The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat V. Shri Aziz Ahmed Hafizullah Shaikh, Vapi

ITSSA 91/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2975 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIBHA BHALLA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 40A(3); 153A; 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. IT(SS)A NOS.87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 TO 2010-11) ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT APPELLANT VS. SHRI AZIZ AHMED HAFIZULLAH SHAIKH JAY TOWER, WING-1, ROOM NO.401, 7 TH FLOOR, IMRAN NAGAR, VAPI-SILVASA ROAD, VAPI 396191 RESPONDENT / CROSS APPELLANT PAN: ANAPS2090P /BY REVENUE : MS. VIBHA BHALLA, CIT D.R. /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THIS INSTANT BA TCH OF TWELVE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11 AGA INST THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABADS COMMON ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 2 - II/CC.3/307 TO 312/2011-12, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143( 3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. SHRI PATEL INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL GROUND IN FORMER THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS INVOKED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE S UBMITS VERY FAIRLY AFTER ARGUING FOR SOME TIME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PRESSING FOR HIS SAID LEGAL PLEA. WE THUS DECLINE THE ABOVE ADDITIO NAL GROUND IN FORMER THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS NOT PRESSED. 3. WE NOW ADVERT TO RIVAL PLEADINGS. THE REVENUES IDENTICAL PLEA IN ALL OF ITS SIX APPEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING SECTION 40A(3) DISALLOWANCE/ADDITIONS OF RS.34,61,4 08/-, RS.67,52,657/-, RS.68,73,760/-, RS.493310/-, RS.55,31,54,616/- & RS .19,14,12,650/-; RESPECTIVELY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AL L ASSESSMENTS FRAMED ON 30.12.2011. IT PLEADS THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCES MORE SO SINCE HE HAS HIMSELF HELD THAT ASSESSEES CASE DOES NOT COME UNDER VARIOUS EXCEPTI ONS TO THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROVISION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES. IT LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ASSAILS CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER ENHANCING ASSESSEES NET PROFIT @ 3% OF TOTAL TURN OVER TO BE VIOLATIVE OF LOWER APPELLATE JURISDICTION VESTED WITH THE CIT(A) U/S.2 51 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING NET PROFITS @ 3% AS AGAINST 1.5% DISCLOS ED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CASE FILES PER USED. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT ALL THESE APPEALS SEEK TO RAISE AB OVE IDENTICAL ISSUES AS EMANATING FROM BOTH PARTIES PLEADINGS NARRATED IN P RECEDING PARAGRAPH. WE ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 3 - DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO QUOTE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 284 (GUJ.) CIT VS . DHIRAJ R. RUNGTA HOLDING THAT IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED BEING DEFECTIVE, THE VERY BOOKS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO MAKE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. WE THUS OBSERVE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO EXAMINE CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS THEREBY ADOPTING NET PROFITS @ 3% INSTEAD OF 1.5% ALREADY DECLARED. OUR VIEW AS PER HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION STATED HEREINABOVE IS THAT IN CASE WE UPHOLD CIT(A)S ORDE R REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, REVENUES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROU ND WOULD BE RENDERED ACADEMIC. 5. MS. VIBHA BHALLA (LEARNED CIT-DR) VEHEMENTLY ARG UES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS MADE ALTOGETHER A NEW CASE IN REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS THEREBY ADOPTING ABOVE STATED 3% NET PROFIT AS THE SAME IS VERY MUCH IN CONTRAVENTION TO HIS LOWER APPELLATE JURISDICTION V ESTED U/S. 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT POSTULATING THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF CON FIRMATION, REDUCTION, ENHANCEMENT OR ANNULMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT ONLY. SH E TAKES US TO FORM 35 COMPRISING OF ASSESSEES PLEADINGS / GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE WAS NO PLEA BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO PROCEED FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS. SHRI PATEL STRONGL Y SUPPORTS CIT(A)S ORDER REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS. HE SUBMITS THAT A CIT( A) IS VERY MUCH EMPOWERED TO DECIDE ALL SUCH ANCILLARY ISSUES GOING TO ROOT OF THE CASE AND DECIDE AN ASSESSEES APPEAL AS PER LAW. 6. WE NOW COME TO RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE IN THI S BACKDROP OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESS EE BEFORE US DOES HAVE A PROPRIETARY CONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S. A. R. INTER NATIONAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING WASTE PAPER. THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED THE SEARCH IN ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 4 - QUESTION ON 16.07.2009. THE ASSESSEE GOT RECORDED HIS SEARCH STATEMENT ON THE VERY DATE ADMITTING TO HAVE MADE CASH PAYMENTS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- TO THE EXTENT OF 80 TO 90% IN ORDER TO DEFEAT PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER INITIATED SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICES DATED 08.01.2010 IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE THERE AFTER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION MAKING SECTION 40A(3) DISAL LOWANCES HEREINABOVE IN ALL SIX IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS DUE TO THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEES CASH PAYMENTS IN QUESTION EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMIT O F RS.20,000/- WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON IN TUNE WITH RULE 6DD OF THE INC OME TAX RULES. 7. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED SEPARATE APPEAL. HE APPE ARS TO HAVE FILED ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT FOR REMA ND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS FORMER REMAND REPOR T OF 28.02.2013 (PAGES 11 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK) STATING THEREIN TO HAVE ISSUED SECTION 133(6) NOTICES TO ASSESSEES CASH PAYEES WHO APPEARED TO C ONFIRM TO HAVE COLLECTED WASTE PAPER AS HIS AGENTS, HANDED OVER THE SAID MAT ERIAL COLLECTED TO HIM WHO SUPPLIED THE SAME TO VARIOUS PAPER MILLS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN ISSUED SECTION 131 SUMMONS ON RANDOM BASIS TO NINE OF THE ASSESSEES PAYEES. THEY ALSO ATTENDED THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO AGAIN DEPOSE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS LATTER REMAND REPORT CAME ON 21.11.2013 (PAGES 16 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK) INTER ALIA STATING THAT ASSESSEES CASE DID NOT COME UNDER VARIOUS EXCEPTIO NS TO SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6DD(K) OF THE INCO ME TAX RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER REPORTED THAT AS PER A SSESSEES ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.9 IN HIS SEARCH STATEMENT, HE HAD CLARI FIED THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD BEEN MAINTAIN CASH BOOK IN QUESTION TO SHOW CASH PA YMENTS TO BE LESS THAN RS.20,000/- IN ORDER TO ESCAPE FROM THE RIGOR OF SE CTION 40A(3), HIS BOOKS PREPARED BY HIS AUDITOR THROUGH COMPUTER WAS VERY M UCH FABRICATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS REPORTED THAT ASSESSEES BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 5 - WERE FABRICATED AND UNRELIABLE. THE CIT(A) THEREAF TER REJECTED ASSESSEES BOOKS IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE HIS NET PROFITS @ 3% AS UNDER: 5.11 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE LEARNED A.R, IN THIS REGARD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS DISCREPANC IES WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TREATED AS DEFECTIVE AND LIABLE FOR REJECTION. A REASONABLE NE T PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE NATURE, MODUS OPERANDI OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. 5.12 IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SALES WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO : VARIOUS PAPER MILLS E.G. M/S. R.A.SHAIKH PAPER MILL S LTD. AND M/S.SAIYED PAPER MILLS LTD. HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICERS, AS INTIMATED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NO OPENING OR CLOSIN G STOCK IS REFLECTED IN ANY OF I.T.RETURNS OR TAX AUDIT REPORT AND SINCE THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY STOCK OF GOODS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION, IT CA N BE PRESUMED THAT THE EARLIER STOCK PURCHASED WAS SOLD OUT ON DAY TODAY BASIS TO PAPER MILLS. THE FIGURES OF SALES AS PER SALES-TAX RETURN, ARE NOT AVAILABLE TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO OPTION BUT TO TAKE TURNOVER WHICHEVER IS HIGHER AS REFLECTED IN I .T. RETURNS OR IN .IMPOUNDED MATERIAL, AS REAL AND ACTUAL TURNOVER FOR A.YS. INV OLVED IN QUESTION CAN BE WORKED OUT AS UNDER: RS. IN LAKHS F.Y. A.Y. PURCHASES AS PER I.T. RETURN SALES AS PER I.T. RETURN PURCHASES AS PER IMPOUNDED MATERIAL ACTUAL TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING PROF IT 2004-05 2005-06 216.34 228.08 - 222.08 2005-06 2006-07 422.04 431.04 - 431 .69 2006-07 2007-08 429.61 435.96 - 435.96 2007-08 2008-09 797.37 811.68 5.28 811.68 2008-09 2009-10 2903.49 2958.55 5707.79 5707.79 2009-10 2010-11 3267.86 3336.39 1997.47 3336.39 5.13 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A.R. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED VIDE HIS LETTERS DATED 5TH AUGUST,2013, THE METHOD OF DETERMINING PROFIT BY APPLYING SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT I.E. BY REJECTIN G THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5.14 THE A.R. HAS REFERRED TO FEW APPELLATE ORDERS WHERE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN DETERMINED @ 2% OF TURNOVER AND HE PROPOSED TO TAKE NET PROFIT OF 1.25% OF TURNOVER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT IT IS EVEN LO WER THAN NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME I.E. 1.5% & 1.45% FOR A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY WHICH CANNOT BE ACCE PTED. TAKING INTO ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NET PROFIT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE TAKEN AT 3% OF ACTUAL TURNOVER. ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 6 - THE NET PROFIT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUEST ION IS WORKED OUT ACCORDINGLY AS FOLLOWS: A.Y. TURNOVER (RS. IN LACS) NET PROFIT @ 3% 2005-06 222.08 RS. 6,66,240/- 2006-07 431.69 RS. 12,52,507/- 2007-08 435.96 RS. 13,07,080/- 2008-09 811.68 RS. 24,35,040/- 2009-10 5707.79 RS.1,71,23,370/- 2010-11 3336.39 RS.1,00,09,170/- IT IS SEEN THAT THIS HAS EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL REDU CTION OF PROFIT AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEP T IN A.Y.2008-09, WHERE THERE IS ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,82,338 /- [RS.24,35,040/- AS DETERMINED ABOVE- RS. 13,52,702/- AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER]. THE A.R. HAS OBJECTED TO THIS ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BEING DONE BY ADOPTING NET PROFIT @ 3%. BUT IT IS ON RECORD THAT THE A.R. ON B EHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE DEFECTS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D OTHER DETAILS/RECORDS MAINTAINED, & HE HIMSELF PROPOSED FOR DETERMINATION OF PROFIT/INCOME BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I. T. ACT. 5.15 IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A)- II,AHMEDABAD IN HIS ORDER DATED 22.11.2012 AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SH RI VIJAYBHAI PRANAUBHAI DESAI OF VAPI WHO IS ALSO WASTE PAPER SUPPLIER IN THAT AREA, ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 3% OF TURNOVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THESE FIG URES AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AMOUNTS OF DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, ARE HEREBY DELET ED AND FIGURES OF NET PROFIT/INCOME ARE TO BE REPLACED AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ACCORDINGLY. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO R EVENUES ARGUMENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ACTED BEYOND HIS STATUTORY JURI SDICTION VESTED U/S.251 OF THE ACT. IT EMERGES FIRST OF ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED NOT PLEADED FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS IN HIS GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE HOWEVER MADE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS AS CONTAINED AT PAGE 29 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT C ORRECTLY MAINTAINED SINCE FABRICATES ONES AND THEREFORE, SECTION 145(2) IS VE RY MUCH ATTRACTED. WE ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 7 - REPEAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF AGREE D IN HIS LATTER REMAND REPORT THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS ARE INDEED FABRICATED. THIS MADE THE CIT(A) TO REJECT THE SAME AND ADOPT NET PROFIT @ 3% HEREINABO VE. WE COME TO SECTION 251 OF THE ACT AT THIS STAGE TO NOTICE THAT THE SAM E CONTAINS AN EXPLANATION AS WELL TO ALL CLAUSES THEREOF THAT A CIT(A) MAY ALSO CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASS ED NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BY THE CONCERNED APPELLA NT . WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEES CASE IN THE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE I S MUCH STRONGER SINCE HE HAS INDEED RAISED THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS D URING THE COURSE OF THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE REVENUE FURTHER F AILS TO PROVE ANY GENUINENESS ELEMENT IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY LEADING COGENT SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH CIT(A)S ORDER REJECTING ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREBY ESTIM ATING HIS NET PROFIT @ 3%. THE SAME RENDERS REVENUES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUN D SEEKING TO REVIVE SECTION 40A(3) DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IN VIEW OF HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN ITS IDENTICAL TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. ALL OF ITS APPEALS IT(SS)A NO S. 87 TO 92/AHD/2014 FAIL. 9. THIS LEAVES US WITH ASSESSEES SOLE ARGUMENTS IN ITS AS MANY CROSS APPEAL THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ESTIMATING MUCH HIGHER NET PROFITS @ 3% AS AGAINST 1.5% ALREADY DEC LARED. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE PLACES STRONG RELIANCE ON VAR IOUS CASE LAWS. WE FIND THAT THE SAME INVOLVE RADDIWALA SUPPLIERS INSTEAD OF WASTE PAPER SUPPLIERS TO PAPER MILLS AS IS THE INSTANCE INVOLVED IN ASSES SEES CASE. IT HAS FURTHER COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN FABRICATE D HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEREAS HE HAD DULY MAINTAINED THE SAME IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE ACCORDINGLY OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EST IMATING ASSESSEES NET PROFIT @ 3% IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THIS BATCH OF SIX APPEALS. THE ASSESSEES ITA NOS. 87 TO 92 & 105 TO 110/AHD/2014 (SHRI AZIZ AHMED H. SHAIKH) A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2010-11 - 8 - IDENTICAL SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ALL THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS REJECTED. SO IS THE OUTCOME ALL OF HIS CROSS APPEA LS IT(SS)A NOS. 105 TO 110/AHD/2014. 10. ALL THESE TWELVE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 10/02/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0