGES WERE DISALLOW ED. IT WAS ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 3 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT FOLDING CH ARGES WERE PAID TO THE PERSONS WHO DID FOLDING WORKS OF CLOTH OF DYEIN G , PRINTING AND PROCESSING. THE ASSESSEE FIELD WRITTEN SUBMISSION W HICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS B RIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, 1992 WITH BANK OF INDIA BUT THE COMPLETE STA TEMENT OF THE OLD PERIOD WAS NOT AVAILABLE. IN SPITE OF REPEATED REMI NDERS, THE BANK HAS INTIMATED THAT OLD RECORDS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AS P ER THE GUIDELINES OF RBI. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AO IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDINGS THAT ALL THE P AYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE AND SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN THE CURRENT AC COUNT OF M/S. SAGAR TEXTILE TRADERS, PROPRIETOR IRFAN MOHD. DEVDI WALA. THEREAFTER, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT ON 29 -03-2001 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, THE AO HAD GIVEN FINDING T HAT PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAGAR TEXTILE TRADERS WAS IRFAN MOHMED YUNUS D EVDIWALA WHO WAS NOT SON OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IT WAS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH BANK STATEMENT AND FURTH ER PROVE THAT CHEQUES WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIE S. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE AO HA S NOT CONCLUDED THAT FOLDING CHARGES WERE PAID TO BOTH THE PARTIES WHO WERE DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT FOLDING CHARGE S WERE PAID TO THESE TWO PARTIES WHO WERE NON-EXISTENT. IT WAS, TH EREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT SINCE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THIS BASIS AND IT WAS PROVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 THAT BOTH THE PARTIES EXISTED AND FOLDING CHARGES WERE PAID, THEREFORE, DISALLOWA NCE WAS ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 4 UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GENUINE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE PARTIES AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYT HING ON RECORD TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION. ONUS WAS UPON THE AO TO PROVE THAT PAYMENTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN AGA INST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIO N SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE MATTER IN ISSUE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT FOLDING JOB IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS VERY MUCH EXISTING AND THAT SIMILAR PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN M ADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-093 AND THE AO HAS VERIFIED TH E PAYMENTS AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT SUCH NATURE OF PAYMENT IS BOUND TO BE TH ERE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE IN THE SIMILAR C IRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1992- 93 IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PARTIES, THEREFORE, DISAL LOWANCE WAS DELETED AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLO WED. 5. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R EFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1992-93 DATED 6-1-2006 (PB - 158) IN THE CASE OF THE SAME A SSESSEE IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AFTER DUE VERIF ICATION OF FACTS. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AO IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDING S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 IS FILED AT PAGE 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 5 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOLDING C HARGES PAID TO M/S. SAJID FOLDING WORKS AND M/S. AVKAR FOLDING WOR KS. SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THESE PARTIES IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1992-93 ALSO. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 W ERE REOPENED WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. IT WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER DA TED 29-3-2001 (PB-159). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 29-3-20 01 IS FILED AT PAGE 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93 IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TO WH OM FOLDING CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ON V ERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES GOT THE CHEQUE DISCOUNTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. SAGAR TEXTILE TRADERS AND THAT ITS PROPRIETOR IS IRFAN MOHMED YUNUS DEVDI WALA WHO IS NOT ONE OF THE SON OF PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SIM ILAR ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED BY THE AO AND ACCEPTED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT FOLDING CH ARGES ARE NECESSARY COMPONENT FOR DOING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH FACT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN H IS FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT DISPROVED THR OUGH ANY EVIDENCED OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE EARLIER YEA R THE FOLDING CHARGES PAID TO BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME. THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO NON-EXISTENT PARTIES AS REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR AND WOULD FURTHER PROVE THAT GENUINE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL TO THESE PARTIES. SINCE THE ISSUE ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 6 IS IDENTICAL ON WHICH THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN SCRUTINY SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRECEDING ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER AP PRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. ON GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE RESTR ICTION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED JOB WORK CH ARGES FROM RS.22,64,800/- TO RS.3,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CROSS OBJECTION CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- ON ALL THE GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE. 8. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D GREY CLOTH MEASURING 16366459 METERS AND THE SAME CLOTH WAS ME ASURED AFTER PROCESSING WHICH WAS 14478551 METERS. THERE WAS SHO RTAGE OF 1887967 METERS WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE DUE TO SHRINK AGE OF CLOTH. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE SHRINKAGE FACTOR AND ULTIMATE LY DECIDED THAT THERE IS AN EXCESS CLAIM OF 905934 METERS AND HE E STIMATED THE SUPPRESSION OF PROCESSING CHARGES @ RS.2.50 PER MET ER AND WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSION OF JOB WORK CHARGES AT RS.22,64 ,800/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS B RIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ENTIRE CL OTH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCESSING, THE ENTIRE PROCESS WOULD NOT BE COMPLETED IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN THE SAME FINANCI AL YEAR ITSELF BECAUSE IN VIEW OF DIFFERENT STAGES OF PROCESSING T O BE CARRIED OUT, ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 7 THERE IS BOUND TO BE SOME CLOTH REMAINING UNDER PRO CESS OR IN THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS YEAR AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FIGURES OF GREY CLOTH RECEIVED AND PR OCESS CLOTH DELIVERED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH WAS ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF NO OBJECTION OF THE AO GIVEN ON DATED 17-1- 1997. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE HIS FINDINGS ON 30-1-1997 THAT IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEAR CLOTH DELIVERED IS MORE THAN GREY CLOTH RECEIVED BE CAUSE GREY CLOTH DURING THE COURSE OF PROCESS IN STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS DELIVERED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR DELIVERY OF THE PROCESSED CLOTH IS MORE BY 2328569 METERS. IT W AS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. IT WAS A LSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED COMPLETE RECORDS OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS ARE PRODUCED. NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMOVED AN Y UNACCOUNTED GOODS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RE JECTED THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFE RENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT T O DOUBLE ADDITION IF THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS ACCEPTED BECAUSE PROCES SING CHARGES RELATING TO THE GOODS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR IS PROC ESSED AND DELIVERED IN THE NEXT YEAR, THEREFORE, HAS BEEN CREDITED IN T HE NEXT YEAR. IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE PROCESSING CHARGES WOULD NOT BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY NE T PROFIT COULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AS IS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654 AND GURBAC HAN SINGH JUNEJA 302 ITR 63. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GROSS PROF IT ON THE EXCESS ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 8 PROCESSED CLOTH OF 905934 METERS WOULD WORK OUT TO RS.1,35,977/- AS PER THE ANNEXURE AT THE AVERAGE CHARGES WORKED OUT AT RS.1.14 PER METER. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ON MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO SHRINKAGE OF THE CLOTH AND PROCESSING CHARGES COLLE CTED WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO MERELY REPEATED THE SAME ADDITION. THEREFORE, DECISION OF THE AO IS NOT CORRECT. THE LEARNED CIT( A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN T HE ISSUE. THEREFORE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SOME EXCESS CLOTH ON SHRINKAGE OF CLOTH; THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED PROCE SSING CHARGES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED ON THIS ISSU E IN A SUM OF RS.3,50,000/- AND THE BALANCE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 9. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE AND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON MERIT. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISS UE AFRESH ON MERIT BY GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT P ASSED SPEAKING ORDER BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE CONTENTION THAT AS PER DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES AND GURBACHAN SINGH JUNEJA (SUPRA) THE ENTIRE PROCESSING CHARGES CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME, ONLY THE PROFIT ON THE SAME MAY ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 9 BE TAXED. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITI ON ON WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THIS IS OLD MATTER, THEREFORE, THE MATTE R MAY NOT BE SENT BACK TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERATION. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDE RED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND DO NOT FIND ANY JU STIFICATION TO RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE AGAIN TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE FIND THAT EARLIER, THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH VIDE ORDER DATED 6-1-2006. IT IS AN OLD MATT ER, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ONCE FOR A LL ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INSTEAD OF REMANDI NG THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS NOT IN DISPUT E THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GREY CLOTH MEASURING 16366459 METERS, WHIL E PROCESSED CLOTH OBTAINED MEASURED AT 14478551 METERS. THERE W AS THUS SHORTAGE OF 1887967 METERS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SHRINKAGE OF CLOTH. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE SAT ISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WAS ALSO FILED. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ITS CONTENTION RAISED BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS ALSO EQUALLY A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DATA OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 BEFORE THE A O TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS EXCESS PROCESSING OF GREY CLOTH IN 232856 9 METERS. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT THIS HAPPENED D UE TO THE FACT THAT GREY CLOTH RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCESSING IN STOCK AT THE ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 10 END OF THE YEAR IS DELIVERED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE AO. IT WOULD, T HEREFORE, PROVE THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF THE PROCESSING O F THE CLOTH BUT THERE WAS INCREASE IN PROCESSING OF THE CLOTH IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THEREFORE, SOME BENEFIT SHALL HAVE TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. AT THE WORST, IF IT MAY BE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF PROCESSING CHARGES OF SHORTAGE OF THE GREY CLOTH, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE JOB CHARGES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE JOB WORK CHARGES CANNOT BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAU SE FOR PROCESSING THE GOODS AND FOR EARNING JOB WORK CHARG ES, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO SPENT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT FOR PROCESS ING OF THE GREY CLOTH. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES AND GURBACHAN SINGH JUNEJA (SUPRA) HAS H ELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALE CANNOT REPRESENT INCOME. THE PROFIT RATE MAY BE APPLIED IN ORDER TO MAKE REASONABLE ADDITION. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT FOR EARNING THE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE SHA LL HAVE TO SPEND THE EXPENDITURE AND THE INCOME COULD BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARNING THE UNACCOUNTED SALES. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE ISSUE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO P ROVE THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THERE WAS INCREASE IN PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED CLOTH AND SINCE DELIVERY RECORDED TO THE END OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, IF INC OME IS INCREASED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IT WOULD RESULT BACK TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED THE ENTIRE ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 11 JOB CHARGES WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE ON TH E SAME. THEREFORE, PROFIT RATE COULD BE APPLIED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,15,250/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF PROCESSING OF CL OTH MEASURED AT ABOUT 14478551 METERS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SHORTAGE OF 1887967 METERS, THE JOB CHARGES COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED A T RS.22,64,800/- AS ESTIMATED BY THE AO OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE ESTIMATED FIGURE OF GROS S PROFIT EARNED ON THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER AS PER THE AVERAGE PR OCESSING CHARGES, BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF TH E FACT HAS CORRECTLY ESTIMATED THE LUMP SUM ADDITION IN A SUM OF RS.3,50 ,000/-. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES AND GURBACHAN SINGH JU NEJA (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE PART ADDITION ON THE MATT ER IN ISSUE. WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) AND DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 13. ON GROUND NO.3, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,90,205/- AND ON GROUND NO.4, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 12 FROM RS.96,000/- TO RS.72,000/-. BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE INTER-LINKED AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. 14. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LAND PERTAINING TO FIRMS PARTNERS ON REN T ON WHICH FACTORY BUILDING OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CONSTRUCTED AND P RINTING TABLES ETC. WERE OBTAINED FOR DOING JOB WORK, WHICH THE ASSESSE E FIRM HAS BEEN DOING. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION O N FACTORY BUILDING AND OTHER FURNITURE WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE AO BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT LAND IS OWNED BY OTHERS . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FACTORY AND OTHER F URNITURE AS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION SHOULD B E ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS REPR ODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED TH AT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS OWNED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS EVIDENT FROM THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE EXECUTED ON 7-2-1991 BY 4 PERSONS AND ONE SMT. SABITABEN PATEL AND OTHERS WHEREBY EAC H OF THEM HAD 25% SHARES IN THE SAID LAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, TWO PERS ONS BY AGREEMENT DATED 1-6-1992 ASSIGNED 10% SHARES TO EAC H OF THEM, THUS SIX PARTIES WERE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE SAID LAND . THE SAID BANAKHAT WAS REGISTERED ON 7-2-1991 AND GENUINENESS OF THE S AME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. IT WOULD PROVE THAT 4 PERS ONS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE THE SAID LAND. THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE WAS FOLLOWED BY POSSESSION AGREEMENT DA TED 7-2-1991 DULY NOTARIZED AND SUPPORTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY E XECUTED AT THE SAME TIME. THE COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUPER STRUCTURE ETC. WAS CONSTRUCTED BY T HE ASSESSEE FIRM ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 13 WHICH IS CLEAR FORM THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS APPEA RING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS FILED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, LATER ON THE ASSESSEE FI RM EXECUTED A LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT ON 8-6-1992 WITH ONE M/ S. ANURAG SCREEN PRINTERS WHEREBY SUPER STRUCTURE ALONG WITH WATER TANK, ELECTRIC MOTOR, PRINTING TABLE, FURNITURE AND FITTI NGS ETC. WERE GIVEN FOR USE IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES CHARGES OF RS.9,00 0/- PER MONTH. ANOTHER AGREEMENT WAS ALSO EXECUTED BY THE CO-OWNER S OF THE LAND ON THE SAME DATE WITH THE SAID PARTY WHEREBY LAND W AS GIVEN ON LICENSE FEES OF RS.3,000/- PER MONTH. ACCORDINGLY, LICENSE FEES TOWARDS THE LAND WERE CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOU NT OF THE PARTNERS IN PROFIT SHARING RATIO. DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HELD THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY BEING LAND AND SUPER S TRUCTURE WITH OTHER ASSETS WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND RENT WAS ASSESSABLE AS PROPERTY INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F IRM. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE AO MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT MATERIAL ON RECORD DID NOT DISCL OSE AS TO HOW AND IN WHAT CATEGORY IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM I .E. AS INVESTMENT OR FACTORY LAND AND EVEN TREATMENT OF SUPER STRUCTU RE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS NOT CLEAR. THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY THE ABOVE POINTS. THE AO CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO DOCUMENTS SUCH AS AG REEMENT TO PURCHASE, IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY, POSSESSION OF LAND WAS FURNISHED AND FURTHER THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DEBITED TO THE PARTNERS ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 14 ACCOUNT ON 31-3-1993 WHICH SHOWED THAT IT WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR AND THAT COPY O F THE SALE DEED SHOWING THE SAID PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NA ME OF THE PARTNERS BEFORE 31-3-1993 WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT WHEN THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT QUESTIONED BY THE AO, T HE LOGICAL CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE SAID LAND BELONGED TO THE P ARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND HENCE LICENSE FEES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND COULD NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MEANING OF TRANSFER U/S 