M/s. Veera Exports, Surat V. The ACIT., Circle-6, Surat

MA 52/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0733 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NOS. 1208/AHD/2010 & 966/AHD/2007) A.Y: 2003-04 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS 301, KOHINORR CHAMBERS JADA KHADI MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT PAN: AACFV 1092P VS ACIT CIRCLE-6 SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH SR.D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH / // / DATE OF HEARING : 17/05/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/08/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : AT THE OUTSET, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT MA NO.52/AHD/20 12 FILED ON 12.3.2012 (ARISING FROM ITA NO.966/AHD/2007 - A.Y. 2003-04 ORDER DATED 30/04/2008) DO NOT SURVIVE, RATHER REDUNDANT IN NATURE; BECAUSE THROUGH THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ISSUE WAS RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE AND TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE TH E AO FOR EXAMINATION. WITH THE RESULT, A SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT; AS A LSO APPEAL; TOOK PLACE AND AN ANOTHER ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ITAT AH MEDABAD FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR VIDE AN ORDER DATED 19.8.2010, WHICH IS ALSO A SUBJECT MATTER OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HEREUND ER. SINCE THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.04.2008 NOW STOOD MERGED WITH THE LATEST ORDER OF M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 2 - THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.08.2010, THEREFORE THE MA NO. 52/AHD/2012 HAS BECOME REDUNDANT, THEREFORE DISMISSED. 2. THE MA NO.263/AHD/2010 (ARISING FROM ITA NO.L208 /AHD/2010 - A.Y. 2003-04) ORDER DATED 19.08.2010 THUS SURVIVES BEFORE US. THE PETITIONER HAS STATED AS UNDER:- 'THE FACTS ARE SUCCINCTLY NARRATED ON WHICH THERE I S NO ISSUE. HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING THE AFORESAID ORDER, FOLLOWING MISTAKES CRE PT IN 'INADVERTENTLY' AND HENCE THIS APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTH ER GROUNDS: 1. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER HA VE REPRODUCED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.966/AHD/2007 WHEREIN THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,09,194 IN RELATION TO PURCHASE TREATED AS NOT GENUINE AND BOGUS. IN THE SAID ORDER THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL NOTED THAT SUSHIL KUMAN JAIN OF RISHI DIAMONDS APPEARED AND HIS STATE MENT WAS RECORDED. THE HON' TRIBUNAL IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER FURTHER NOT ED, 'THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE THREE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF POLISHED GE MS '. THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL FURTHER NOTED, 'IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FAIRLY FEEL THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE AND TO PRODUCE4 THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR EXAMINATION '. 1.1. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE F AILURE OF ASSESSEE WAS TO PRODUCE ONLY 3 PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, W HILE DECIDING THE APPEAL ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM 5 PARTIES HAVE BEEN TREATED A S BOGUS BECAUSE OF NON- PRODUCTION OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASE WERE MADE. THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES FROM ALL THE 5 PARTIES THOUGH THE FAILURE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS TO PRODUCE ONLY 3 PARTIES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS A MISTAKE A PPARENT, THOUGH ADVERTENTLY BUT APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS MAY KINDLY BE RE CTIFIED BY EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THIS H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS CLOTHED WITH THE PROVISION. 2. AS NOTED IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE RON 'BL E TRIBUNAL, THE REMAND WAS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE DIRECTIO N WAS, 'ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS C ASE AND TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATIO N'. THEREFORE, WHAT IS IMPLICIT IS THAT THOUGH THE REMAND WAS ONLY ON A LI MITED ISSUE OF VERIFYING GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, THIS COULD BE DONE IN EITHER OF THE FASHION NAMELY; I) TO PROVE HIS CASE OR II) TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION. THUS IF EITHER OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS IS SATISFIED , THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PROVED. AS REGARD S GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, THE APPLICANT HAD PRODUCED ALL THE EVIDE NCES I.E. BILLS, COMPLETE ADDRESS. PA NOS., PAYMENT BY CHEQUES, BANK DETAILS, STOCK TALLY, ETC. AT LEAST ON THIS GROUND REGARDING 'PROVING THE CASE THE TRIB UNAL' SEEMS TO HAVE M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 3 - SATISFIED ALSO AND THAT IS THE REASON AS TO WHY CIT (A) IN THE FIRST ROUND DELETED THE ADDITION. IT SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT WITHOUT PUR CHASE THERE CANNOT BE ANY SALE AND WHAT IS TAXABLE U/S.28 IS THE PROFITS OF T HE BUSINESS AND NOT THE GROSS SALE PROCEEDS. IT IS ALSO SETTLED PRINCIPLE UNDER T HE EVIDENCE ACT THAT THE LIABILITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IS ON THE PERSON WHO RELIES ON SUCH EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELIES HAS ALL B EEN PRODUCED. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSISTS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIE S, SUCH PARTIES BECOME THE EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S AND NOT THE ASS ESSEE'S. THEREFORE, THE GUARDED FINDING BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORIG INAL ORDER WAS TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE 'TO PROVE HIS CASE AND TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION'. THEREFORE, IF B Y EITHER OF THE DIRECTIONS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES IS ESTABLISHED, TH E ADDITION REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. SINCE THE REMAND BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL W AS NOT ONLY 'TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER' BUT WAS A LSO 'TO PROVE HIS CASE', READING ONLY ONE PART OF THE DIRECTION AMOUNTS TO A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD REQUIRING RECTIFICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE AC T. 3. IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SEVERAL CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN CITED AND RELIED UPON. NONE OF THESE CASE LAWS WERE CITED BY THE APPEARING PARTIES. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OF ITS OWN HAVE RELIE D UPON THESE CASE LAWS WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE APPEARING PARTI ES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DISTINGUI SH THOSE CASE LAWS. HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY BEEN GIVEN, THE APPLICANT COULD HA VE DISTINGUISHED THE SAME AND PROVED ITS CASE. RELYING UPON UNCITED CASES OR DECISIONS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE PARTIES AMOUNTS TO A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD REQUIRING RECTIFICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC TION 143(3) ORDER DATED 29.03.2006 THE AO HAD ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT (1) VENI GEMS RS.10,01,132/- (2) RUBY IMPEX RS.20,37,111/- (3) RISHI DIAMONDS RS.21,34,750/- (4) M/S. PRITESH ENTERPRISE RS.32,85,300/- (5) M/S. MAYUR GEMS RS.26,74,042/- (6) M/S. PARAS GEMS RS.27,62,159/- RS.1,06,09,194/- M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 4 - 3.1 HOWEVER, IN FIRST APPEAL RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 22/12/2006. AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS.1,06,09,194/-, THE REVENUE HAD GONE IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE RESPECTED ITAT C BENCH IN ITA NO.966/AHD/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.4.2008 HAD OBSERVED THAT THE NO TICES U/S. 133(6) WERE ISSUED BY THE AO BUT NO SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. LETTERS AND NOTICES U/S. 133A AND U/S. 131 WERE ISSUED TO M/S. PARAS GEMS, M/S. MAYUR GEMS, M/S. RISHI DIAMONDS, M/S. VENI GEMS AND RUBY IMPEX; BUT GENUINENESS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. WITH THES E OBSERVATIONS THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE THREE PAR TIES FOR VERIFICATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF POLISHED GEMS. MERELY PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS NOT SUFFICIENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE EXPLICIT SALE OF DIAMONDS IN THIS CAS E IS NECESSARY AND EVEN THE EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FAIRLY FEEL THAT O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE AND TO PROD UCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, THI S ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICE R. 4. IN THE SECOND ROUND AS WELL THERE WAS NO SUBSTAN TIAL COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MATTER REAC HED TO THE TRIBUNAL C BENCH IN ITA NO.1208/AHD/2010 (A.Y. 2003-04) OR DER DATED 19.08.2010 IT WAS NOTICED IN PARA 10 THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIB UNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PAGE 14 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT TH E AO HAD GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE AL L THOSE PARTIES FOR M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 5 - VERIFICATION, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ITS INABIL ITY TO PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES. SINCE THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE A N EARLIER ORDER (SUPRA) WAS NOT FOLLOWED, THEREFORE, THE CONFIRMATION OF AD DITION WAS UPHELD. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE DEPARTMENTAL, APPEAL IN ITA NO.966/ AHD/2007 (SUPRA) RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) IS PERVERSE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUI NENESS C THE TRANSACTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES OF POLISHED GEMS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID N OT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHAN NEL IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, NOTED TH AT EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF PROVE THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE ISS UE BEING IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE AND TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMIN ATION. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AS WEL L AS IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS INSISTED THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION IN ORDER TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THE P URCHASES. THE VIEW OF THE AO WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE AO GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL TH ESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE HIM AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES BUT ULTIMATELY SHOWN ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE P ARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO. 11. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENQUIRY WAS RESTRICTE D BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE TRANSACTION OF GENUINE PURCHASES ONLY AND THE METHO D IN WHICH ENQUIRY HAS TO BE CONDUCTED WAS ALSO INDICATED BY PRODUC ING THE PARTIES BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO WAS THUS CONFINED TO THIS DIRECTION ONLY. THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IF ACCEPTED WOULD ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE ENQUIRY AS IS PROVIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBL E UNDER THE LAW. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, NO T JUSTIFIED IN CONTENDING TO MAKE ENQUIRY THROUGH OTHER METHOD NOT COVERED BY TH E DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. APPLICATION OF THE NET PROFIT RATE ON REJ ECTION OF THE PURCHASES OR VERIFYING THE SAME PURCHASES THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE WITHOUT M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 6 - PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE TH E AO WOULD AMOUNT TO DISOBEYING THE EARLIER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS SIGNED IN THE MATTER IN ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NOW RAISED THOUGH SEEMS TO BE ATTRACTIVE BUT IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NOTED ABOVE IN THE SET AS IDE PROCEEDINGS, SUCH PROPOSITION CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME FINAL BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, BOTH THE PART IES ARE BOUND BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORING THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT SET OF THE FACTS . 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS IN THE LIG HT OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE DIREC TION OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR EXAM INATION BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE. THEREFORE, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES/EXPENDITURE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ARGUMENT OF LD. AR IS THAT THE DIRECTION WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE THREE PARTIES, APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT. THE INT ENT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. 5.1 IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A LITIGANT TO PICK A HO LE HERE AND THERE IN AN ORDER/JUDGMENT BY QUOTING ONE WORD OR THE OTHER. TH E ARGUMENT OF LD. AR IS LIKE PICKING UP ONE WORD OR THE OTHER FROM TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INSTEAD OF READING THE COMPLETE VERDICT. I N THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FINALLY DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO FO R EXAMINATION. IT IS, THEREFORE, WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LD. AR TO PLEAD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THREE PARTIES ONLY. AN ORDER HA S TO BE READ FULLY AND THEN ITS INTENT IS REQUIRED TO BE GATHERED INSTEAD OF HARPING UPON A SINGLE WORD OR SENTENCE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER THAT THER E WAS NO MISTAKE, M.A. NO.263/AHD/2010 & 52/AHD/2012 M/S. VEERA EXPORTS VS. ACIT A.Y. 2003-04 - 7 - WHAT TO SAY AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE SAID ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS PETITION. HENCE HEREBY DISMISS. 6. IN THE RESULT, MA NO.52/AHD/2012 AND MA NO.263/A HD/2010 ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/08/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. )*' %, ' ' % , ,-$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 1 11 1/ // /,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % , , , , ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD