DCIT, central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad V. Pravinkant M. Gandhi, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 162/AHD/2019

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad, which had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Pravinkant M. Gandhi, and deleted various additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 and other sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were primarily based on unexplained cash deposits and other income which the Assessing Officer claimed were undisclosed. The CIT(A) found that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search operation conducted on the assessee's group, Dharamdev Group, and thus, the additions were not permissible as the assessment for the year 2011-12 was unabated at the time of the search.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131381 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Saumya Construction (P) Ltd, CIT Central vs. Kabul Chawla, CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd, Jayesh Steel Pvt Ltd vs. CIT(Appeal)-12 Ahmedabad, Desai Construction (P.) Ltd, PCIT vs. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai, PCIT vs. Dipak Jashvantlal Panchal, PCIT vs. Devangi, Majestic Commercial (P.) Ltd, Mani Square vs. ACIT, Wind World India Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Tax effect
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 132; 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 153

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Th e Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ah medabad (Appellant) Vs Pravink ant M. Gand hi, 1, Swamin arayan Society, Nr. Ash oknagar Hall, Fatehpura, Paldi, Ah med abad-3800 07 PAN: AETPG1002 M (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri D. K. Parikh, A. R. Revenue by : Shri S udhendu Das, CIT-D. R. Date of hearing : 14-12 -2022 Date of pronouncement : 24-02 -2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad in Appeal no. CIT(A)-4/10126/2018-19, in proceeding u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A vide order dated 28/01/2019 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. IT(SS)A No. 162/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2011-12 I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 2 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts is not appreciating the provisions of section 153A of the Act, 1961 which requires the total income to be brought under tax without any restrictions. - 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that such assessment or re-assessment u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is to be restricted only to the incriminating materials found during the search - 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the (case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts is deleting addition of Rs. 2,73,49,816/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. Rs. 84,12,450/- 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,000/- made on account of interest on unexplained income. Rs. 13,596/- 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,575/- made on account of Agriculture income as income from undisclosed sources. Rs. 17,791/- I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 3 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,947/- towards interest expenses Rs. 6,164/- 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. - 8 It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the. Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent. - Total Tax Effect Rs. 84,50,001/- 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from business of private finance and partnership share from Sankalp Developers. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the group cases of Dharamdev Group on 15-10-2013. Consequently, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27-08-2014. In response to this, the assessee filed return on 05-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 14,82,390/-. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30-05-2015. During the course of assessment, the assessee filed certain details and Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits in Mahila Vikas Bank & Vijay Co-operative Bank, in support of which, the assessee could not give explanation regarding the source of such cash deposit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,73,49,816/-. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of Rs. 44,000/- on account of disallowance of interest on the aforesaid unexplained amounting to Rs. I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 4 44,000/-. Further, some other miner additions were also made during the course of appellate proceedings. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid order. 5. In appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of additions made for the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that the search took place 15-10-2013 on the Dharamdev Group. The contention of the assessee before ld. CIT(A) was that at the time of search took place, the time limit for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act had expired on 30-09-2012 and therefore the assessment for the year under consideration had become final on 30-09-2012 as no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. Therefore, according to the assessee, since this was a year of unabated assessment i.e. where the assessment is not pending on the date of search, the additions could not made on items of such income unless there is incriminating material found during the search. The assessee contended that the assessment was not framed on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search, and was therefore bad in law. The assessee cited several judicial precedents in support of his contention. The ld. CIT(A) in the light of above submission of assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer had made additions without any incriminating materials seized in the case of unabated assessment year. While allowing the assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 5 “4.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant as also, the legal position emerging from the various judicial pronouncements including the judgments of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Saumya Construction (P) Ltd [2016] 387 ITR 529 as also, judgments in the case of CIT Central vs Kabul Chawla [2015] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd [2015] 374 IJR 645 (Bom). The above judgments are followed in several decisions by the various Income tax Appellate Tribunals as relied on by the appellant-in his submissions. I find that the assessment for the year under consideration was not pending and hence did not abate but became final since time for issuing notice u/s 143(2) had already expired on the date of search. The various additions made in the assessment is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. This is evident from the assessment order in which the A.O. has considered various issues " from the details submitted by the assessee" Thus the deposits in bank account which are recorded in the books of account and items of cash credit cannot form the basis of addition in the year for which assessment is not pending and has not been abated since these are items of normal income tax assessment and not any incriminating material. Similar issue has also been dealt with in the case of Jayesh Steel Pvt Ltd by CIT(Appeal)-12 Ahmedabad vide his order in Appeal No: CIT(A)-12/21 9,221/DCIT -CC-2(3)/14-1 5 dated 2. 11.2016 in which also, following the judgment of jurisdictional high Court, it is held that in the finally concluded assessments framed u/s 153A/153C , the AO is not authorized to "interfere" except on the basis of and except having been prompted by incriminating seized documents relatable to that assessment year and that additions made dehors any incriminating seized material in case of unabated assessments are without requisite authority and are deleted. Certain orders issued by present incumbent in CIT(A)-12,Ahmedabad handling Assessments completed by the Central Charge were brought to my notice wherein a similar view is being taken even in year 2018. In view of this factual position and considering the legal position emerging from the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the High Court of Delhi as mentioned above as also, from the judgments of other hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT relied on in the said judgments, I am inclined to agree with the appellant that additions made by the AO in the instant case of unabated assessment is not I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 6 permissible since they are not made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search . I therefore direct the AO to delete the various additions of Rs. 2,73,49,816, u/s 68, Rs. 44,000/- towards interest expenses, Rs. 57,575/- towards agriculture income, Rs. 19,947/- towards interest expenses claimed including alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 1,02,08,668/- as per para 5.11 ( considered to be out of funds deposited in bank account) This legal ground no.2 is thus allowed.” 6. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief allowed to the assessee. Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the cash deposits in the account of the assessee, as observed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings are also incriminating material for the purpose of assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. In response, the counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that no incriminating material was found during the course of search conducted in the group cases of Dharamdev Group on 15-10-2013. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Saumya Construction 387 ITR 529 (Guj). 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has given a specific finding that it is evident from the assessment order that the assessment has not been framed on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search. This is evident from the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer has considered the various issues “ from the details submitted by the assessee”. I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 7 The instant year is one in which the time limit for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) had expired and the assessment for the year under consideration had become final on 30-09-2012 and no notice u/s. 143(2) had been issued till such date. 7.1 The Gujarat High Court in the of PCIT v. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai[2020] 121 taxmann.com 333 (Gujarat) held that where no incriminating material in respect of an earlier assessment year for which assessment had already attained finality was unearthed during course of proceedings under section 153A, Assessing Officer while completing assessment under said section could not disturb completed assessment of assessee in respect of such earlier assessment year. 7.2 In the case of Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd.[2018] 89 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where no incriminating evidence against assessee was found or seized during course of search so as to attract provisions of section 153A proceedings, no additions could be made on basis of statement of director of assessee company which were recorded under section 131 much later after search. The High Court while passing the order observed as under: “6. This court in the case of Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra), has held that in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. However, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 8 7. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that no incriminating material had been found during the course of the search proceedings and that the statement of the director which is stated to have been recorded during the course of search under section 131 of the Act, and which forms the basis for the impugned addition, was recorded much later on 7.12.2009. In the light of the above cited decision, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to make any addition under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material had been found during the course of the search.” 7.3 In the case of Desai Construction (P.) Ltd.[2017] 81 taxmann.com 271 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any incriminating material found during search, Assessing Officer, in assessment under section 153A, would not be entitled to interfere with assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA, which was part of original assessment proceedings and such assessment had abated. 7.4 In the case of PCIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd.[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that under section 153A, an assessment has to be made in relation to search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during search or requisition; if no incriminating material is found during search, no addition can be made on basis of material collected after search. The Gujarat High Court while passing the order observed as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading “Assessment in case of search or requisition”. It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 9 the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ...... 18. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that any incriminating material in respect of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.11,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 10 person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, however, it is on the basis of some material collected by the Assessing Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 11 7.5 In the case of PCIT v. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai[2020] 120 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee contended that invocation of provisions of section 153A and making disallowance/additions of bad debts of assessee by Assessing Officer was unjustified as no incriminating material against assessee was found or seized during search, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned additions. 7.6 In the case of PCIT v. Dipak Jashvantlal Panchal[2017] 88 taxmann.com 611 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search can be brought to tax in assessment under section 153A of the Act. 7.7 In the case of PCIT v. Devangi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 610 (Gujarat), after the search conducted at the assessee's premises, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 153A of the Act on the basis of the incriminating material seized for the period of the assessment year 2004-05 onwards, and made the addition for the assessment years 2000- 01 to 2004-05. The Tribunal deleted the addition holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during the search could be brought to tax and in assessee's case no incriminating material was found with respect to the assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05, at the time of search. The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the scope of section 153A was limited to assessing only search related income. I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 12 7.8 The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla[2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) held that completed assessments can be interfered with by Assessing Officer while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. While passing the order, the Delhi High Court observed as under: “37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 13 reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006- 07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. 39. The question framed by the Court is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 40. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances no orders as to costs.” 7.9 The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay) held that no addition can be made in respect of assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search. The Kolkata Tribunal in case of Majestic Commercial (P.) Ltd [2020] 116 taxmann.com 412 (Kolkata - Trib.) held that in case of unabated assessment of an assessee, no addition is permissible in order under section 153A unless it is based on any incriminating material found I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 14 during course of search. Again in the case of Mani Square v. ACIT, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 452 (Kolkata - Trib.), the Kolkata Tribunal held in case of unabated assessments of an assessee, no addition is permissible in order under section 153A, unless it is based on any tangible, cogent and relevant incriminating material found during course of search qua assessee and qua assessment year. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Wind World India Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.v. PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 279 (Mumbai) held that in case of an unabated assessment, no addition in absence of any incriminating material emerging during course of search and seizure proceedings conducted under section 132(1) can be made in hands of assessee. 7.10 In our view, the cases cited above squarely applied to assessee’s set of facts wherein, the original assessment was already apply completed by the Ld. Assessing Officer before the search was conducted. During the search operation which was carried by the Department, admittedly, no incriminating material was discovered, which formed the basis of additions made in respect of assessment already concluded. We note that at the time when the search operations were carried out, the original assessment proceedings had been finalized. We also note that during the course of search operation no fresh material or incriminating evidence was found by the Department. The ld. CIT(A) has also given a specific finding to this effect. Thus, the assessment was not pending when the search took place in this case. The assessment therefore did not abate as per the provisions of second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that in case of unabated assessment to be made u/s. 153A of the Act no I.T(SS).A No. 162/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. DCIT vs. Pravinkant M. Gandhi 15 addition could be made de-hors the material found during the search. In view of the above factual and legal position, in our view, the ld. CIT has not erred in law and in fact in allowing the appeal of the assessee in the instant facts. 8. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-02-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 24/02/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद