M/s. Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

MA 76/AHD/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7825 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gift; Business income; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6); 254(2); 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठअहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLICATIONS MA No.74/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.1477/Ahd/2016 MA No.75/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.1826/Ahd/2017 [Asst.Year : 2011-12] MA No.76/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.1460/Ahd/2016 MA No.77/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.2301/Ahd/2016 MA No.78/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.1827/Ahd/2017 [Asst.Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15] Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. D-801/802, The First Behind Keshav baug Party Plot Nr.Shivalik High Street Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : AAACG 5528 L Vs. The ITO, Warrd-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Dinal Shah, and Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, AR Revenue by : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/D a t e o f He a r in g : 05 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 4 घोषणा क तारीख /D a t e o f P r o no u nc e me nt : 1 7 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 4 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER By way of above five Misc. Applications, the assessee seeks modification of the consolidated order of the ITAT dated 22.7.2022 passed in the above appeals for the Asst.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, pointing out some apparent mistakes in the order. Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 2 2. The Misc. Applications filed by the assessee are identically worded, and for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the contents of the application of the assessee in MA. No. 74/Ahd/22 pointing out mistakes in the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1477/Ahd/2016 for Asst.Year 2011-12. The application is reproduced hereunder; “01. We are in receipt of the Appellate Order for A.Y. 2011-2012 dated 22-07-2022 confirming the addition of sales promotion expenses of Rs.85,78,200 as per Assessment Order dated 28-02-2014 under Section 143(3). We find that there are certain apparent mistakes in the ITAT Order, which are as under. 02. The Hon'ble Bench has stated in Para No. 21 on Page No. 16 5th line of the ITAT Order as under: "............................. The stock register, we find, is not a third party document but a document of the assessee itself and is maintained in consonance with the books of accounts prepared by it." 2.1 The stock register is always maintained by the assessee based on the documents such as purchase bill and distribution of items. However, the stock register is maintained on the basis of third party documents. The accounts are also audited and therefore such stock register cannot be brush-aside. 2.2 Further, the Hon'ble Bench has stated in Para No. 21 on Page No. 16 7th line of the ITAT Order is as under: "The moment a bill for purchases is recorded in the books, its contents also get recorded in the stock register. Therefore, even if the bill is bogus the stock register mil still show receipt of item when actually none may have been purchased." 2.3 The above observation by the Hon'ble Bench is without considering the material on record which is stated below. 2.4 The Hon'ble Bench has not considered the gist of submission dated 22-07- 2019 along with Paper Book dated 22-07-2019 with all evidences showing that the purchases are genuine. 2.5 Hon'ble Bench has not considered the Paper Book dated 07-04-2022 furnished on -2022 as desired by Hon'ble Vice President. 2.6 The said paper book consists of break-up of sales promotion expenses along with purchase bills from the suppliers. The closing stock of Rs.1,22,13,153 is also reflected. 2.7 The said closing stock is also reflected in the balance sheet and the details of the closing stocks are given in the Table Form giving the items such as name of item, quantity, rate, amount, supplier name, invoice number and date. 03. The Hon'ble Bench has not considered Para No. 8.2 and No. 8.3 of CIT(A) Order dated 23-03-2016 under Section 143(3). The Hon'ble Bench has also not considered the total sales promotion expenses of Rs. 3,42,62,070 out of which only Rs. 85,78,200 are treated as not genuine by the learned AO. The AO issued notice under Section 133(6) to Skymax Laboratories Ltd. The AO received the reply to notice Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 3 under Section 133(6). However, in the assessment order, it is stated that "returned back". This is not correct. The letter dated 14-12-2016 to the assessee by the AO is reproduced as under: "Sub: Providing of the papers from income tax record for A. Y. 2011-2012 -Reg. Ref: Your letter dated 05.12.2016 Kindly refer to above. 2. In this connection, I forward herewith Xerox copy of the required documents." The required documents consists of: (i) Notice under Section 133(6) dated 03-01-2014 issued to the Skymax Laboratories Ltd. (ii) Reply by the Skymax Laboratories Ltd. dated 10-02-2014 enclosing the following documents: (a) Account statement of Gujarat Terce Ltd. (b) The copy of bank accounts for the A/c Year 2010-2011 (c) The copy of income tax return alongwith computation of total income (d) Audited Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the A/c Year 2010-2011. 3.1 Since the original suppliers are not traceable, the AR suggested to add Gross Profit [GP] which is accepted by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, only 12.5% of the expenses are disallowed by the CIT(A). 3.2 The assessee also submitted in Para No.5 (2.1) oh Page No.4 of CIT(A) which is reproduced as under: "2.1 M/s. Gajanand Traders from whom the gift articles are purchased are genuine one for following reasons: (a) M/s. Gajanand Traders replied the notice under Section 133(6) by letter dated 10-02-2014 filed on 21-02-2014 [copy enclosed]. The AO has not given any comments about reply to notice under Section 133(6). The reasons given by the AO in Para No. 3.4.1.1 speaks of non-production of party and his accounts. It does not talk of non-receipt of reply under Section 133(6). (b) The assessee submitted letter dated 26-02-2014 [copy enclosed] along with confirmation andP.A.No. ALXPS 5053 K. M/s. Gajanand Traders prop. Shripal Shah confirms having sold to the assessee and received the payment by account payee cheque. (c) The learned AO does not dispute the receipt of quantity received from M/s. Gajanand Traders and the distribution of the same to the chemist. (d) The assessee produced the receipt from the chemist about the receipt of such gift articles. The gift articles are distributed through Depot. The Depot Manager in turn distributes to the chemist. The distribution is not disputed by the AO. Some of the receipts are enclosed herewith. (e) The assessee stated by letter dated 26-02-2014 that the complete quantity details are maintained by the assessee and the assessee has produced the same for verification by the AO. The AO does not dispute anything about the stock / quantity register. The said quantity register is produced in CD Form for verification by your honour. Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 4 (f) Out of total purchases of Rs.4,64,75,223 including opening stock, there is closing stock of Rs.1,22,13,153. The inventory of Rs. 1,22,13,153 as on 31-03-2011 is enclosed. The closing stock includes some of the pur chases from the said parties. (g) The learned AO deputed the Inspector for inquiry. The Inspector report as stated in the assessment order stated that the area of the house No. A/3/1, Ganeshkunj Society that the carpet area is only 50 sq. yard and same is very old and allotted to lower income group. One Jain family is staying at that place since long. No firm named as M/s. Gajanand Trader is running from the said address. Nobody knows about the said firm on surrounding area. The inspector report is incorrect. The Jain family staying since long is the family of Shri Shripal Shah Prop. M/s. Gajanand Traders. Of course, tye name plate is not displayed and that the family member may not be knowing the name of the firm under which the business is carried on. The fact that the assessee replied the notice under Section 133(6) proves that he has received the notice at the same address. Further he has also given the confirmation on which the same address is mentioned. Further, the family members may not be willing to give any information to the person from income tax department since the family is always afraid of departmental authorities. (h) The learned AO has not disputed the payment made by account payee cheque." Please refer Para No.6 on Page NO.7 of CIT(A Order which is reproduced as under: "The written submission and additional evidences produced during course of appellate proceedings -were forwarded to the AO for remand report. " The Paper Book dated 27-04-2015 is also forwarded to the AO for his comments. The contents of the Paper Book is reproduced as under: Sr.No Particulars Page No. 01 Written Submission Ito4 02 Letter dated 26-02-2014 addressed toAO 5 to 6 03 Confirmation in response to notice under Section 133(6) by M/s. Gajanand Traders filed with letter dated 10-02-2014 and the same was inwardedon 21-02-2014 7 to 8 04 Some of the acknowledgement receipts 9 to 5 5 05 Inventory of the closing stock as on 31-03-2011 56 to 57 06 Sales Promotion Expenses 58 to 61 07 Stock Register of gift articles in CD Form 62 08 Annual Report 63 to 80 04. The Hon'ble Bench has not considered the closing stock and also confirmed the addition made by the AO, though allowed by the CIT(A) by restricting the addition to 12.5%. 05. The Hon'ble Bench has stated in Para No. 21 on Page No. 16 10th line of the ITAT Order is as under: Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 5 "................................ As for items shown as issued, the stock register generally mentions quantity issued and there is no description as to whom issued or any other detail. We have perused the contents of the copy of stock register of the assessee placed before us at Paper Book-11filed on 22-01- 2020. What it reveals is that it is a stock record of various items ranging from Pencil in CD Box, bottle opener, digital diary, leather folder box and such other several items purportedly used for the purpose of gifting. The items have been recorded as "In" on the basis of purchase bills and "Out" on the basis of delivery challans. Both are internal documents of the assessee itself and have no evidentiary value therefore for the purpose of proving that gift items were actually distributed by the assessee. The "Out" entry, we have noted, also records the branch of the assessee, i.e. Punjab, Indore etc. where issued or certain names against it, which the assessee pleads are those of its MR's some of whom have confirmed distributing gifts. Again all of these are of no assistance to the assessee being its own internal recordings and documents. " 5.1 The Hon'ble Bench has brush-aside the stock register as internal documents without considering the material available on record. 5.2 The Hon'ble Bench has not considered the Paper Book dated 07-04-2022 furnished on 26-04-2022 as desired by Hon'ble Vice President. 5.3 The said paper book consists of break-up of sales promotion expenses alongwith purchase bills from the suppliers. The closing stock of Rs.1,22,13,153 is also reflected. 5.4 The said closing stock is also reflected in the balance sheet and the details of the closing stocks are given in the Table Form giving the items such as name of item, quantity, rate, amount, supplier name, invoice number and date. 06. The Hon'ble Bench has stated in Para No. 22 on Page No. 17 of the ITAT Order as under: "22. As for confirmation/ receipts from dealers receiving gift items, the same we have noted, was examined by the AO who had contended that the veracity of the said documents was not verifiable since they did not bear any address of the recipient. He also pointed out that even the nature of the article gifted was not mentioned in the said receipt. The details of MR's who distributed the gifts also therefore does not establish the fact of gift having been actually distributed by the assesses. These are only self-serving documents and no cognizance of the same can be taken for finding whether the assessee had in fact distributed gift articles to its customers /clients. " However, the Hon'ble Bench has not considered some of the acknowledgement receipts given in Paper Book furnished on 30-12-2019 [Page No. 9 to 55] which is given by the Area MR to the Medical Stores which consists of address and mobile number. 6.1 The assessee has already furnished the acknowledgement receipts to the CIT(A) and on the back side of such acknowledgement receipts, the details of name of articles are mentioned. The CIT(A) finding is based on such receipts as referred to in Para No. 5 of CIT(A) Order dated 23-03-2016 for A.Y. 2011-2012. 07. The Hon'ble Bench has stated in Para No. 23 on Page No. 17 of the ITAT Order as under: "23. The bills being found bogus by the Ld. CIT(A) which finding has remained unchallenged before us, the stock record being a self-serving document, the receipts from recipients of gifts not mentioning the goods received, there is nothing to even Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 6 suggest what was actually purchased and distributed by the assessee as gift. There is no way to establish in this case that what was purchased was distributed by the assessee as gift. It is impossible to apply any profit theory in this situation, to restrict the disallowance to profit earned thereon, which theory, we have noted from the orders of the Hon 'ble High Courts rests on the premise that the sale from the alleged bogus purchases being admitted, the purchases must have been made though from the grey market at comparatively lower rates saving taxes and duties thereon and hence earning extra profits in the process not disclosed in the book" 7.1 The observation of the Hon'ble Bench that "there is nothing to even suggest what was actually purchased and distributed by the assessee as gift" is without examining the evidences on record. 7.2 Please refer Para No. 2.3 to No. 2.7 of this MA which has stated about the evidences filed on record. 3. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee referred to the above Application and made oral submissions stating that ITAT in its impugned order had held the entire sales promotion expenses incurred in relation to purchases made from specified parties to be bogus, and confirmed the order of the AO. He pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) on the other hand, based on stock- register, took a view that it is only the parties, from whom purchases of sales promotion items was made, which were bogus and that purchases actually had been made but from some other parties and therefore he restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchases so made by the assessee. He contended that the finding of the ITAT that the purchases itself were bogus, as opposed to the finding of the ld.CIT(A) that it was only the parties from whom purchases were made was bogus, was not in conformity with the facts on record. He contended that inventory of the items was maintained by way of stock-register; that the stock was lying with the assessee, but the ITAT had held this stock record to be self-serving document, which were blatantly incorrect. His contention was that the stock record was maintained on the basis of third party documents and therefore could not be brushed aside. That the purchase bills found by the ITAT to be not relevant for recording Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 7 incoming stock of items were all placed before the ITAT which it failed to consider before arriving at the aforestated finding. That the acknowledgement of receipt of sales promotion items by the MR’s (Medical Representatives) , to whom it was sent for distribution, was also wrongly found by the ITAT to be self-serving in the absence of details of address of the recipients and even the items sent, when the fact was that some of the said acknowledgements placed before the ITAT contained all details of the MR’s and the items sent to them. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the ITAT had failed to consider the evidences filed before arriving at its finding that the purchases were bogus when the evidences, all third party, clearly demonstrated the fact of purchases having been made of sales promotion items and the items to have moved to respective parties. 4. On the basis of the above, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the finding of the ITAT that the purchases of sales promotions items being bogus, was apposite to the evidence on record, which showed that the items had in fact being purchased, but it was only the parties, which were bogus, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee also pointed out during the course of hearing before us that the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal while holding the entire sale promotion expenses to be disallowed as bogus, had referred to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 292 CTR 354, he contended that this decision has since being reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the proposition laid down in the said decision was reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Nandkishor Hulaschand Jalan, 461 ITR 338 (SC). Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 8 6. The ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that the ITAT had given detailed findings, recording the purchases being bogus, considering all evidences available on record, and what was now being sought by way of the present MAs. was a review of the order, which is not allowed in terms of section 254(2) of the Act, which allows only patent mistake apparent on the face of it, to be rectified by way of the application filed under the said section. 7. We have heard both the parties. What the ld.counsel for the assessee now seeks to state before us by way of this application is that, the ITAT order was in error on account of apparent mistake in its finding that the purchases of sales promotion items was bogus. The mistake being apparent as per the ld.counsel for the assessee on account of the fact that the evidence on record clearly established that the items for sales promotion had been purchased by the assessee, that it was only the parties, which were found to be bogus by the investigation conducted by the AO, and not the purchases as such. The evidence which the ld.counsel for the assessee refers to in support of its evidences is stock-register, purchase bills, acknowledgment of receipts of MRs. all which he stated are third-party evidences, proving that the items were actually purchased by the assessee. 8. We do not find any merit in this contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us. As rightly pointed out by the ld.DR, the ITAT has exhaustively dealt with all the evidences, and found them to be no consequence for establishing the fact that the assessee did purchase items of sales promotion expenses. At page no.15 of the order, we have noted that the ITAT has recorded the basis on which the ld.CIT(A) had found actual purchases could have been made, but only the parties to be bogus, and found that the finding of the ld.CIT(A) Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 9 were very loosely recorded on the stock ledger maintained by the assessee in CD and on certain acknowledgments receipts issued by the assessee of gift items. The relevant portion of the order is as under: “We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has very loosely recorded his finding to this effect stating that actual purchases of items for sales promotion puroses “must” have been made by the assessee from some other parties though definitely not from those recorded in the Books of the assessee and accordingly found to be bogus by both the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).He has based his finding on the stock register maintained by the assessee in CD, which he states establishes the factum of gift articles being distributed by the assessee to various persons and on certain receipts issued by recipient of gift items. We do not find any substance in the same. 9. The ITAT, thereafter, proceeded to point out at para 21 of its order that the stock ledger could not be treated as third-party evidence, since it recorded movement of stock based on purchase bills, which were admittedly bogus, and the movement out of stock based on delivery challans which were the internal documents of the assessee itself. The ITAT notes certain acknowledgement of MRs. of receipt of items of sales promotion but finds them to be of no relevance since they contain no details of items sent or to whom sent. Para 21 is as under: 21. Firstly the bills of purchases of gift items are undeniably found to be bogus. Therefore there is no mechanism for establishing what exactly was purchased by the assessee. It therefore is impossible to establish that what was purchased as gifts was distributed also by the assessee. The stock register, we find, is not a third party document but a document of the assessee itself and is maintained in consonance with the books of accounts prepared by it. The moment a bill for purchases is recorded in the books, its contents also get recorded in the stock register. Therefore even if the bill is bogus the stock register will still show receipt of items when actually none may have been purchased. As for items shown as issued, the stock register generally mentions quantity issued and there is no description as to whom issued or any other detail. We have perused the contents of the copy of stock register of the assessee placed before us at Paper Book-II filed on 22-01- 2020.What it reveals is that it is a stock record of various items ranging from Pencil in CD Box,bottle opener, digital diary, Leather folder box and such other several items purportedly used for the purpose of gifting .The items have been recorded as” Ín” on the basis of purchase bills and “Óut”on the basis of delivery challans. Both are internal documents of the assessee itself and have no evidentiary value therefore for the purpose of proving that gift items were actually distributed by the assessee. The “Óut”entry, we have noted, also records the branch of the assessee, i.e Punjab, Indore etc where issued or Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 10 certain names against it ,which the assessee pleads are those of its MR’s some of whom have confirmed distributing gifts. Again all of these are of no assistance to the assessee being its own internal recordings and documents. 10. We do not find any infirmity in this finding of the ITAT. There is no dispute with the fact that the purchases bills on the basis of which the stock was recorded in the stock register was bogus. Even the ld.counsel for the assessee admits to the fact that the parties which had issued these bills were bogus. Therefore, how could the stock register maintained on the basis of these bills be correct. The ITAT, therefore, has correctly recorded the stock ledger to be a self-serving record. Even for the out-go of the stock noted on the basis of the delivery challans has been rightly noted to be internal document of the assessee and not third party evidence which even the Ld.Counsel has not challenged before us. As for acknowledgments of the MRs., the ld.counsel for the assessee was unable to demonstrate before us that all these documents had certain veracity except for pointing out a few of them did contain details of MRs., mobile numbers and gifts distributed. Merely because a few did contain details, does not lent veracity to the entire set of acknowledgements. Even otherwise, the MRs. are working for the assessee-company and acknowledgement issued by them, are the internal record and documents of the assessee only. Therefore, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT with respect to this finding that the stock register was a self-serving document. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that this finding was a mistake apparent from records is therefore dismissed. 11. The ld.counsel for the assessee also stated that the copies of the purchase bills were placed before the ITAT, and they were all genuine. We do not find any merit in this contention also of the ld.counsel of the assessee, since the fact remains that the parties who had issued bills were found to be bogus by the ld.CIT(A) also, which fact even the Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 11 ld.counsel for the assessee does not contest before us. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, we may state that when the parties itself were admittedly bogus, there was no question of bills issued by them to be genuine in any way. 12. As for the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the decision relied upon by the ITAT of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of N.K. Industries (supra) reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in 461 ITR 338 (supra), we do not find any merit in the same. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision is in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Nandkishor Hulaschand Jalan (supra) which the ld.counsel for the assessee has now referred to before us. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has confirmed the order of the jurisdictional High Court from where the matter had travelled to it wherein the disallowance on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 25% and the same was done in the back ground of the facts that the AO confronted the assessee with various creditors to which the assessee stated that there were large number of debtors who did not make the payment, due to which he could not gather sufficient funds to pay creditors; that thereafter, no further information was supplied by the assessee, and the AO accordingly, treated all the purchases as bogus made from these creditors. The CIT(A)/ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court restricted the addition to the profit element of 25% noting the fact that the AO had recorded the fact that the assessee might have purchased goods in cash using its unaccounted money, and with a view to cover up the purchases, bogus purchases had been procured by him. The order of the Hon’ble High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court accordingly, in the background of these facts and circumstances. Gujarat Terce Laboratories Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 MAs.) 12 13. We have gone through the order of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the said case, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is reported in 412 ITR 357 (supra) wherein we have noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically rejected the plea of the Revenue that the entire purchases needed to be disallowed, as in the case of N.K. Industries (supra). The Hon’ble Court noted the distinction of the facts in the said case, noting in that case that entire purchases were found to be “bogus”, and therefore, were all rightly disallowed. 14. As is evident from the above, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court pointed out by the ld.counsel for the assessee before us, in any way reversed the decision in the case of N.K. Industries (supra) followed by the ITAT. In fact, the same stands undisturbed as noted by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court to have been rendered in different facts and circumstances. This contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is therefore also rejected as being without any merit. In view of the above, we hold that there is no mistake as such pointed out in the order of the ITAT in the present MA, and therefore, all the MAs. are dismissed. 15. In the result, all the Misc. Applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17 th April, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad,dated 17/04/2024 vk*