2(47) OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE THE PARTNE RS BECAME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH AGREEMENT, POWER OF ATTORNE Y AND POSSESSION AGREEMENT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET AND NOT THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET IS SIGNIFICANT FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO RESERVATION BY THE TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY N O SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BUT THE OTHER DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE PRO PERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE PARTNERS WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THEI R CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE FACTORY LAND DID NOT BELONG TO THE A SSESSEE FIRM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LICENCE FEES RELATING TO THE LAND IS SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, NO FUR THER ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUPER STRUCTURE AP PEARS SEPARATELY IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS FACTORY BUILDI NG IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED F OR DEPRECIATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER FURNITUR E WHICH WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTE D THE AO TO ALLOW ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 15 DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGAR D TO RENTAL INCOME AND ADDITION OF RS.96,000/- TOWARDS FACTORY BUILDING RENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT PORTION OF THE FACTORY AND RECEIVED RENT OF RS.90,000/-, THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED FOR REPAIRS ETC. AND BALANCE MAY BE TAXED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEDUCTION OF ONE FIFTH OUT OF RENTAL INCOME WAS ALLOWED AND DIRECTED TO ADD THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.72,000/-. 15. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COMPLETE DETAILS BE FORE THE AO AND FURTHER WHEN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS LET OUT O N WHICH ONE FIFTH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS PER SECTION 24 OF THE IT ACT ON RENTAL INCOME, DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND TH E LEARNED CIT(A) PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERATI ON. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND BELONGED TO THE PARTNERS AN D THE SUPER STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVEN ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS TO M/S. ANURAG SCREEN PRINTERS AND RE CEIVED RENT OF RS.9,000/- PER MONTH OF SUPER STRUCTURE AND FOR 10 MONTHS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.90,000/-, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SUPER ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 16 STRUCTURE IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED ON THE SAME. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB- 98 WHICH IS FACTORY CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT TO SHOW INVESTMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN CONSTRUCTION OF SUPER STRUCTURE AN D ALSO REFERRED TO PB-125 WHICH IS WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REFERRED TO PB-225 ONWARDS TO SHOW RENTAL INCOME AS SHOWN BY THE PARTNERS IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LAND WAS PURC HASED BY THE PARTNERS. THE SUPER STRUCTURE OF THE FACTORY PREMIS ES WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT (PB-98) AS WELL AS DETAILS ARE MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE G OF THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM (PB-97). THE SAME SUPER STRUCTURE WAS ALSO RENTED OUT ON LEAVE A ND LICENSE BASIS FOR 10 MONTHS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE ON THE RENTAL INCOME CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT AND IN THE SAME WAY THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEPRE CIATION ON THE SUPER STRUCTURE. SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THAT DEPRECIATION COULD BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF BUILDING, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY TH E ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, DED UCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE AS SESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE SUPER STRUCTURE AND OTHERS WERE LET OUT TO ANOTHER FIRM ON RENT, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. SIMILARLY, FOR GR ANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT THE INCOME SHOULD BE CHARGEABLE UN DER THE HEAD ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 17 INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE WHETHER THE FACTORY BUILDING WAS HOUSE PROPERTY OR NOT. THOUGH, COMPLETE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A), BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT PASS ING ANY SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS. IF THE FACTORY BUILDING ALONG WITH SUPER STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN LET OUT ON RENT THEN THE FINDING SHALL HAVE TO BE G IVEN WHETHER IT WAS RENT RECEIVED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY OR INCOME FROM BUSINESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PARTIAL RENT OF THE PROPERTY FOR TEMPORARY PERIOD, IT CAN BE CONSID ERED AS CONTINUATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CHOOSE TO IGNORE ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ONCE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO G RANT DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT ARE ALL TOGETHER DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED UNDER DI FFERENT HEADS AS PER THE IT ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) MERELY REPRODUCED TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FEW WORDS ACCEPTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION. T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS THUS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS CONTRARY TO HIS OWN FINDINGS ON BOTH THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON BOTH THE GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4 AND RESTORE THESE ISSUES TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE BOTH THE GROUNDS AFRESH. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL GIVE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DECISION FOR GRANT OF DEPRECIA TION AS WELL AS FOR GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE IT ACT. THE LEARNE D CIT(A) SHALL GIVE ITA NO.968/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.106/AHD/2009 M/S. ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 18 REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. NO OTHER GROUNDS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-05-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 13-05-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD