Amika Indian Textiles & Art Museum Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1, Surat

ITSSA 632/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1812 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) IT(SS)A. NO: 632/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) AMBIKA INDIAN TEXTILES & ART MUSEUM PVT. LTD., SAHARA GATE, SURAT. V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AADCA8041M APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 12 -04-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 -04-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE V ALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 19.10.2011 PE RTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 2 2. WITH THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE A. O. U/S. 153A R.W.S. 153C AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE LET US FIR ST EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL QUA THE ASSESS MENT ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. 4. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE GARDEN GROUP OF CASES ON 12.06.2008. 5. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE U/S. 1 53C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO FU RNISH ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. REASONS GIVEN FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 53C OF THE ACT ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE GARDEN GROU P, COMPUTER BACK UP WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND AFTER VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT MAINTAIN ED ON THE COMPUTER BACK UP. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QUERIES RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 53,27,398/-. IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 3 8. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND VEHEMENTLY CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER SO MADE. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS MADE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING ENTRY IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE PR IMARY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD T HE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE LD. COUNS EL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT (JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT) IN THE CASE OF LALITKUMAR M. PATEL IN TAX A PPEAL NO. 192 OF 2012. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). THE UNDE NYING FACT IS THAT A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF GARDEN GROUP OF SURAT. IT IS ALSO AN UN DISPUTED FACT THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND WHICH MAY BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 4 11. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE CONDITI ON PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BE EN CONDUCTED U/S. 132, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED U/S. 132A. HOWEVER, SECTION 153C PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 153A IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSO N, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT WHERE FOR IS THAT SATISFACTION MUST BE RE CORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER Y OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, BELONGS TO; OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, PERTA INS OR PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, RELATES TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO SECTION 153A, THEN, THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. 12. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT I S THAT THE A.O MUST RECORD HIS SATISFACTION. 13. IN RESPECT OF AN ANALOGOUS PROVISION OF SECTION 158 BD, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHW ARI 289 ITR 341 HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING RATIO:- 11. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK AS SESSMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. THE SAID PROVISION WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132A OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. SECTION 158BD, HO WEVER, PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENTS WHEREFOR ARE : (I) SATISFACTI ON MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 O F THE ACT; (II) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONE D HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 5 ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST S UCH OTHER PERSON. 12. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THUS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF T HE SAID CHAPTER ARE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCHED OR WHOSE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS HAD BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTI ON 132A OF THE ACT. XXX 16. LAW IN THIS REGARD IS CLEAR AND EXPLICIT. THE O NLY QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE DATED 06. 02.1996 SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SAID NOTICE DOES NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS R ECOVERED DURING SEARCH HAD NOT BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDI CTION IN THE MATTER. THE APEX COURT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF TH IS COURT GIVEN IN CASE OF KHANDUBHAI VASANJI DESAI AND OTHERS V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (1999) 236 ITR 73, WHEREIN THIS COURT HELD THUS: THIS PROVISION INDICATES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WHO IS SEIZED OF THE MATTER AND HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PER SON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SEC. 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OT HER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SEC. 132A, SHALL PROCEED AGAINS T SUCH OTHER PERSON AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT O N SUCH SATISFACTION BEING REACHED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO SUCH OTHER P ERSON, HE MUST PROCEED TO SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH OTHER PERSON AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 158BC OF THE ACT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS SEIZED OF THE MATTER AGAINST THE RAIDED PERSON REACHES SUCH SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO SUCH OTHER PERSON OVER WHOM HE HAS NO JURISDICTION, THEN, IN THAT EVENT, HE HAS TO TRANSMIT THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND IN SUCH CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION WILL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON BY ISSUING THE REQUISITE NOTICE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 158BC OF THE ACT. THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. A.R. ENTERP RISES REPORTED IN (2013) 350 ITR 489 (SC) HAS HELD THUS: IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 6 14. A BARE READING OF THE AFORE-EXTRACTED PROVISION MAK ES IT CLEAR THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS A SEAR CH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132 A. MOREOVER, SECTION 158BD PERMITS THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER O NLY ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOW UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OR A REQUISITION WAS MADE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT SUCH SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MANISH MAHESHWARI V. ASST. CIT(2007) 3 SCC 794, THIS COURT SUMMARIZED THE PERQUISITES OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS : 11... (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT; (II) THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. 14. IN ASST. CIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON [2010] 3 SCC 25 9 AT PAGE 264, ONE OF US (H L DATTU J.), WHILE EXPLAINING THE PURPORT OF CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT, HAS OBSERVED THAT A SEARCH IS THE SINE QUA NON FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT; THE S PECIAL PROVISIONS ARE DEVISED TO OPERATE IN THE DISTINCT FIELD OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ARE CLEARLY IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS COVERING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD, INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH HAS BEEN DETECTED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. HENCE, FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED DISCUSSION IT IS CLE AR THAT A VALID SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INVOKING BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST RECORD HIS OR HER SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISC LOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH W AS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 10. THUS THE LAW LAID DOWN ON THE SUBJECT IS VERY C LEAR THAT FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC IN RELATION TO THE P ERSON NOT SEARCHED, WHENEVER SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE DOCUMEN TS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON NEEDS TO RECORD HIS IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 7 SATISFACTION THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTIO N 132 OF THE ACT. HE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO HAND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT S OR ASSETS SEIZED, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON AND TH EREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS THE JURISDICTION WOULD PROCEED UNDER SECTION 15 8BC AGAINST SUCH PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN SEARCHED. 15. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECO RD, SEARCH HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT IN CASE OF GARDEN GROUP OF SURAT. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WE FIND THAT THE A.O HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WHICH CONTAINS A REFERE NCE TO THE SATISFACTION. HOWEVER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SATI SFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O IS IN THE CASE OF THIS VERY ASSESSEE. THE R ELEVANT NOTICE READ AS UNDER:- NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ROOM NO. 505, AAYAKAR B HAVAN, MAJURAGATE, SURAT. NO: ACIT-CC-1/SRT/153C/08-09 DATE: 29.12.2008 TO, AMIKA INDIAN TEXTILES AND ART MUSEUM PVT. LTD. GARDEN MILL COMPLEX, SAHARA GATE, SURAT-395010. SIR/MADAM, A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF GARDEN GROUP OF SURAT ON 12.06.2008. WHEREAS I AM SATISFIE D THAT MONEY/BULLION/JEWELLERY/OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OF THINGS AND/OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGS TO YOU. THEREFORE YOUR INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED I.E. FROM A. Y. 2003-04 TO A.Y. 2008-09 IS IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 8 REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED/REASSESSED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. YOU ARE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO FUR NISH RETURN OF YOUR INCOME U/S. 153C OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, BEING O NE OUT OF THE ABOVE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH YOU ARE ASSESS ABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE RETURN SHOULD BE FILED IN THE APPROP RIATE FORM AS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 12 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. IT SHOULD BE DULY VERIFIED AND SIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 140 OF TH E SAID ACT AND DELIVERED AT MY OFFICE AS MENTIONED ABOVE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, (B.D. GARSAR) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT. 16. ON PERTINENTLY QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON I.E. GARDEN GROUP OF SURAT, REVENUE IS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY SUCH SATISFACTIO N OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF GARDEN GROUP. IT HAD BEEN EMPHAT ICALLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE SAME PE RSON, SUCH SATISFACTION WHEN RECORDED IN CASE OF THE PRESENT A SSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND CONSTRUED AS A DUE COMPLIANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS AND THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY OCCASION TO HAND OVER TH E MATERIALS TO HIMSELF BEING THE VERY OFFICER. 17. HOWEVER, THE VITAL AND MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF RE CORDING THE SATISFACTION U/S. 153C IS CONCERNED, SUCH SATISFACT ION IS ABSENT AS FAR AS GARDEN GROUP OF SURAT IS CONCERNED IN WHOSE CASE SEARCHED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTME NT. AS SUCH AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO INITIATE THE PROCEED INGS U/S. 153C HAS IT(SS)A NO. 632/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2007- 08 9 NOT BEEN FULFILLED. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT (SUPRA) TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D PURSUANT THERETO. AS THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE SAME AND QUASH THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. 18. SINCE, WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF; WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS OF THE CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 - 04 - 20 16. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER 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/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD