Brodweld Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The DY. CIT.,Baroda Circle-1, Baroda

MA 373/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5305 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHAH
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 IN ./ ITA.NO.1650 AND 1652/AHD/2009 / ASSTT. YEAR: 1998-1999 AND 2000-2001 BROADWELD PVT. LTD. BARODA. PAN : AAACB 7914 N VS DCIT, CIR.1 BARODA. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ADITYA SHUKLA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/01/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/03/2017 $%/ O R D E R PRESENT TWO MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 5.12.2008 PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AN D 2000-01. 2. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE PLEADING S IN THE MAS, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO CERTAIN BASIC FACTS . 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISE S OF THE ASSESSEE ON 9.9.2002. DURING THE SURVEY DISCREPANCIES IN THE S TOCK, PHYSICAL CASH AS WELL AS LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. STATEMENT O F SHRI ANJAN CHOKSHI, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WAS ALSO RECORDED. ON THE BASIS O F THIS OUTCOME, ASSESSMENT MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 2 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 1996-97 TO 2001-02 WERE REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 AND REASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S SECTI ON 147 WERE PASSED. THE LD.AO HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AGAINST WHICH ASSE SSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DAT ED 10.3.2014. IN THIS WAY, THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND C ROSS-APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. FURTHER, IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF THESE APPEALS BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER. THE TRIBU NAL HAD ORGANIZED A CAMP AT BARODA FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS RE LATING TO BARODA AREA. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD DURING THAT CAMP. 5. ONE OF THE GROUNDS, WHICH IS COMMON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE RELATES TO REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS AND AD DITION IN NET PROFIT. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PLEADED BY BOTH THE PA RTIES. WHILE CONDUCTING THE HEARING, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THESE GROUND TAKEN AS GROUND NO.1(II) IN ALL OTHER YEARS WERE NOT TAKEN I N ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99 AND 2000-2001. THE GROUND IN A.Y.996-97 READS AS UNDER : ASSTT.1996-97 I ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, BARODA HAS ERRED IN (II) NOT CONSIDERED IN DELETING ADDITION MADE OF SU PPRESSION OF NET PROFIT. APEX COURTS DECISION REPORTED IN 82 ITR 5 40, 123 ITR 57 & 241 ITR 801 ON EVIDENCE BLACK DIARY IMPOUN DED & CORRELATED TO MAIN DIRECTOR WHEREAS THE VIEW OF S UPPRESSION IS CONFIRMED IN PARA 4.14 ON PAGE 32 OF ORDER. 6. SIMILARLY, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, THIS GROUN D WAS INTER-CONNECTED WITH GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. NOW LET US TAKE GROUND NO.3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99. IT R EADS AS UNDER: MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 3 3.0 ADDITION TO NET PROFIT AND REJECTION OF BO OKS OE ACCOUNT 3.01 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YO UR APPELLANT'S CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THA T THE NET PROFIT OF YOUR APPELLANT SHOULD BE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT EQU AL TO 1% OF TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. 3.02 YOUR APPELLANT SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT ADDITION TO NET PROFIT IS PURELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY FACTS AND MATERIAL ON TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAY S YOUR HONOUR BE PLEASED TO HOLD IMPUGNED ADDITION AS WARRANTED AND ALSO BE PLEASED TO DELETE IMPUGNED ADDITION. YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT CONFIRMING OF R EJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON PRESUMPTION BASIS IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT YOUR HONOUR BE PLEASED TO HOLD SO NOW AND DIRECT LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BARODA ('LD. AO 'FOR SHORT) TO ACCEPT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF YOUR APPELLANT. 7. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT DEPARTMENT MOVED AN APPLICATION IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99 AND 2000-01 FOR PLEADING GROUND NO.1(II) AS PLEADED IN ASSTT.YEAR 1996-97. THIS GROUND WAS ALLOWED TO BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE TWO YEARS, AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO NEW FACTS REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED, THEREFORE, REVENUE IS PERMITTED TO RAISE THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS G ROUND IN ALL THE YEARS AND ADJUDICATED IT. 8. NOW LET US REVERT TO THE MA OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN HEARING COMMENCED, IT WAS BRO UGHT TO NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THIS GROUND WOULD NOT AVAILABLE IN TH E ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99 AND 2000-01. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT FOR PERMISSION TO RAISE SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THESE TWO YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE ADJOURNMENT AND DID NOT PERMIT THE MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 4 DEPARTMENT TO RAISE ANY GROUND. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUEN T TO THE HEARING, AN APPLICATION FOR RAISING SUCH GROUND WAS TAKEN ON RE CORD AND THE COGNIZANCE OF THIS GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99 AS WELL AS 2000-01. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ENTERTAINING GROUNDS WHI CH WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN HEARING TAKEN PLACE, IS AN APPARENT ERROR COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. FOR BUTTRESSING THIS PLEADING, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS APPLIED FOR INSPECTION AND FO UND THAT COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE WHICH THIS GROUND WAS RAISED IS DATED 22.9.200 8. APPROVAL OF THIS GROUND WAS OBTAINED ON 22.9.2008. IT IS NOT POSSIB LE THAT SUCH GROUND COULD BE GOT APPROVED ON 22.9.2008 ITSELF AND COULD BE FI LED WITH THE TRIBUNAL ON THAT VERY DATE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HEARD IN THIS CONNECTION. THUS, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSTT.YEAR 1998-99 AND 2000-01 TO THIS EXTENT BE RECALLED AND EXPUNGED. ANY ADDITION UPHELD BY VIRTUE OF THIS GROUND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR, SHRI KAML ESH CHOKSHI HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEADINGS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CON TENTIONS, AND THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 10. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHETHER ANY APPARENT ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR NOT WHILE PASSING ORDER DATED 5.12.2008, WE THIN K IT APPROPRIATE TO BEAR IN MIND CERTAIN BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCISING POWERS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE ARE SERIES OF DECISIONS AT THE END OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT EXPOUNDING SCOPE OF EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT DEEM IT MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 5 NECESSARY TO RECITE AND RECAPITULATE ALL OF THEM, B UT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT CORE OF ALL THESE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT POWE R FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHE N MISTAKE, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MI STAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH IS REQUIRE D TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON PO INTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FOR FORTIFYING TH IS VIEW, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LD., 26 2 ITR 146 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED I N 305 ITR 227. THE HONBLE COURT HAS LAID DOWN FOLLOWING PROPOSITION W HILE CONCLUDING THE JUDGMENT: '(A) THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM THE RECORD ON ITS OWN MOTION OR ON AN APPLICATION BY A PARTY UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE ACT; (B) AN ORDER ON APPEAL WOULD CONSIST OF AN ORDER MA DE UNDER S. 254(1) OF THE ACT OR IT COULD BE AN ORDER MADE UNDER SUB-S . (1) AS AMENDED BY AN ORDER UNDER SUB-S. (2) OF S. 254 OF THE ACT; (C) THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION IS TO BE EXERCISED T O REMOVE AN ERROR OR CORRECT A MISTAKE AND NOT FOR DISTURBING FINALITY, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE BEING THAT POWER OF RECTIFICATION IS FOR JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY; (D) THAT POWER OF RECTIFICATION CAN BE EXERCISED EV EN IF A MISTAKE IS COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR EVEN IF A MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED AT THE INSTANCE OF PARTY TO THE APPEAL; (E) A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD SHOULD BE SELF-E VIDENT, SHOULD NOT BE A DEBATABLE ISSUE, BUT THIS TEST MIGHT BREAK DOW N BECAUSE JUDICIAL OPINIONS DIFFER AND WHAT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CANNOT BE DEFINED PRECISELY AND MUST BE LEFT TO BE DETERMI NED JUDICIALLY ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE; (F) NON-CONSIDERATION OF A JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD ALWAYS CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, REGARDLESS MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 6 OF THE JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED PRIOR TO OR SUBSEQUE NT TO THE ORDER PROPOSED TO BE RECTIFIED; (G) AFTER THE MISTAKE IS CORRECTED, CONSEQUENTIAL O RDER MUST FOLLOW AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO PASS ALL NECESSARY CONSEQ UENTIAL ORDERS.' AT THIS STAGE, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE RULE 11 OF THE ITAT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 11. GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN APPEAL.- THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT, EXCEPT BY LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL, URGE OR BE HEARD I N SUPPORT OF ANY GROUND NOT SET FORTH IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, B UT THE TRIBUNAL, IN DECIDING THE APPEAL, SHALL NOT BE CONFINED TO THE G ROUNDS SET FORTH IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL OR TAKEN BY LEAVE OF THE T RIBUNAL UNDER THIS RULE: PROVIDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOT REST ITS DECISION ON ANY OT HER GROUND UNLESS THE PARTY WHO MAY BE AFFECTED THEREBY HAS HAD A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THAT GROUN D. 11. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE RULE WOULD SHOW THAT THE RE ARE NO FETTERS ON THE POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ANY DISPUTE EMERGING FROM THE RECORD AND ITS POWERS ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE GROUNDS SPEC IFICALLY PLEAD BY THE APPELLANT OR TAKEN WITH LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT AFFECTED PARTY SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING ON SUCH AN ISSUE. 12. NOW LET US DEAL WITH THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SOLE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE W AS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND THE TRIBUNAL H AS ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THIS ISSUE IN THESE TWO YEARS. WE WI LL CROSS-VERIFY THIS PLEADING BUT DEEM IT PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT WHENEVER AN E XPLANATION OR DEFENCE OF AN ASSESSEE BASED ON NUMBER OF FACTS SUPPORTED BY E VIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUIRED CONSIDERATION, WHETHER THE EXPLANATION IS SOUND OR NOT MUST BE DETERMINED NOT BY CONSIDERING THE WEIGH T TO BE ATTACHED TO EACH MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 7 SINGLE FACT IN ISOLATION BUT BY ASSESSING CUMULATIV E EFFECT OF ALL THE FACTS IN THEIR SETTING AS A WHOLE. 12. AFTER HAVING A GLANCE OVER THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS AN ATTEMPT AT THE END OF THE ASSESS EE TO MALIGN SANCTITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AN AT TEMPT IS BEING MADE TO GET PROCEEDINGS DECLARED AS VITIATED. A COMMON ISSUE WH ICH IS FLOWING OVER THESE YEARS, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NOT TAKEN BY THE REVENU E ORIGINALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ALL THEYEARS. DEVELOPMENT W HICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE WOULD BE THAT WHEN THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEN INSTEAD OF GRANTING OF ADJOURNMENT , AN OPPORTUNITY COULD BE GIVEN TO RAISE THIS GROUND ORALLY WITH UNDERSTANDIN G FOR COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT SUBSEQUENTLY BY FOLLOWING RU LES. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD THAT IT WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY NOR ITS COUNSEL WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND ITS CASE ON THIS ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN PARA 12 WOULD MA KE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 1996-97, 19 97-98, 1999-2000 AND 2001-02. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY OBSERVED TH AT NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRED, THUS INFERENCE AS DRAWN BY US REFLECTED I N THE ABOVE REASONING IS MORE APPARENT THAT THERE MUST BE UNANIMOUS AGREEMEN T BETWEEN ALL THAT THESE GROUNDS BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF 1998-99 AND 2000-0 1. IT BECAME MORE STRONGER WHEN WE CONFRONTED THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH AS TO WHY HE HAS NOT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUP PORT OF PLEADINGS, BECAUSE, HE WAS THE ONLY SURVIVING PERSON FROM DEBATE WHICH WAS TAKEN PLACE DURING CAMP COURT. BOTH MEMBERS OF THE BENCH HAVE BEEN TR ANSFERRED. CIT-DR HAS ALSO BEEN TRANSFERRED. THUS, THE BEST EVIDENCE COU LD BE THE LD.COUNSEL, WHO APPEARED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE EXPOSED A FAI TH IN THE COUNSEL. BUT MR. SHAH SUBMITTED THAT NORMALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE DOES NOT FILE SUCH AFFIDAVIT AND DOES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE LITIGA TION. PLEADING IS BASED ON MA NO.373 AND 374/AHD/2009 8 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR. BUT SUCH AFFIDAVIT AND PLEADINGS DOES NOT INSPIRE CREDENCE TO US AND WE CANNOT GIVE WEIGHTAGE TO SUCH A LITIGANT WHO HAS NO CONFIDENCE OVER THE SANCTITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAK EN IN AN IMPARTIAL MANNER. WE AGAIN PUT SECOND SUGGESTION THAT IF IN THE UNDER STANDING OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN REALLY HAPP ENED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROCEEDINGS WAS VITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF MEMBERS, THE N, LET US RECALL THE COMPLETE ORDER AND FIX IT FOR FRESH HEARING WHICH I S TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE BUT THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AGREE TO THIS SUGGESTION BUT CONTENDED THAT HOW TRI BUNAL CAN RECALL COMPLETE ORDER WITHOUT ANY PRAYER OF THE PARTIES. THE TRIBUN AL CANNOT RECALL REMAINING PART FOR ADJUDICATION. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT T HE QUESTION OF A PARTICULAR PART. THE FINGERS HAVE BEEN RAISED OVER THE MANNER IN WHI CH PROCEEDING CONDUCTED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS. IT CANNOT BE IMPUTED THAT PARTICULAR PART WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADJUDICATED WITHOUT COMMITTING ANY IRREGULARITY, AND A DIFFERENT PART H AS BEEN VITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF IRREGULARITY, MORE SO, WHEN THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL YEARS AND THERE WAS A PRAYER BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE THAT ISSUE AND OTHE R YEARS ALSO. THIS TYPE OF CONTENTION CANNOT BE GIVEN WEIGHTAGE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. BOTH THESE APP LICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/03/2017