The ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda V. M/s. Shreeji Buildtech, Baroda

ITSSA 350/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3737 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER () ./ I.T(SS).A. NO. 350/AHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1), BARODA AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA / VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH DARSHNAM GREENS, MAHESHNAGAR SOC., WAGHODIA DABHOI RING ROAD, VADODARA 390019 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABOFS3937R ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, A.R. !' DATE OF HEARING 04/09/2019 #$%& !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/11/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 3 1.07.2014 ARISING IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 27.09.2013 PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2010-11. IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS BUT ESSE NTIALLY SEEKS TO CONTEND THE MAINTAINABILITY OF IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DEC LARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT IN T HE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, A SEARCH UNDER S.132 OF THE AC T WAS INITIATED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUP CASES ON 25 .10.2010. PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.9,51,683/- UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT ON 10.09.2010. SUBSEQUEN T TO THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER RETURN UNDER S.153A OF T HE ACT DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,91,92,460/-. THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME AS DECLARED. THE AO ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATED PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,82,40,776/- DECLARED I N THE RETURN OF INCOME POST SEARCH UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. THE AO EVENTUALLY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.87,26,500/- ON THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL INCOME BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) FOUND MERITS IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.1 UNDISPUTEDLY, SHRI SUNIL AGRAWAL DISCLOSED RS.2 0 CRORES AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE GROUP IN HIS STATEMENT RE CORDED U/S 132(4) ON 26-10-2010. DURING SEARCH, AS CLEAR FROM ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.25 OF HIS STATEMENT, THE YEARWISE, HEAD WISE AND ASSESSEEWISE DETAILS OF RS.20 CRORES WERE NOT GIVEN . THE SAME WERE GIVEN BY SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORD ED ON 08-02- 2011. AS PER ANSWER NO.2 OF THIS STATEMENT, THERE W ERE TOTAL 8 HEADS OF DISCLOSURE, THE FOURTH ITEM WAS 'SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT OF RS.2,82,40,776/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND'. AS EX PLAINED IN THE STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT FIRM PURCHASED LANDS BEARI NG RS IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - NO.397/1/2/3/4 AND 400A FOR RS.4,01,23,510/-. THE A PPELLANT HAS CLAIMED PURCHASE OF THESE LANDS FROM M/S J. M.CORPO RATION, ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN WHICH IN TURN HAS PURCHASED THESE LAN DS FOR RS.1,18,82,736/- FROM 4 GROUP INDIVIDUALS. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT ABOVE WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION BY WHICH EXPENDITURE O N THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS INFLATED BY RS.2,82,40,774/-. IT WAS EX PLAINED THAT THERE WAS A LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN COMMODITIES IN CASE OF CONCERNED FOUR INDIVIDUALS AND TO SET OFF THIS LOSS, THE ARTI FICIAL PROFIT WAS GENERATED IN THEIR HANDS AND BY ADOPTING THIS MODUS OPERANDI THE EXPENDITURE WAS INFLATED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELL ANT. NOW, THE APPELLANT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE O F RS.2,82,40,774/- ON PURCHASE OF LAND. 6.2 THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE HEAD DISCLOSUR E AND THE TOTAL OF SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS RS.20 CRORES. ONLY THE SUPPR ESSION OF PROFIT OF RS. 2,82,40,774/- IS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT AY AND PRESENT APPELLANT. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THIS INFLATED EXPENDITURE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT VOLUNTAR ILY AND NOTHING RELATED TO THIS ISSUE WAS UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH. STILL, IN ORDER TO CHECK THE SAME, APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO FILE COP IES OF STATEMENTS OF SHRI SUNIL AGRAWAL RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 26-10- 2010 AND SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL RECORDED ON 08-02-2011. IN BOTH THESE STATEMENTS, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL RELATED TO PURCHASE OF LAND AT RS NO.397/1/2/3/4 AN D 400A. COPIES OF EXPLANATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL GIVEN BY THE APPELLA NT TO THE AO WAS ALSO COLLECTED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND APPARE NTLY THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE INF ERRED THAT APPELLANT HAS DEBITED FALSE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,82, 40,774/-REGARDING PURCHASE OF LAND. THERE IS NO REFERENCE OR MENTION OF ANY SPECIFIC SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE PENALTY ORDER ALSO. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT DISCLOSURE OF INCOME OF RS.2,82,40,774/- WAS NOT BA SED ON ANY SPECIFIC SEIZED MATERIAL. 6.3 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF AFFIDAVI T DTD.26-07-2014 OF SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL, WHO IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM BUT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN PERSONS OF THE GROUP MANAGING D AY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE FIRM. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE AS BELOW : 'I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMO UNT OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE INFLATED PORTION IS DONE VOLUNTARILY AND SUO-MO TU WITH AN INTENT TO COME CLEAN AND BRING A QUIETUS TO THE ANTICIPATE D DISPUTE WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. 1 FURTHER STATE THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO DO CUMENT / MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED TO INDICATE THE INFLATION OF TH E EXPENDITURE NOR ANY QUERY OR INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD WAS UNDERTAKEN IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF INFLATION OF LAND PURCHASE EXPENSE CLAIME D BY M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH IN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,82,40,776/-. I FURTHER STATE THAT I HAVE AGAIN PERUSED THE ENTIR E SET OF IMPOUNDED / SEIZED MATERIAL / DOCUMENTS FROM THE VARIOUS PREMIS ES OF THE GROUP AND ALSO THE INQUIRIES AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND HAVE IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - RECONFIRMED THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE T O THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AS STATED IN PARA ABOVE.' A COPY OF ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MUKESH AGRAWAL, PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS AISO BEEN FILED CONFIRMING THE A BOVE FACTS WHICH ARE AS BELOW : 'THAT A SEARCH / SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE GROUP ON 25.10.2010 AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF RS. 20.00 CRORES WAS MADE BY SIM DILIP AGRAWAL, BEING A KEY P ERSON OF OUR FAMILY AND THE GROUP, HAD IDENTIFIED THE INCOME PER TAINING 10 VARIOUS CONCERNS OF THE GROUP INCLUDING THE FIRM M/ S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH WHERE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.82,40,776/- IS DE TERMINED AS REPRESENTING THE INFLATED PORTION OF THE EXPENSES. SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL IS HANDLING THE ACCOUNTS AND FIN ANCE FUNCTIONS OF THE GROUP AND BASED ON THE AMOUNT QUANTIFIED BY HIM AS UNDISCLOSED AND PERTAINING TO THE FIRM, THE SAME IS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24/05/2011 DESPITE THE FA CT THAT SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S. SHREEJI B UILDTECH. SHRI DILIP AGRAWAL HAS ALSO MADE AN AFFIDAVIT TODAY IN THIS RESPECT. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE PERUSED BY ME AND I CONFIRM THE SAME.' 6.4 IN RESPECT OF SUCH CASES WHERE SEARCH UNDER SEC TION 132 IS INITIATED ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007. A NEW EXPLANATION 5ATO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 HAS BEEN INSERTED VI DE FINANCE ACT, 2007. IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A SEA RCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF - (I) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (REFERRED TO AS ASSETS IN THE PROPOSED NEW EXPLANATION) OR (II) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND CLAI MS THAT SUCH ASSETS OR ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DO CUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WHOLLY OR IN PA RT) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR; WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF T HE SEARCH AND SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN ALR EADY FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR HAS EXPIRED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D THE RETURN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH , HE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (C ) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PA RTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6.5 IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH NEITHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND NOR ANY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SEARCH SO FAR AS THE PRES ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONCERNED. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECO RD BY THE AO TO REFUTE THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 5 - PENALTY ORDER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGES T AS TO HOW EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. EXPLANATION 5A CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE ONLY IF INCOME REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED ASSETS OR UNDISCLOSED INCO ME FOUND AS PER ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS ETC . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN F ILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH OR NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED EVEN THO UGH DUE DATE FOR FILING SUCH RETURN HAS EXPIRED. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER, THERE IS NO REFEREN CE TO ANY UNDISCLOSED ASSETS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND ON T HE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, EXPLANATION 5A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE BASIC CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED. 6.6 EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT ATTRA CTED IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNED INCOME FILED IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 6.7 IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT DISCLOSURE OF INCOME M ADE SUBSEQUENT TO SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY. IF IN PURSUANCE TO SEARCH, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL I S FOUND AND DISCLOSURE IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SCRUTINY OF SUCH SEIZED INCRIMINATING MATERIALS, SUCH DISCLOSURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY. FURTHER, IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND AND STILL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IS MADE SO AS TO COVER UP ANY BONAFIDE MISTAKE, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY. IT IS AN U NDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF THE APPELLANT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ANY A DVERSE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AS SESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IN THE RETURN FI LED IN RESPONSE OF NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT SINCE THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS JUST A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INC OME WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. 6.9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS SUMMARIZ ED AS UNDER: (I) THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETUR N FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. SUCH DISCLO SURE OF INCOME WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. (II) SUCH DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IS VOLUNTARY AND BON AFIDE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH. IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 - (III) EXPLANATION 5A AS WELL AS EXPLANATION 1 IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE RESENT CASE FOR THE PRESENT ASSESS MENT YEAR. (IV) THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DISCLOSURE OF INCOME ON VOLUNTARY BASIS FOR RECTIFY ING A BONAFIDE MISTAKE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6.10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN FIL ED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT IS VOLUNTARY AS THE SAME IS NOT RELATED TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS WELL AS STATEME NT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT I S HEREBY CANCELLED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ACTION OF TH E CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE CONTR OVERSY. THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN RESPE CT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED POST SEARCH IN THE RETURN FILED UND ER S.153A OF THE ACT QUA ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER S.139 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO SEARCH. WE STRAIGHTWAY NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENAL TY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 THERET O. ONCE THE EXPLANATION 1 IS INVOKED, THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME HAS TO BE SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN FILED. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT INCLUD ING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, NO CONCEALMENT CAN B E INFERRED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME ALREADY INCLUDED IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME IN SO FAR AS EXPLANATION 1 IS CONCERNED. TH EREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS PRIMA FACIE BAD IN LAW. IT IS ONLY EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND 271AAA OF THE ACT WHICH DEEMS CONCEALMENT EVEN PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN IN APPRO PRIATE CASES IN SEARCH MATTERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICTMENT A GAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER EXPLANATION 5A OR UNDER S.271AAA OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO LOOK INTO THE SAME. WE A LSO NOTICE THAT IT(SS)A NO.350/AHD/14 [ITO VS. M/S. SHREEJI BUILDTECH] A.Y. 2010-11 - 7 - WHILE THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 THEREOF, THE CIT(A) IN FIRST APPEAL H AS EXAMINED THE ISSUE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EXPLANATION 5A ALSO B UT HOWEVER FOUND THAT PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WO ULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, WE SE E NOT JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO DISTURB THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A ) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KE DIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28/11/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- ). / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE +. ,-.! /! / CONCERNED CIT 4. /!- / CIT (A) 2. 345 6!6-.7 ' -.&7 89, / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD :. 5;< = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 7 /8 ' -.&7 89, THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/11/20 19