Shri Hardayal T. Manshani, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 458/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6424 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A KHAN
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 201; 143(2); 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI C/O. KETAN H. SHA H , ADVOCATE, 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX, C.G. ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AHDPM7277K (APPELLANT) VS THE DY. CIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1 ) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI M.S.A. KHAN , CIT - D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 09 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 10 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJ IT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS IS A SET OF SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). THERE IS A DELAY OF 227 DAYS IN FILLING THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT D ATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2017 THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDLED BY MR. ASHISH TAKWANI , C.A. WHO HAD INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FURTHER APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FI LED BEFORE THE ITAT. HOWEVER , AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, THE ADVOCATE OF THE I T (SS) A NO S . 458 TO 463 / A HD/ 20 17 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 2 ASSESSEE , SHRI KETAN H. SHAH HAS ADVISED HIM THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO FILE APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS AS LEGAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED T O CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE , WE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS BONAFIDE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE CON DONE THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS IN ORDER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE ON MERIT. 3. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND RAISED MORE OR LESS COMMON ISSUE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL OF THEM BY T H IS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SALE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 3 RD JAN, 2013 AT RADHE APARTMENT NEAR UDGAM SCHOOL, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR S EIZED FROM THE PREMISES AS CATEGORICALLY STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT. NOTICE U/S. 153A ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY SHOWING RS. 1 , 28 , 838/ - AS Y EARLY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. AFTER TAKING INTO C ONSIDERATION, THE FAMILY SIZE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN REASONABLE HOUSE HOLD I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 3 EXPENDITURE, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE @ RS. 18,000/ - PER MONTH AND MADE ADDITIO N OF RS. 87 , 162/ - AS UNEXPLAINED HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 35 , 862/ - BY TREATING THE EXPENSES AS PERSONAL AND NON - BUSINESS NATURE. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13 ON SIMILAR FACTS , TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 15 3A OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REITERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S OF ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES. IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 24(B) OF THE ACT AFTER DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT BORROWED LOAN WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS A LSO MADE ANOTHER ADDITION AS DEEMED RENT ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT LET OUT DURING THE YEAR. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT AND STATED ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES DURING THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 97 , 033/ - AND ADDITION OF RS. 6 , 79 , 322/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT LET OUT AND DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 24(B) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT BORROWED LOAN WAS NOT FULLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153 OF THE ACT THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE UNLESS OTHERWISE THERE IS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 2 ND JAN, 2013 AND THEREFORE HIS WHOLE ADDITION IS RE QUIRED TO BE DELETED. I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 2 OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 1 53A OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO SI X ASSESSMENT YEARS CONTESTED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES . IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SOMYA CONSTRUCTION WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED AND ADDITIONS HAVE TO BE BASED ON SUCH EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS . WE FIND THAT ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF ADDITION MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CREELOTEX EN GINEERING P. LTD. VS. CIT VIDE IT(SS)A NO. 254/AHD/2015. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE WORTH TO NOTE, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 6. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION WHICH CAME TO HIS POSSESSION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. ACCORDING TO THE AO, ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 139 AT NIL A MOUNT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) APPEARS TO HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LET US FIRST TAKE UP PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY HON BLE COURTS ON SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. THE HON B LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAVE EXAMINED SCOPE OF SECTION 153A. AFTER A DETAILED ANALYSIS HON BLE COURT HAS SUMMARIZED LEGAL PROPOSITION EMERGING OUT FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 153A. SUCH PROPOSITION READS 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 A CT, 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 REASSES SMENTS 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 I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 5 AY IN WH ICH 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 - SEARC H 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 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 M AKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A 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. 7. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HON BLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT RETURN FOR ASSTT.YEARS 2002 - 03, 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 WERE ACCEPTED UNDE R SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THUS, HON BLE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ACCEPTANCE OF RETURN AS AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1). IN CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH, THE HON BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, ASSESSMENTS FOR A.YS. 2002 - 03, 2005 - 06 A ND 2006 - 07 ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAUMAYA CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARA 18 AND 19 OF THE JUDGMENTS. IT READS AS UNDER: 18. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION 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 O F 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 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 WA S 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 INC RIMINATING 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 OFFICE R MUCH SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CAME TO BE MADE. 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 I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 6 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, TH IS 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 S TANDS 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. 9. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOU LD INDICATE THAT THE LD.AO HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE A LLOW THIS GROUND AND DELETE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 6 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH AND THE JUDICIAL FINDINGS, W E FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 22 - 10 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 22 /10 /2019 I.T (SS) .A NO. 458 TO 463 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI HARDAYAL T. MANSHANI VS. DY. CIT 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,