M/s. Asian Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD)Cent.Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 525/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9951 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Keywords: Peak credit; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T.(SS) A. NO. 525/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S ASIAN DEVELOPERS 2 ND FLOOR, CITY MALL, NR. RAJPATH CLUB, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 1882/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S ASIAN DEVELOPERS 2 ND FLOOR, CITY MALL, NR. RAJPATH CLUB, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAMFA 2576 R APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 07-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -01-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.03.2010 FOR A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008 -09 RESPECTIVELY. IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 2 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS ARE WITH RESPECT TO 2 DIFFERENT YEARS, THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE C ASE OF ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER ASSES SMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE DECIDED TOGETHER. WE THEREF ORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE THUS PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 1882/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 08-09. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI AL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CO NSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CA RRIED OUT IN ASIAN GROUP OF CASES ON07.02.2008. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 09.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,08,17,00 0/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153 R.W.S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 AND T HE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 5,64,48,520/- BY DISALLOWING THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03 .2010 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE DEDUCTION OF R S. 3,56,31,520/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HAVE CO NSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,08,17,000/- BEING PEAK CREDIT OFFERED TO TAX BY T HE APPELLANT FORMS PART OF THE OVERALL DISCLOSURE OF RS. 5,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASIAN GROUP AND ON WHICH TAXES HAVE BEEN DULY PAID IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. I T IS OUT OF THE AFORESAID INCOME OF PEAK CASH CREDIT THAT INVESTMENTS IN DIFFERENT ASSETS HAVE BE EN DISCLOSED SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, INVESTMENT IN ASIAN PARIVAR BUNGLOWS, INVESTMENT IN DISPLAY CENTERS ETC. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 3 OFFICER HAS ALREADY TAXED THESE VERY ASSETS AMOUNTI NG RS. 5.00 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF ASIAN GRANTIO INDIA LTD. & ASIAN TILES LTD. SEPARATELY ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE ACTION OF THE A.O. TO TAX THE PEAK CASH CREDIT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS AND AT THE MOST THE A.O., SHOULD HAVE TAXED THE INCOME SO OFFERED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THIS WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME. GROUND NO. 1 IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80I B(10) OF THE ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O . NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS KARMAJYOT BUNGALOWS. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED THE ENTIRE PROFIT OF HOUSING PROJECT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 ,56,31,520/- AS DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, A.O. NOTICED THAT LAND WAS OWNED BY THE S OCIETY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO DEVELOP THE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE OWN ER THAT IS KARMAJYOT CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. HE THEREFORE CONCLUD ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND BUT WAS JUST A DEVELOPER. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS APPROVED BY AUDA IN THE NAME OF CHAIRMAN KARMAJYOT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ., SHRI JAYANDRABHAI PATEL AND THE BU PERMISSION BY AUDA WAS IN THE NAME OF SMT. FALGUNI KANNAIHYALAL. THE A.O. WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AS IT HAD FAILED TO FULFILL THE BASIC CONDITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. HE THERE FORE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE C IT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IB(10) AND HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F RADHE DEVELOPER 113 TTJ 300 AND IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION 32 SOT 43 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS TO RECEIVE TH E ENTIRE CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10). THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE TO IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 4 CIT(A) AND HE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF DE CLARATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7. THE CONTENTIONS WERE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. APPAREN TLY THE APPELLANT HAS OVERLOOKED THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IB(10) WHICH WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2001 AND HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY T HE A.O. ON PAGE 3 OF HER ORDER AS UNDER: FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED T HAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB- SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH EXECUT ES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTRACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTR AL OR STATE GOVERNMENT). 8. THE APPELLANT HAS EXECUTED THE HOUSING PROJECT UNDE R A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE SOCIETY AND IS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB AS PE R THIS EXPLANATION. HENCE NO INFIRMITY IS SEEN IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DENYING THE CLAIM U/S. 80 IB, TO THE APPELLANT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT I T HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) AND IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS AND SHAKTI CORPORATION (SUPRA). HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT A.O. BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE AC T. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. AND CIT(A). . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N DENIED THE DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) BY THE A.O. FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HAS ACTED ONLY AS A CONTRACTOR. BE FORE US LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 80IB(10) AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF RADHE DEVELOPERS AND SHAKTI CORPORATION. WE ALSO FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC ORDER WHILE D ENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF ASSESSEE . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHIKAR DEVELOPERS ITA NO. 854/AHD/2010 HAS NOTED THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEV ELOPERS (2010) 329 ITR 01 (GUJ) THAT NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED BY A DEVELOPER TO STAKE A CLAIM FOR IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 5 DEDUCTION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 6. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION PRESCRIBED U/S.80-IB(10) IS NOW TO BE DECIDED AS PER THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R ADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 171 OF 1999 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/04/2009 [REPORT ED AT (2010) 329 ITR 01 (GUJ.)]- THE HON'BLE COURT HAS GIVEN FINDING IN THAT CASE AFTER EXAMINAT ION OF CERTAIN FACTS TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S.80-IB(10). ONLY AFTER GIVING A FINDI NG ON FACTS, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10). THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE FULFILLED BY A DEVELOPER TO STAKE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE SAID REQUISITE INFORMATION WAS NOT EVEN EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE- HIGH COURT DECISION. THE GUIDELINES GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- (A) THE RELEVANT TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AR E TO BE EXAMINED SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE TERMS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED RIGHT OF CONSTRUC TION OF A HOUSING PROJECT. (B) ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IT HA S TO BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER IT WAS A 'WORK CONTRACT' OR A 'DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT'. (C) ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED THAT WHICH OF THE PARTY HAD TAKEN FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXECUTION OF THE SAID DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (D) WHETHER UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD B EEN GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE LAND AND TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE AO HAS TO E XAMINE THE FACT IN RESPECT OF ENGAGEMENT OF PROFESSIONALS, SUCH AS, ARCHITECT FOR DESIGNING AND ARCHITECTURAL WORK. (E) THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EN ROLMENT OF MEMBERS AND COLLECTION OF CHARGES REQUIRED TO BE MADE FROM THE BUYERS OF THE RESIDENT IAL UNITS. (F) THE AO HAS TO EXAMINE ABOUT THE 'PROFIT' OR 'L OSS' ARISING FROM THE SAID PROJECT. (G) THOUGH THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND HAS BEEN HELD AS N OT THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) BUT THE DOMAIN OVER THE LAND AND THE CONTR OL OVER THE PROJECT HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. (H) WHETHER ON TRANSFER OF DOMAIN THE LAND OWNERS HAVE RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION AND WHETHER IT WAS A FIXED AMOUNT OR DEPEND UPON THE PROFITS OF THE PROJECT. LIKEWISE, THE AO HAS TO ASCERTAIN THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A FIXED PERCENT AGE AS REMUNERATION FOR THE SAID PROJECT IN LIEU OF GRANTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR TO EARN PROFITS AS A PROJECT DEVELOPER. (I) THE AO HAS TO ASCERTAIN THE POSITION OF THE PO SSESSION OVER THE LAND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. (J) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION THE AO HAS TO E XAMINE THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. (K) THE A.O. HAS TO EXAMINE THE PROCEDURE FOR RAISI NG OF FUNDS EITHER BY PRIVATE PLACEMENT OR BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. (L) THE RISK ELEMENT CONNECTED WITH THE SAID HOUSIN G PROJECT HAS ALSO TO BE EXAMINED. (M) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE SIZE O F THE PLOT ON WHICH PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED. (N) THE A.O. HAS TO EXAMINE BUILT-UP AREA OF SANCT IONED UNIT WHETHER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GUIDELINES, ONCE THE MATTE R IS GOING BACK FOR RECONCILIATION, THEN THE AGREEMENTS CONNECTED TO THE LAND AND THE DETAILS OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PERMITTING TO DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT CAN ALSO BE EXAMINED IF DEEM FIT. SINCE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN THE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AFTER DUE ASCERTAINMENT OF THESE BASIC FACTS, THEREFORE IT IS APPROPRIATE FIRST TO PLACE ON RECOR D ALL THESE INFORMATION AND THEN IF FACTS ARE IDENTICAL CONSEQUENTLY THEREUPON, THE CITED DECISIO N HAS TO BE FOLLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, WE HEREBY ALLOW THE GROUND O F THE REVENUE THAT TOO FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE L OWER AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE OF ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 80I B(10) AS LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHIKHAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). TO VERIFY THE COMPLIANCE IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 6 OF THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION. WE THEREFORE RESTORE T HE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO VERIFY THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CON DITIONS AS LAID BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF SHIKHAR DEVELOPERS (SUPRA ) AND GIVE A SPECIFIC FINDING ON THEM. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 2 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A NO. 525/AHD/2010 (FOR A.Y. 2007-08). 10. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE LE GAL GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S. 153C RWS. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW HENCE THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 54,37,644 /- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. GROUND NO. 1 WAS NOT PRESSED AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION U/S 80I B:- IT(SS)A. NO. 52 5/A/2010 & ITA NO.1882/A/10 . A.Y. 2007-08 & 08- 09 7 11. BEFORE US, IT IS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF IN ITA NO. IT(SS)A NO. 525/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 07-08 ARE SIM ILAR TO THAT OF ITA NO. 1882/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUN TS. WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN WHILE DECIDING APPEAL OF A.Y. 08-09 H EREINABOVE ALSO ALLOW THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 12. THUS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17 -01 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/AS STT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD