Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0714 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
19-09-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
1998-1999
Appeal Filed On
23-04-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMADABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/2003) ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 SHRI MANOJ C. BRAHMBHATT 17/201, AMI. APPTT., GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD. OPP: NARANPURA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-7, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. NOT FOUND (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI A. L. THAKKAR, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI O. P. BHATEJA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 06.09.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.09.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.A. IS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THIS BENCH, DATED 13.07.2012 IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/2003 & C.O. NO. 74/AHD/2004 FOR A.Y. 1998-99. 2. IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7 OF THIS ORDER, THIS BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ALL THE FAC TS OF THE CASE THROUGH THIS M.A. BUT BASIC ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN FOLLOWING P ARAGRAPHS OF THE M.A. WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO POINT OUT THE MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER IT IS ESSENTIAL TO NOTE THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CAS E OF THE M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 2 ASSESSEE WAS RS.1,74,00,000/-. THE HON. ITAT HAS AC CEPTED THE CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE CASH CREDITOR I .E. PRAFUL L. SHAH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,59,00,000 (REFER PARA 7 & PG.11 OF THE ORDER). IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER CASH CREDITOR I.E. HEMENDRA L. SHAH CASH CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25 ,00,000/- IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE (REFER PARA 7 & PG.LL OF THE ORD ER). THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF ORIGI N OF THE CASH CREDITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,74,00,000 (RS. 1,59,00,000+25,00,000) HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE HON. ITAT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CASH D EPOSITED IN THE BANK IS RS.1.74 CRORES WHOSE SOURCE HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE HON. ITAT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IS NO REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF THE CASH CREDI T OF RS.20.00 LACS RECEIVED FROM THE CASH CREDITOR SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH SINCE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS OF RS.1,74,00,000/-. THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE HAND S OF THE CASH CREDITOR IS ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.74 CRORES AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON WRONG APPRECIAT ION OF FACTS. 5.1 THE HON. ITAT HAS WHILE PARTLY CONFIRMING THE A DDITION HAS ADOPTED CONTRADICTORY STAND. IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED T HAT BOTH SHRI PRAFUL L. SHAH AS WELL AS HEMENDRA L. SHAH APP EAR AS CASH CREDITORS IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT. THE SOURC E OF CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF PRAFUL L.SHAH (CASH CREDITO R) IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION DESERVES TO BE MADE. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT RECEIVED BY THE OTHER CASH CREDITOR I.E. HEMENDRA L. SHAH DOUBTS HAVE BEE N RAISED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,00,000/- AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION HAS COME TO BE PARTLY CONFIRMED. INFACT, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF THE ORIGIN OF THE DEPOSITS AND RELIANCE HAS M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 3 BEEN PLACED IN THE CASE LAWS REFERRED IN PARA 4.6 & PG.10 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON. ITAT. THE JUDGEMENTS A RE OF THE APEX COURT AS WELL AS THAT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT. THE HON. ITAT WHILE RENDERING THE DECISION IN PARA 7 & PG. 11 HAS NEITHER BEEN CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS NOR PASSED ANY SPEAKING ORDER IF THE DECISIONS IN QUEST ION ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. INFACT, THERE IS NO SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE AS TO HOW T HE RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENT REFERRED IN PARA 6 & PG.10 OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL'S ORDER ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. NON CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION: I. CIT V SUBODHCHANDRA S. PATEL (2004) 265 1TR 445 (GUJ.) II. ACIT V SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) 5.2 FURTHERMORE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE A SSESSMENT OF SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W. S 147 OF THE ACT AND THE DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM PARTH MERC ANTILE INC. I.E. THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITIONS U/S 68 HAS BEEN MADE IN H IS CASE. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH HAS BEEN PLACED ON PG. 116 TO 118 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED. THE AO HAS ALSO IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE NOT MADE ANY ADDITIONS U/S 69 WITH REGARDS THE LOAN /DEPOSIT GIVEN TO SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITH REGARD S THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/-FIRMED IN THE HANDS OF TH E APPELLANT WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS.116,28,25,8 38/- THE FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE HON. ITAT ARE ON PG. 28 & PARA 12 OF M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 4 THE ORDER. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE INTEREST IN THE CASE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED. THE DIRECTION OF THE HON. ITAT IN PARA 12 & PG.29 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED FOR EASY REFERE NCE: 'BUT INTEREST AMOUNT IN CASE OF GALAXY IMPEX OF RS. 4,62,615/-, IN CASE OF SONU EXIM OF RS.23,35,561/-, IN CASE OF TUS HARBHAI K. SHAH OF RS.8,59,562/-, IN CASE OF HEMENDRA L. SHAH OF RS.3,62,548/-, IN CASE OF PINKY CORPORATION OF RS.4 ,63,956/- & RS.1,75,068/-, IN CASE OF VIDHI CORPORATION RS.1,75 ,068/- IN CASE OF R. A. CORPORATION RS.7,397/-. THE EXPLANATIONS ARE NOT VERIFIED FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ABOVE INTEREST, WHICH ARE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE A S EXPENSES. THE LOAN SHOWN FROM VIDHI CORPORATION IS ALSO REQUI RED TO VERIFY AS PER FINDINGS ON PG. 27. ' 6.1 COMING TO THE ISSUE OF INTEREST FOR WHICH VERIF ICATION HAS BEEN DIRECTED ON ACCOUNT OF NON REFLECTION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ATTENTION IS INVITED TO PARA 8 & 9 AND PG. 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO A TABLE INDICATING TH E NAME OF THE DEPOSITOR, DATE OF DEPOSIT, PRINCIPLE AMOUNT, I NTEREST AMOUNT. IN THE TABLE IN PARA 8 THE INTEREST AMOUNT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.4,27,85,670/-. OUT OF THIS THE INT EREST OF RS.4,62,615/- & RS.23,35,561/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS DEEMED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C. IN THE TABLE IN PARA 9 THE TOTAL INTEREST AMOUNT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.22,14,392 /- WHICH INCLUDES ACTUAL INTEREST PAID OF RS.1,77,534/- AND DEEMED EXPENDITURE INCURRED U/S 69C OF RS.20,36,898/-. AGA IN IF COMPARISON IS MADE OF THE PARTIES REFERRED IN PG. 2 9 OF TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR WHICH VERIFICATION IS SOUGHT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PARTIES AND THE AMOUNTS ARE IDENTICAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: NAME AMOUNT TUSHAR K. SHAH RS.8,59,562/- HEMENDRA L. RS.3,62,548 M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 5 SHAH PINKY CORPORATION RS.4,63,956/- PINKY CORPORATION RS.1,75,068/ - VIDHI CORPORATION RS.1,75,068/- GALAXY IMPEX RS.4,62,615/- SONU EXIM RS.23,35,561/- R. A. CORPORATION RS. 7,397/ - 6.2 AT THIS STAGE ATTENTION IS ALSO INVITED TO PG. 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN PARA 13 THE AO HAS PROPOSE D TO MAKE ADDITION BY GIVING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE RE LEVANT PORTION IS PRODUCED FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. 'MOREOVER IN YOUR PARTH MERCANTILE INC. PROPRIETARY CONCERN YOU ARE DOING FINANCIAL BUSINESS EVEN THOUGH IT APP EARS THAT TRANSACTIONS MADE FOR HUGE AMOUNT LIKE RS.4 CRORES BUT THE TRANSACTION IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHERE YOU HA VE NOT SHOWN AS INTEREST RECEIVED OR INTEREST PAID THOUGH THE BUSINESS IS MERCANTILE. INTEREST RECEIVABLE IS NOT CONSIDERED FOR INCOME. BECAUSE IT IS NOTIONAL INCOME. HOWEVER, INTEREST PAID IS DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME RECEIVAB LE. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN INTEREST ON HUGE BORROWINGS. WHY THE INTEREST AT 18% SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY YOU U/S 69 OF THE ACT OUT O F THE CASH WHICH IS NOT IN BOOKS AS STATED SUPRA .' 6.3 THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS WHILE MA KING THE ADDITION U/S 69 CLEARLY STATED THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN GIVEN ON HUGE BORROWINGS. IT IS ONLY PRESUMING THAT INTER EST HAS BEEN PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT ADDITI ONS HAVE COME TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND NOT RECORDED THEREIN THE ADDITIONS HAVE COME TO BE MADE . AS A MATTER OF FACT WHERE THE INTEREST HAS NEVER BEEN PA ID AND THEREFORE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE EXERCISE M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 6 OF VERIFICATION FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WOULD NO T SERVE ANY PURPOSE. 6.4 THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE HON. ITA T TO VERIFY THE INTEREST PAYMENTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS ERR ONEOUS SINCE NEITHER THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR HAS ANY DEDUCTION THEREOF BEEN CLAI MED. 7. THE HON. TRIBUNAL IN PARA 12 & PG. 29 HAS DIRECT ED THE AO TO VERIFY THE LOAN SHOWN FROM M/S. VIDHI CORPORATION A S PER THE FINDINGS ON PG. 27. THE FINDINGS AS ON PG. 27 ARE R EPRODUCED FOR YOUR EASY REFERENCE. 'VIDHI CORPORATION - THE ASSESSES HAS SHOWN LOAN OF RS.50 LACS FROM VIDHI CORPORATION (PROPRIETY CONCERN OF SHRI H EMENDRA L SHAH) FOR WHICH CONFIRMATION IN PG. NOS. 58 & 59 & 93 TO 96 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. PG. 58 & 59 ARE COP IES OF INTEREST RUNNING LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD OF 01/04/97 T O 31/03/98. PAGE 93 TO 96 ARE A RUNNING COPIES OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PE RIOD OF 01/04/97 TO 31/03/98 OF PARTH MERCANTILE INC. WHERE TOTAL OU TSTANDING LOAN OF RS.21,59,23,912/- HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VERIFIED ON WHAT DATE OF LOAN OF RS.50 LAKHS HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE LOAN WITH REFERENC E TO ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER.' 7.1 THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE HON. TRIBUNAL TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE LOAN WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER OF RS.50,00,000/- IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED POSITION OF FACT AND LAW AND THEREFORE NECESSITATES RECTIFICATI ON. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH IS THE PROPRI ETOR OF M/S. VIDHI CORPORATION WHO HAS GIVEN THE CONTRA ACCOUNT DULY CONFIRMED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. HIS INCOME TAX PARTICULARS / ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS ALSO REMAINED PERSONALLY PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ADMITTED TO TH E GRANTING OF LOAN. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SO RECO RDED HAS M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 7 BEEN PLACED ON PG. 188 TO 190 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN FACT IT IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE AO TO IDENTIFY THE DATE AND THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS PROPOSED TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. CASTING THE BURDEN OF T HE APPELLANT TO IDENTIFY THE TRANSACTION FROM THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT FURNISHED WHICH IN ENTIRETY IS NOT CONSIDER ED AS UNEXPLAINED WOULD BE COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE EST ABLISHED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH TRANSACTION OF RS.50,00,000/- AS PRESUMED BY THE AO WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY ITS TREATMEN T AS UNEXPLAINED. 7.2 ATTENTION IS INVITED TO PARA 9 & PAGE 4 AND PA RA 20 & PG. 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS MENTIONED RS.50,00 ,000/- IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIDHI CORPORATION IN THE BOOKS OF ATLAS JEWELLERS. THEREAFTER, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 22 & PG. 15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER PARA 23 AND PG.15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT HAS BEEN STATED TH AT IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VIDHI CORPORATION HE HAD ATTENDE D ON 11.02.2002 AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH. INFACT, THE AO HAS STATED THAT IF THE TOTAL OF THE CREDIT S IDE OF THE DEPOSIT IS TAKEN THE AMOUNT WOULD BE VERY BIG AND T HEREFORE THE NET AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED. IN FACT, THE AO HAD N OT POINTED OUT WHAT PARTICULAR AMOUNT/DATE HAS THE CASH CREDIT BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THIS BEING A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD NECESSITATING RECTIFICATION. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5, 6, 7 REGARDING THE DELE TION OF RS.1,72,17,951/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES AND COMMISSION, THE HON. TRIBUNAL IN PARA 15 & PG.30 OF THE ORDER HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE AND M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 8 THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO TH E AO. 3. THE APPELLANT RAISE VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE S UMMARIZED AS UNDER: I. THE APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF RS.1.74 CRORE OUT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED OF RS. 20 LACS. II. THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI HEMENDRA L. SHAH HAS BEE N COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT AND NO ADDITIONS WE RE MADE BY THE A.O. III. INTEREST ON RS.1,16,28,25,838/- IS NOT VERIFIA BLE AND THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE INTEREST WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENSES. IV. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY US TO THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE LOANS FROM M/S. VIDHI CORPORATION AS PER FINDINGS ON PAGE NO.27. V. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 5,6 & 7REGARDING THE DELE TION OF RS.1,72,17,951/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES AND COM MISSION AND HELD THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO THE A.O.. VI. GROUND NOS. 8, 9 & 10 ARE WITH REGARDS THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.19,24,117/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BILL DISCOUNTING CHARGES. THIS BENCH HELD THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPOR TUNITY TO THE A.O. BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APP ELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAS EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION BY ADJUD ICATING BEYOND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, HE ARGUED THAT IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE BENCH, WHEREAS, LD. SR. D.R. ARGUED THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED IT TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE M.A. M.A. NO. 96/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1565/AHD/03), A.Y. 98-99 PAGE 9 4. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE ISSUES OF THE AS SESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD AND DETAILED FINDING S HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN RESPECTIVE PARAS. IF WE ENTERTAIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M.A., IT TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF OUR OWN CASE. THE LAW D OESNT PERMIT US TO REVIEW OUR OWN JUDGMENT. THUS, WE DISMISS THE M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES M.A. IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19.09.2013 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE CPOY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;
