Shri Sanjay A.Choksi, Baroda V. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITSSA 147/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9942 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Set aside
• Section: 132; 153A; 143(2); 158BC; 158BD

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No.147/Ahd/2005 Block Period A.Y. 1986-87 to 15-12-1995 Shri Sanjay A. Choksi Rangoli Bungalow Harni Main Road Baroda 390 022. Vs ACIT, Cir.1(2) Baroda. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Sakar Sharma, AR Revenue by : Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 2 9 / 0 7 / 2 0 2 2 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 2 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 2 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1(2), Baroda (in short referred to as ld.ACIT, dated 31.3.2005 passed under section 158BC read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to block period FY 1985-86 to 15-12-1995. 2. At the outset, it was pointed out that this was the second round before us; that in the first round, the ITAT had restored the issue back to the AO to compute the undisclosed income of the IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 2 assessee in accordance with the provision of section 158BB of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee for presenting facts and figures for the purpose of making assessment. 3. Drawing our attention to the facts of the case, it was pointed out that the assessment in the present case was framed determining undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period of financial year 1985-86 to 15.12.1995 in consequence to search operation carried out at the premises of Mr. Arun R. Choksi and his group concerns. The assessee, Shri Sanjay Chokshi, is the son of Mr. Arun Choksi and closely associated with his father in most of the business concerns. He is also MD of Jolly Tea (India) Ltd. and one of the partners of Rainbow Agency in which the father, Shri Arun Choksi, has common business interest. Proceeding under section 158BC, for assessing the undisclosed income of the Block period of the Act was initiated on the assessee and despite several opportunities given, the assessee failed to substantiate most of his claims. Accordingly, various additions were made which were challenged before the ITAT, who in turn restored the issue back to the AO to frame the assessment afresh of the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. We have noted that the impugned order which is in challenge before us, passed under section 158BC read with section 254 of the Act, was passed on 31.3.2005 and the assessee had filed appeal before us on 29.4.2005, and thereafter despite lapse of more than 17 years since inception of the appeal, since IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 3 then, the matter could not be adjudicated. We have noted that in the meanwhile ,during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed concise grounds of appeal before us in April, 2018 challenging the merits of the addition made on account of undisclosed income raising 14 grounds in all. Also, during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed additional grounds on 4.8.2010 raising allegedly certain legal issues before us as under: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383), it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1. The order passed u/s 158BC r.w.s. 254 of the Act is bad in law, invalid and not tenable since no warrant authorizing search was issued in the name of the appellant but on the basis of the warrant issued in joint names as shown in the panchnama enclosed herewith - Arun Choksi, Sanjay Choksi and family and Jolly Tea (India) Ltd. and Jolly group of companies, proceedings in the case of the appellant were initiated. The provisions of law clearly lays down that no assessment can be framed without issuance of valid warrant and hence assessment framed is perverse, invalid and bad in law when framed on the basis of issuance of warrant in joint names that deserves to be quashed. 2. The proceedings are invalid, bad in law and void ab initio in absence of non issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) of the act in set aside proceedings framed in pursuance of direction of the Hon’ble ITAT for making fresh block assessments and to compute the undisclosed income. The order of the AO is completely against the provisions of law and principles of Natural Justice that ought to be quashed. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal.” and thereafter on 6.7.2022, the assessee filed another application raising additional grounds before us as under: “Appellant craves leave to raise below mentioned additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal in alternate to the additional IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 4 ground No. 1 already raised in August, 2010. Analysis of Panchnama along with annexures and statement of appellant recorded u/s 132(4) evidence that there was no search action on the appellant, no premises of the appellant were subjected to search action, there was no seizure from the appellant or in the name of the appellant and therefore, no proceedings u/s 158BC were permissible but initiated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, no undisclosed income in the case of appellant was permissible to be computed in terms of provisions of section 158BB of the Act; “1.1 The order passed u/s 158BC r.w.s. 254 of the Act is bad in law, invalid, not tenable and the same is deserves to be quashed being contrary to the provisions of the Act and without satisfying the conditions laid down in section 158BA, 158BB and 158BC of the Act as no valid warrant of search was issued in the name of the appellant in his individual capacity, there being no search action on the premises belonging to the appellant and there bf?ing r^£ seizure of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing "or books of accounts or other documents from the appellant or in the name of the appellant.” This is a legal ground and therefore, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd vs. CIT 229 ITR 283(SC) and jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs Jolly Fantasy World Ltd 373 ITR 530 (Guj) [one of the group company], the same is requested to be admitted for adjudication.” 5. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee made arguments vis-à-vis the admissibility of the additional grounds of appeal raised. Referring to his application, wherein he had raised the said additional ground, as reproduced above, he pointed out that the additional ground challenged the validity of the assessment framed u/s 158BC of the Act and being a legal ground needed to be admitted for adjudication. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) in support. 6. The ld.DR objected to the same. IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 5 7. We have gone through the additional grounds raised before us, and we have noted, that vide the said grounds, the assessee has challenged validity of the assessment framed in the present case under section 158BC of the Act on the ground that there was no search warrant issued in the name of the assessee, and hence no search action on the assessee and as a consequence, no seizure of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing so as to invoke section 158BC of the Act in the present case. He has also challenged the validity of the assessment framed u/s 158BC of the Act in the absence of any service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. These are legal grounds raised by the assessee and needs to be admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd. (supra).The additional grounds raised are accordingly admitted for adjudication, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court during the course of hearing itself. 8. Thereafter, the ld.counsel for the assessee made his arguments with respect of the said grounds. Briefly put, the sum and substance of the arguments was that there was no search conducted on the assessee, which was a basic pre-requisite for invocation of jurisdiction to assess undisclosed income of the assessee for block period, as per the provisions of section 158BC of the Act, which had been invoked in the present case. Basis for the ld.counsel for stating so, was that no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee. He relied upon notings in the panchanama executed during the course of search at Arun Choksi group. Drawing our attention to Paper Book Vol-III , filed on 30- 06-22, Pg.No.385 which was the copy of panch nama, he pointed IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 6 out that against the column Warrant in the case of – it was mentioned Arun Choksi, Sanjay Choksi and family and Jolly Tea (India) Ltd. and Jolly Group of companies. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that panchnama revealed that warrant was in the joint names which was not a valid warrant for framing assessment in the name of the assessee. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Vandana Verma, 330 ITR 533 (All) in this regard. He further contended that provision of section 292CC which were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, providing that warrants can be issued in the name of more than one persons, while assessment be framed in individual name was brought with retrospective effect on the statute from 1.4.1996 but did not apply in the case of the assessee. He contended that the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court still held fort despite amendment to the Act brought retrospectively on statute. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the Department had been given innumerable opportunities to demonstrate as to exactly in whose name the warrant had been issued in conducting the search, but had failed to do so. We have also noted from the order-sheet that on 9.5.2022, the department had been given final opportunity to produce whatever evidence was available with it with respect to this issue of search warrant and it was noted that no further opportunity would be granted considering substantial period of time had elapsed since filing of the appeal. The ld.DR, before us, expressed his inability to produce any search warrant, pointing out that the search had taken place on 5.12.1995 and the matter IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 7 was almost 27 years old now, and there was no possibility of laying hands on any documents relating to this case. 9. We have heard the rival contention. The assessees challenge to the validity of assessment framed in the present case under Section 158BC of the Act, is on the ground that there was no search conducted on the assessee at all. The contention of the assessee is that the search warrant was issued jointly in the name of assessee and other assessees and entities and was therefore not a valid warrant. As evidence the assessee has not been able to produce the copy of the search warrant but has referred to the Panchnama wherein in the column mentioning search warrant issued in the name of, there are several names mentioned including that of the assessee as pointed out and noted above by us in our order. The Revenue was given several opportunities to establish as a fact in whose name the warrant for search had been issued by producing copy of the search warrant. But ultimately the Ld.DR expressed their inability to do so, considering that it was a very old matter, 27 years old, the search being conducted in 1995 and therefore, it was virtually impossible to recover any such old document. 10. We have considered the issue in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case as also on legal aspect of the matter and we have no hesitation in dismissing this contention of the assessee out rightly on both the grounds. 11. Surely, there is no search warrant before us to substantiate the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the search IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 8 warrant was not issued in the individual name of the assessee but was issued in joint name of several assessees. He has only relied upon the Panchnama in this regard, and the Department has expressed its inability to produce the said document being very old. Undoubtedly the assessee has raised this legal contention in the second round before us vide additional grounds raised in the year 2020 i.e. after a lapse of 25 years since when the search was conducted in 1995. This is a considerable period of time and the Department cannot be expected to retain such old documents more particularly when the Legislature itself specifies assessees to retain documents and books of accounts for a period not exceeding a maximum of 16 years through various provisions of the Act. For purposes of reassessment, section 149 of the Act provides for reopening of cases upto maximum of sixteen years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per section 149 of the Act, which has been reduced to 10 years by the Finance Act, 2021. Assessment of search cases, prescribed u/s 153A of the Act can take place of upto six years prior to the year in which search is conducted. 25 years is a considerable period of time and no person can be expected to retain documents for such a considerable period of time. Therefore, the non-production of search warrant by the Department to counter the claim of the assessee that the search warrant was issued in the joint name of the several assesses, cannot be taken adversely against the Revenue. Therefore, in the absence of substantiation of the claim of the assessee that the warrant of authorisation for search was issued in joint name and not in the individual name of the assessee and therefore, the assessment could not have been IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 9 framed in the name of the assessee, this plea of the assessee needs to be dismissed. 12. Even otherwise we find that Section 292CC of the Act, brought on the statute with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976, has made it clear that there is no requirement for the warrant of authorization of search to be issued in individual name for assessment to be framed in the individual names ; that warrant of authorization issued in joint names is valid for framing assessment in individual names. The relevant provision of Section 292CC of the Act is reproduced hereunder for clarity: “292CC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,— (i) it shall not be necessary to issue an authorisation under section 132 or make a requisition under section 132A separately in the name of each person; (ii) where an authorisation under section 132 has been issued or requisition under section 132A has been made mentioning therein the name of more than one person, the mention of such names of more than one person on such authorisation or requisition shall not be deemed to construe that it was issued in the name of an association of persons or body of individuals consisting of such persons. (2) Notwithstanding that an authorisation under section 132 has been issued or requisition under section 132A has been made mentioning therein the name of more than one person, the assessment or reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each of the persons mentioned in such authorisation or requisition.” 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Vandana Verma (Supra) which though he fairly admitted was rendered prior to Section 292CC being brought on the statute but he contended that the said judgment still held fort. We fail to understand as to how after the retrospective insertion of Section IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 10 292CC of the Act the said judgment still applied, when the Legislature itself has clearly provided in the section that even warrant issued in joint names would validate assessment framed in individual names. Therefore, even considering the provision of law on the issue, this plea of the assessee that the authorization of search issued in joint names could not authorize framing of assessment in individual name u/s 158BC of the Act, is dismissed. 14. The next contention raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee was that since search was not conducted on the assessee but on some other person and therefore, assessment needed to be framed under Section 158BD of the Act and not u/s 158BC of the Act as in the present case. This plea of the assessee needs to be rejected since the basic premise on which this argument rests is that no search was conducted on the assessee itself , which argument has been dismissed by us above in para 10 to 12. We have categorically dismissed the contention of the assessee that no search was conducted on the assessee and therefore, this contention of the assessee has no legs to stand upon. 15. The next contention raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee before us, challenging the validity of assessment framed under section 158BC of the Act, was that no notice under section 143(2) was given to the assessee in the second round by the AO. This contention needs to be dismissed outrightly because proceeding in the second round on the direction of the ITAT are in continuation of the original proceedings initiated by the AO and it is not the case of the assessee that notice under section 143(2) IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 11 was not issued in the initial round of assessment. The initial assumption of jurisdiction to frame assessment being in accordance with law, there is no need to comply with such jurisdictional requirements in proceedings which are continuation of the original proceedings. In view of the same, this contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is dismissed. 16. In view of the above all the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 17. On the merits of the case the assessee has raised the following grounds (concise): “1. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by passing unnecessary remarks in connection with the alleged non-cooperative attitude of your appellant, during the assessment proceedings. 2. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by believing and adopting figures from the "SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET" as on 31/03/95 found and seized by the search party though such Balance Sheet is neither backed by any books of accounts nor confirmed by the auditor. 3. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 8,76,278/- as unexplained capital as mentioned in the "SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET" though the same has been included by the appellant in the return of the block period. 4. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 26,07,952/- as outstanding liability towards M/s. Rainbow Agency, ignoring confirmation and other evidences submitted by the appellant. 5. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 45 lacs, on a/c of three loans of Rs. 15 lacs each from M/s. Patel Petroleum Products, M/s. Amber Enterprise and M/s. Thakur Industries, for A.Y 1.995 - 96, ignoring basic submissions in respect of sources of funds, bank statement and confirmations submitted by the appellant. IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 12 6. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 2,40,500/- on protective basis, in respect of investment in land adjacent to Rangoli Bungalow for A.Y. 1996 - 97. [Substantive basis in the hands of Shri Arun Choksi] 7. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 4,82,875/- in respect of investment in purchase of land at S.No, 292/1 known as Kakaji Farm, ignoring source of funds and evidences. In absence of necessary accounting books, the only option is to telescope grossly by considering source of funds and corresponding application of these funds and delete the addition. 8. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 3,07,125/- being profit on sale of Kakaji Farm ignoring the fact that appellant has already considered the disclosure of Rs. 3,07,125/- in the return of income for the block period. 9. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 6,41,750/- being alleged unaccounted cash deposit in S.B. a/c No. 2052 with Punjab National Bank, Siyapur Br., Baroda, for A.Y. 1996 - 97, ignoring evidences, figures and facts. 10. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 12,35,000/- for A.Y. 1991 - 92 in respect of investment in four shops at Konark complex, ignoring submissions and detailed cash flow of funds received from group concerns. 11. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 4,15,000/- in respect of profit on sale of four shops at Konark complex, ignoring disclosure of the same in the return for the block period. 12. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- on protective basis for A.Y. 1991 - 92 as alleged unexplained investment in Baroda Agro Industries Ltd. ignoring submissions and evidences. Further this addition tantamounts to double addition, considering the addition of Rs. 6,41,750/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in SB a/c No. 2052 Punjab National Bank, Siyapur Br., Baroda. [Substantive basis in the hands of Baroda Agro Industries Ltd.] 13. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 12,25,220/- as alleged unaccounted investment in Baroda Agro Industries ltd. ignoring submissions evidence. In respect of cash from M/s. Jolly Tea India ltd., assessee requests to telescope the application of funds received from Jolly Tea India Ltd. (in absence of availability of seized records). IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 13 14. Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by making addition of Rs. 40,000/- for A.Y. 1990-91 as alleged unaccounted investment in Ishawaku Finstocks Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of difference of factual figure of investment of Rs. 2,75,000/- and Rs. 2,35,000/- as shown in the “SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET”. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and/or modify any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 18. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that all additions made in the case of assessee were not based on any incriminating material found during search, and therefore, could not have been added in assessment framed under section 158BC of the Act. He filed a chart before us detailing the basis of various additions made in the case of the assessee and stating that no seizure was made from him during search as under: IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 14 IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 15 19. The said chart was forwarded to the ld.DR to counter the factual contentions of the assessee during the hearing conducted in the case on 6.7.2022 and the matter was adjourned to 13.7.2022., for the response of the ld.DR on the same. On the said date, the ld.counsel for the assessee sought adjournment and matter was ultimately heard on 29.7.2022 when the ld.DR was unable to counter the factual contentions of the assessee with evidences. 20. We have gone through the contents of the chart placed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us detailing the basis of each addition made in its case in assessment framed u/s 158BC of the Act, which have remained uncontroverted before us. We find that the additions have been made either on the basis of the Balance sheet filed by the assessee with the department for the year ending 31-03-95 or on the basis of the statement of his father Sh Arun Choksi or documents found during search on other parties. 21. We have gone through the assessment order also and find that the addition made on account of the following is all based on balances reflected in the Balance sheet filed with the department prior to search by the assessee for year ending 31-03-95 , which the assessee was unable to substantiate or correlate with balances reflected in accounts of other parties: Unexplained introduction of capital Rs. 876278/- Outstanding liability in the name of M/s Rainbow Agency Rs.26,07,952/- IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 16 Unexplained loans Rs. 45,00,000/- 22. While the addition on account of unexplained introduction of capital pertained to increase in capital of the assessee from 31- 03-91 to 31-03-95 as reflected in the balance sheet filed by the assessee to the department, which remained unexplained, the addition on account of liability of M/s Rainbow Agency pertains to the difference between the balance outstanding of the said party as reflected in the balance sheet for 31-03-95 and the withdrawals reflected in the books of accounts of the said party. The addition on accounts of unexplained loans also pertains to loans reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-95 remaining unsubstantiated. 23. Evidently all the above additions are not based on any incriminating material found during search but merely on examination of the Balance sheet which the assessee had filed to the department. 24. Further additions on account of unexplained investment in assets are all found to be based solely on the statement of the father of the assessee Shri Arun Choksi without any incriminating material supporting the disclosure, being found during search. 25. The statement, that too not of the assessee but his father, is not incriminating material in the absence of any supporting material. IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 17 26. The unaccounted investments in M/s Baroda Agro Industries, we find pertain to different years of the block period and are on account of; • Cash investment in share capital by the assessee in AY 1991-92 amounting to Rs.5,70,000/-, incriminating material pertaining to which was found during search conducted on the said company and on the basis of statement of the father of the assessee. • Investment in A.Y 1995-96 of Rs.12,25,220/-, being difference of that reflected in Balance Sheet of the assessee and that stated by him to have invested. 27. The above also are not based on any incriminating material found during search on the assessee. 28. The addition on account of investment in M/s Ishawaku Finstock P Ltd. of Rs.40,000/- is we find based on the difference between the investment claimed by the company to have been made by the assessee and that reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee filed to the department. 29. Clearly all the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during search on the assessee. The fact that there was no seizure from the assessee has also remained uncontroverted. 30. The assessment u/s 158BC of the Act of undisclosed income rests solely on incriminating material found during search. The IT(SS)A No.147 /Ahd/2005 18 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vishal Agarwal (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 279 held that no addition could be made u/s 158BC of the Act in the absence of recovery of any incriminating material during search. The Hon’ble High Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Elegant Homes (P) Ltd (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 261, while holding so. We therefore hold that the additions made in the present case in the absence of any incriminating material as basis, are not sustainable in law and direct the same to be deleted. 31. The grounds raised on merits are accordingly allowed. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21 st October, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 21/10/2022 vk* TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु !त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु !त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. $वभागीय 'त'न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड* फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील-य अ.धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad