The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat V. Shri Nitin S.Garg, Surat

ITSSA 6/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8071 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K S PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N L AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ %& %& %& %& , , , , &' ( & &' ( & &' ( & &' ( & ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND TEJ RAM MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002 TO 2007-2008] ACIT, CENT.CIR.4 SURAT. /VS. SHRI NITIN SHYAMSUNDAR GARG 19, DWARKA NANDAN SOCIETY ALKAPURI, VADODARA. PAN : ABHPG 8630Q ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K.S. PANDYA 1% . / &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. L. AGARWAL 2 . %3'/ DATE OF HEARING : 31 ST MAY, 2012 456 . %3'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-07-2012 &7 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE SEVEN APPEALS BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-2002 T O 2007-2008 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABAD. THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED O F WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -2- 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIM ILAR EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN FIGURE OF ADDITION. HOWEVER, IN IT(SS)A.NO.10/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y.2005-2006, THREE MOR E GROUNDS WERE RAISED, WHICH WILL BE ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY I N THIS ORDER. 3. THE GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 IN IT(SS)A.NO.06 TO 9 AND 11 & 12/AHD/2010 AND GROUND NO.1 & 2 IN IT(SS)A NO.10/AH D/2010 ARE SIMILARLY WORDED EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN FIGURE OF ADDITION, THEREFORE, WE REPRODUCE THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED I N IT(SS)A.NO.6/AHD/2010 FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A S UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO NS OF RS.24,88,499/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF CLAI M U/S.44AE OF THE ACT, IGNORING THAT THE ACCOUNTING SOFT WARE FILE TALLY 54 SEIZED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE R EFLECTS 12 VEHICLES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY ON 31.05.2006, EVEN AFTER A LONG GAP OF THREE F.YS.IN WHICH ASSESS EE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD SEVEN VEHICLES AND ACQUIRED 4 NEW VEHI CLES. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN H OLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIM U/S.44AE OF THE ACT, IGNORING THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF 12 V EHICLES AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO S HOW THAT THE TRANSFER IS EFFECTED ON THE RECORD OF THE RTO AND T HEREFORE ASSESSEE STILL HAS LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE SEVEN VEHICLES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS THE INCOME FROM PLYING OF TRUCKS UNDER SECTI ON 44AE OF THE ACT WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF 12 TRUCKS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THE BENEFI CIAL PROVISION OF SECTION 44AE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CASES WHERE NUMB ER OF TRUCKS ARE MORE THAN 10. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.5 AND 6 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE TABLE OF 12 TRUCK S WITH THEIR IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -3- REGISTRATION NUMBER, ENGINE NUMBERS, CHASSIS NUMBER S ETC. IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TH E OWNER AND IN POSSESSION OF 12 TRUCKS AND THAT HE HAS TRANSFERRED SOME VEHICLES ON PAPER ONLY AS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO FIT INTO THE R EQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 44AE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS IN A SUMMARY MANNER ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A NY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS PLIED BY THE ASSESSEE NEVER EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM OF 10 TRUCKS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE AO. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE COMPUTER FILE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE S EARCH ACTION PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 AND OUT OF 12 VEHICLES IN THE TABLE REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 7 AND ACQUIRED 4 DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-2003. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THESE VEHICLE S WERE RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SOLD VEHICLES IN BENAMI NAMES WAS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND BASIS. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE PURCHASERS OF THESE VEHICLES ALTHO UGH COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLES WAS FILED BEFO RE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWIS E NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLIED OR INCURRED EXPEN SES ON PLYING OF ANY SUCH SOLD VEHICLES OR HAS RECEIVED ANY TRANSPOR T RECEIPTS ON THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED FUNDS FOR INVESTMENTS TO THE PERSONS WHO P URCHASED THE VEHICLES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 44AE ARE NOT IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -4- APPLIED TO THE TRUCKS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AN AVERAGE GP RATE IS APPLIED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N OF DEPRECIATION THEREON AND BY DOING SO, THE INCOMES COMES TO LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO REVENUE GAIN WHATSOEVER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE COMPILATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE COMPUTER FILES SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DU RING THE SEARCH OPERATION PERTAINED TO THE A.Y.2004-2005 AND OUT OF 12 VEHICLES MENTIONED THEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 7 AND ACQU IRED 4 DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-2003. THE VEHICLE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NOT MORE THAN THE FIGURE OF 10 VEHICLES, A ND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PLYIN G OF TRUCKS. WE FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CHARGE OF BENAMI TRUCKS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVE NUE. THE AO HAS NOT SUMMONED THE PURCHASERS OF THESE VEHICLES ALTHO UGH THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSES WERE EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THESE VEHICLES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THESE VEHICLES WERE RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WAS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THESE VEHICLES. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE VEHICLES EVEN AFTER THE SALE TH EREOF IN FACT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED THEM AS BENAMI AND WAS ACTUALLY THE OWNER OF THE MORE THAN 10 TRUCKS IN AN Y OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENC E TO ESTABLISH THAT IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -5- THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE VEHICLES IN QUESTI ON ON PAPER ONLY AS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO FIT HIS CASE INTO THE REQUIREM ENT OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DECIDE T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT TO THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS FAR AS THE OTHER ACTION OF THE AO IN APPLYING THE GP RATE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM PLYING OF TRUCKS, WE FIN D THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF TRANSPORTATION INCOME A ND APPLYING GP RATE OF 41.47% ON THE ASSUMED TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT WHERE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED BY TAKING GP ON THE T URNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPRECATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HIS CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT WHEN THE AO HAS APPLIED TH E GP RATE, HE HAS ALSO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION THEREAFTER AND BY DO ING SO, THE INCOME BECOMES LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. WE FIND THAT IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM THE BENCH, THE LEARNED CIT-DR ADMITTED THAT IN CASE THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED O UT OF THE INCOME ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING THE GP RATE ON THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WILL BE N O REVENUE GAIN. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.10/AHD/2010 (A.Y.2005-2006) IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -6- 8. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUE H AVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 9. THE REMAINING GROUND OF THE ABOVE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ADJUDICATION READ AS UNDER: 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1,61,207/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES IN PAGE NO.31 TO 33 OF THE LOOSE PAPER FILE ANNEXURE A-2 (ENCLOSED A S ANNEXRE- A) SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY ON 31.05.2006 BY THE AO ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HERE IS NO SUCH ENTRY ON THE LOOSE PAPER FILE SO SEIZED, IGNOR ING THAT THE TOTAL OF PETTY AMOUNTS WRITTEN ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE PAGE NO.31 TO 33 OF THE LOOSE PAPER FILE ANNEXURE A-2 BY PENCIL WAS RS.1,61,207/- FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A). 10. THE LEARNED CIT-DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A O AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ENTRIES WRITTEN BY PENCIL ON THE LO OSE PAPER SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY HOLDING THEM AS UNEXPLAINED EXPEN DITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH ENTRY OF RS.1,61, 207/- DURING THE PERIOD 12.10.2004 TO 31.10.2004 WAS FOUND ON THE SE IZED PAPER. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN VAGUE AND NEBULOUS AND HENCE UNACCEPTABLE. WE FIN D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUCH EN TRY IN THE SEIZED PAPER AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING THE ADDITION AND THE SAME IS DELETED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE HOL D THAT NO IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -7- INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE GROUND NO.4, 5 AND 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 4) THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE OF RS.5,51,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE PA PER FILE ANNEXURE A-3 ON PAGE NO.72, (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B ) SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY ON 31.05.200 6, BY THE A.O. ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ID PAYMENT IS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE, IGNORING THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN DIFF ERENT STAND THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE TO ONE MR.RAVI SHARM A, TRUCK DRIVER. 5) THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE OF RS.5,51,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE PA PER FILE ANNEXURE A-3 ON PAGE NO.72, (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B ) SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY ON 31.05.200 6, BY THE A.O, ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ID PAYMENT IS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE, WHICH WAS NEW PLEA BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY CIT(A ) UNDER RULE 46A UNLESS THE AD WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. 6) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE OF RS.5,51,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE PA PER FILE ANNEXURE A-3 ON PAGE NO.72 (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B) SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY ON 31.05.200 6, BY THE AO ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID PAYMENT IS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE, EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED ANY BILLS TO SHOW THAT THESE WERE PAYMENT S FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE, NOR WAS THE CLAIM BELIEVABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES WERE VERY SMALL ENTRIES A ND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE. IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -8- 12. THE LEARNED CIT-DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A O AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION W AS MADE UNDER SECTION 69C AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS THAT SOME SEIZED LOOSE PAPER (ANNEXURE-A3) ON WHICH SOME PETTY CASH ADVANCES ON DIFFERENT DATES GIVEN TO SHRI RAVI VARMA WERE WRITT EN. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WAS NOT PROV IDED THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED PAPER AND THEREFORE HE HAD BY MISTAKE ST ATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PROVIDED TO TANKER DRIVER RAVI VARMA. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ITSELF THAT THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER ADVANCED TO S HRI RAVI VARMA WERE FOR SUPPLY OF MARBLES FOR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION A ND WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT, ON MERIT, FOUND THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WRONG. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FINDIN G THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE FOR SUPPLY OF MARBLES FOR HOUSE CONSTR UCTION AND THEY ARE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND T HIS EXPLANATION COULD NOT BE REJECTED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT IN TH E STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GI VEN TO TANKER DRIVER, SHRI RAVI SHARMA. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT TH E AMOUNT IN QUESTION TALLIES WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXPENSES OF MARBLES SUPPLY AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTABLE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT SINCE THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPER TALLIES WITH THE REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE REMAINS NO VALID REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IT(SS)A NO.06 TO 12/AHD/2010 -9- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE THERE B EING NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND NOS. 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %& %& %& %& / TEJ RAM MEENA) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD