Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Rakeshkumar Hiralal Thakkar, ... vs Assessee on 25 July, 2007
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 'C' BENCH : AHMEDABA D
(Before Hon'ble Shri T.K. Sharma, J.M. & Hon'ble Shri A.N. Pahuja, A.M. )
ITA Nos. 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222/AHD/2007 [Astt. Year : 1999-
2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2004-2005]
Rakeshkumar Hiralal Thakkar, -vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ahmedabad Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
&
ITA Nos.3412, 3413, 3414, 3415, 3416, 3417, 3418/Ahd/2007 [A.Ys.: 1999-
2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006]
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, -vs.- Rakeshkumar Hiralal Thakkar,
Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
&
C.O. Nos. 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ahd/2007 [in ITA Nos. 3412,
3413, 3414, 3415, 3416, 3417 & 3418/Ahd/2007]
[A.Ys.: 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006]
Rakeshkumar Hiralal Thakkar, -vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ahmedabad Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad
(Cross Objector) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Aseem Thakkar
Department by : Shri Shelly Jindal, CIT, D.R.
ORDER
PER BENCH : These are cross appeals and cross-objections by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad dated 25-7-2007 and 29-5-2007. Since grounds and issues raised in all these appeals and cross objections are 2 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 either common or interrelated, for the sake of convenience, we dispose all these appeals by this consolidated order.
2. Year-wise various grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeals are as under :-
ITA No.3412/AHD/2007 (AY 1999-2000)(1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing and in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.11,45,144/- made on account of unexplained cash credits.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in directing to grant depreciation on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that electrical findings are part of furniture and fittings.
(5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No. 3413/AHD/2007 (AY 2000-2001) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing and in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.17,26,750/- made on account of unexplained credits in capital account.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in directing to grant depreciation on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that electrical findings are part of furniture and fittings.3
ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 (5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.16,71,439/- made on account of unexplained investment in construction of residential house and hotel building, without considering the fact brought on record.
(6) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding above addition cannot be sustained on the basis of report of DVO which has advisory value, without pointing out any defect in the report of DVO. He has further erred in considering scrap value of old building for the purposes of investment without verifying as to whether such value was shown by the assessee in his income or not.
(7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No.3414/AHD/2007 (AY 2001-2002) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing and in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.70,56,309/- made on account of unexplained credits in capital account.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,688/- out of interest expenses without considering the fact that assessee gave huge interest free advances without any business purposes.
(5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in allowing depreciation on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that electrical findings are part of furniture and fittings.
(6) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,72,000/- made by disallowing office expenses on account of unverifiable nature without considering the fact that this expenditure was disproportionate to the receipts and the assessee maintained only self made voucher which were not verifiable.
(7) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.31,684/- made on the basis of the report of DVO, merely observing that the report of DVO was advisory in nature, without pointing out any defect in the report of the DVO.
4ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 (8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No.3415/AHD/2007 (AY 2002-2003) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing by ignoring the Assessing Officer 's objection filed vide letter dated 26/3/2007. Further, the CIT(A.) also erred in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.95,46,646/- made on account of unexplained cash credits.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance out of interest expenses at Rs.45,614/- without considering the fact that interest pertaining to car loan on the basis of his findings was Rs.5,614/- only.
(5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in allowing depreciation of Rs.17,629/- on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that electrical findings are part of furniture and fittings.
(6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No.3416/AHD/2007 (AY 2003-2004) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing and in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.81,01,620/- made on account of unexplained credits in capital account.
5ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 (4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,81,182/- made out of interest expenses by disallowing the interest for non-business purpose as the assessee has advanced huge amount without interest. The CIT(A.) has not considered this aspect and deleted the addition admitting new facts without getting them verified from the books of accounts of the assessee.
(5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the amendment brought in Appendix I, Item II- "Furniture and fittings"
which includes electrical fittings also. The depreciation admissible on furniture and fittings including electrical fittings is 15% only.
(6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No.3417/AHD/2007 (AY 2004-2005) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing by ignoring the Assessing Officer's objection filed vide letter dated 26.3.2007. Further, the CIT(A.) also erred in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.3,01,95,447/- made on account of unexplained cash credits.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,70,803/-
made out of interest expenses by disallowing the interest for non-business purpose as the assessee has advanced huge amount without interest. The CIT(A.) has not considered this aspect and deleted the addition admitting new facts without getting them verified from the books of accounts of the assessee.
(5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation on electrical findings at 25% instead of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer without considering the amendment brought in Appendix I, Item II- "Furniture and fittings"
which includes electrical fittings also. The depreciation admissible on furniture and fittings including electrical fittings is 15% only.
(6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 ITA No.3418/AHD/2007 (AY 2005-2006) (1) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidences and consequently deleting the additions particularly when he himself has dismissed the assessee's ground against the ex-parte order and the ground of not providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
(2) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as none of the condition therein was satisfied.
(3) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences during the appeal hearing by ignoring the Assessing Officer's objection filed vide letter dated 26.3.2007. Further, the CIT(A.) also erred in directing the Assessing Officer to furnish a remand report on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee and in consequently deleting addition of Rs.6,58,02,973/- made on account of unexplained cash credits.
(4) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.57,150/-
made on account of unexplained cash without verifying the source of cash from the books of accounts of the assessee.
(5) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,04,566/- made out of interest expenses by disallowing the interest for non-business purpose as the assessee has advanced huge amount without interest. The CIT(A.) has not considered this aspect and deleted the addition admitting new facts without getting them verified from the books of accounts of the assessee.
(6) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,97,286/- made by estimating the net profit at 8% without considering the fact that net profit disclosed by the assessee was only 3.40% which was extremely low in this line of business.
(7) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the A.O.'s decision on rejection of books of accounts, without considering the correct legal position that when no day-to-day consumption records were maintained, rejection of books of accounts was justified as held by Hon'ble Courts in the cases of Bastiram Narayandas Maheshwari 210 ITR 438 (Bom.), Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation 9 TTJ 207 (Jai.) and Dhondiram Dalichand 81 ITR 609 (Bom.) (8) The CIT(A.) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.50 lacs made on the basis of impounded document at page 139 of Annexure A-20 showing receipt from Dharamdev Finance Ltd. without considering the fact that this amount is not recorded in the books of accounts as mentioned in the assessment order.
(9) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A.) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 7 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007
3. Year-wise various grounds raised by the assessee in its appeals are as under :-
ITA No.3218/AHD/2007 (AY 1999-2000)"The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in law in upholding the addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.2,05,950/-".ITA No.3219/AHD/2007 (AY 2000-2001)
(1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,16,309/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits.
(2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,182/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of telephone expenses.ITA No.3220/AHD/2007 (AY 2001-2002)
(1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.45,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits.
(2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.11,940/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of telephone expenses.
(3) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,18,641/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of interest expenditure.ITA No.3221/AHD/2007 (AY 2003-2004)
(1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in not holding that the order passed by the A.O. u/s. 144 of the Act is bad in law.
(2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,40,500/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits.
(3) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.56,274/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of vehicle expenses.8
ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 (4) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.46,710/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of interest expenditure.
ITA No.3222/AHD/2007 (AY 2004-2005)(1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credits.
(2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A.) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,909/- made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance of telephone expenses.
4. Year-wise grounds raised by the assessee in its Cross Objections read as under:
CO No.358/Ahd/2007 (AY : 1999-2000) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that no incriminating material worth the name was found at all for any of the first five years (i.e. A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2003-04) prior to the date of search (viz. 9.2.2005) and hence the AO was not justified in reopening the assessments for all these five years.
3. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that since no such incriminating material was found at all for any of the aforesaid five assessment years the AO should have not framed the assessment orders us/153A for any of those five years.
4. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that the AO was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in a regular assessment u/s.143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s.153A.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order passed u/s.144 was bad in law.
6. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same.
C.O. No.359/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2000-2001) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year.
9ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that no incriminating material worth the name was found at all for any of the first five years (i.e. A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2003-04) prior to the date of search (viz. 9.2.2005) and hence the AO was not justified in reopening the assessments for all these five years.
3. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that since no such incriminating material was found at all for any of the aforesaid five assessment years the AO should have not framed the assessment orders us/153A for any of those five years.
4. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that the AO was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in a regular assessment u/s.143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s.153A.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order passed u/s.144 was bad in law.
6. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same.
C.O. No. 360/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2001-2002) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that no incriminating material worth the name was found at all for any of the first five years (i.e. A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2003-04) prior to the date of search (viz. 9.2.2005) and hence the AO was not justified in reopening the assessments for all these five years.
3. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that since no such incriminating material was found at all for any of the aforesaid five assessment years the AO should have not framed the assessment orders us/153A for any of those five years.
4. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that the AO was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in a regular assessment u/s.143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s.153A.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order passed u/s.144 was bad in law.
6. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same.
10ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 C.O. No. 361/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2002-2003) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that no incriminating material worth the name was found at all for any of the first five years (i.e. A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2003-04) prior to the date of search (viz. 9.2.2005) and hence the AO was not justified in reopening the assessments for all these five years.
3. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that since no such incriminating material was found at all for any of the aforesaid five assessment years the AO should have not framed the assessment orders us/153A for any of those five years.
4. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that the AO was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in a regular assessment u/s.143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s.153A.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order passed u/s.144 was bad in law.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the remaining amount of cash credit of Rs.75,000/- presumably in the name of Rashmiben Shah.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred i upholding a part of telephone expenses in a sum of Rs.8,147 and without prejudice the disallowance so upheld deserves to be drastically reduced.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.2,00,566 made by the AO out of interest expenses.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.1,933 made in the assessment order under garb of 153A(b).
10. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same."
C.O. No. 362/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2003-2004) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153A for the year.
11ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that no incriminating material worth the name was found at all for any of the first five years (i.e. A.Ys.1999-2000 to 2003-04) prior to the date of search (viz. 9.2.2005) and hence the AO was not justified in reopening the assessments for all these five years.
3. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that since no such incriminating material was found at all for any of the aforesaid five assessment years the AO should have not framed the assessment orders us/153A for any of those five years.
4. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have realized that the AO was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in a regular assessment u/s.143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s.153A.
5. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same."
C.O. No. 363/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2004-2005) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order assed u/s.144 was bad in law.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not himself deleting the addition of Rs.32,50,000/- was made by the AO as unexplained cash credit.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not himself deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure in a sum of Rs.2,10,964/-.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not himself deleting the disallowance of excessive expenses on sale of land in a sum of Rs.35,03,031/-
5. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same."
C.O. No. 364/Ahd/2007 (AY : 2005-2006) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that assessment order assed u/s.144 was bad in law.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance out of telephone expenses in a sum of Rs.2,308/-.
12ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest in a sum of Rs.24,000/-.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of repairing expenses in a sum of Rs.4,44,750/-.
5. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same."
5. First we take up the Grounds No. 1 to 4of cross objections for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 to 2003-04 and ground No.9 of cross objection of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The brief facts relating to the controversy involved in these grounds of Cross Objections are with regard to search under Section 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee along with the Dharamdev Builders Group of cases on 09.03.2005. Consequent upon the search under Section 132 of the Act, proceedings under Chapter-XIV were initiated on the assessee by issuing notice u/s.153A(a) on 17.07.2005 asking the assessee to file the return of income under Section 153A of the Act within 30 days from the service of the notice. The assessee filed the return of income on 25.07.2006 disclosing total income as under :_ Assessment Year Income declared Date on which Return was filed 1999-2000 - Rs. 68,420/- 25-7-2006 2000-2001 - Rs.1,45,130/- 13-7-2006 2001-2002 - Rs.3,51,320/- 13-7-2006 2002-2003 - Rs 79,280/- 13-7-2006 2003-2004 - Rs.1,54,360/- 25-7-2006 Thereafter, the AO framed assessment under Section 153A(b) of the Act for all these 4 assessment years. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) wherein the following specific ground no.1 raised :
"1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case the impugned order is bad in law and is contrary to the facts of the appellant's case. The said order having been passed without providing adequate opportunity, and also without verifying the records it is bad in law."13
ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 In the impugned order, the learned CIT (A) adjudicated the aforesaid ground holding that before the AO the assessee could not furnish the entire confirmations, therefore, the order passed under Section 144 of the Act is in order.
6. At the time of hearing before us, on behalf of assessee Shri Aseem Thakkar appeared and pointed out that no incriminating material was found during the course of assessment on 09.02.2005 in respect of all the four assessment years, therefore, the Assessing Officer should not have framed the assessment under section 153A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in undertaking the scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible in regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no material was found during the course of search, which authorized the Assessing Officer to undertake such an action.
6.1. The learned counsel for the assessee further drew our attention to page 10 of the assessment order, wherein para 6, Clause 2, the Assessing Officer has stated undisclosed income as per provisions of section 153A(b) of the Act is NIL. He submitted that this clearly indicates that during the course of search, no material was found which indicated undisclosed income to initiate provisions of section 153A of the Act. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has restored to scheme 153A merely because a search has took place at the assessee's premises. He submitted that since no material was found during the course of search which authorised the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s. 153A, the assessment framed be quashed. In support of this Counsel of the assessee relied on the following decisions:-
i) Anil Kumar Bhatia & Ors. Vs. ACIT, 1 ITR (Trib.) 484 (Del);
ii) LMJ International Ltd. Vs. DCI, 119 TTJ (Kol.) 214
iii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 129 TTJ (Ahd) 255;/
(2010)6 ITR(Trib) 360(AHD).
7. On the other hand, Shri Shelley Jindal, ld. CIT, D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue pointed out that the plea raised in the Cross Objection was not raised before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore on this ground alone, these grounds of cross objections be dismissed. The ld. D.R. further drew our attention to the provisions contained in section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under :-
14ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 "153A : Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall -
(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139;
(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made :
Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:
Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, -
(i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section;
(ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year".
7.1. The Ld. DR pointed out that from the bare reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that for making the assessment under this section there is no requirement to issue notice u/s. 148 or the requirement of seized material. He submitted that when a search was initiated under section 132 before 1.6.2003, the provision of Block Assessment contained in Chapter XIV-B were relevant. However, where search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after 31st May, 2003, the Assessing Officer acquires power to issue notice and make assessment as per new procedure laid 15 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 down in section 153A to section 153D contained in Chapter XIV of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, detection of undisclosed income is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to take action under this section when search is conducted after 31st May, 2003. In this case, the search was conducted on 09.03.2005, therefore, whether any incriminating material was found or not is not relevant. With regard to plea of the ld. counsel of the assessee that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself stated that the undisclosed income as per the provisions of section 153A(b) is NIL, therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A to 153C be cancelled, the ld. D.R. pointed out that for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 also, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 153A. This has been accepted by the assessee. On this basis also this plea of the ld. counsel of the assessee is not maintainable.
7.2. Without prejudiced to above, the ld. D.R. pointed out that in this case, Panchnama has been prepared. Once the Panchnama is prepared the Assessing Officer has no option but to frame the assessment as per new procedure laid down in section 153A of the I.T. Act. He pointed out that old procedure under Chapter XIV-B postulates two parallel streams of assessments, i.e., one of regular assessment and the other for block assessment during the same period, i.e. during the block period. Controversies have sprung up questioning the treatment of a particular income as 'undisclosed income' and whether it relates to the material found during the course of search, etc. Even where the facts are clear, litigation on procedural matters continue to persist. In view of this, new procedure in section 153A to section 153D of chapter XIV of the I. T. Act,1961 is provided by inserting these provisions in I.T. Act w.e.f. 1.6.2003. In support of this Act, the ld. D.R. relied on the following decisions :-
(a) Shyanlata Kaushik -vs.- ACIT [114 ITD 305 (Del.);/306 ITR(AT) 117(Del)
(b) Harvey Heart Hospitals Ltd. -vs.- ACIT [36 DTR 189];
(c) Shivnath Rai Harnrain (India) Ltd. -vs.- ACIT /(2008)304 ITR (AT) 271;
(d) Rajat Tradecom India (P) Ltd.-vs.- DCIT [(2009) 120 ITD 48 (ITAT, Indore) 7.3. The ld. D.R. also drew our attention to the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of I.T. Act, i.e. "the main objectives for the introduction of Chapter XIV-B were avoidance of disputes, early finalization of search assessments and reduction in multiplicity of proceedings. The idea was to have a cost-effective, efficient and meaningful search assessment 16 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 procedure. However, the experience on implementation of the special procedure for search assessment (block assessment) contained in Chapter XIV-B, has shown that the new scheme has failed in its objective of early resolution of search assessments. Therefore, mew procedure has been introduced by inserting section 153A to 153C in Chapter XIV of the I.T. Act, 1961.
7.4. With regard to three decisions relied by the ld. counsel of the assessee, D.R. pointed out that in those decisions new provisions were not considered in its entirety. He explained that as per new procedure, the procedure of assessment in case of search or requisition is as under :-
(i) Issuance of notice under section 153A(a) for filing of return of income for the specified period.
(ii)If no return is filed, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to make assessment under section 144.
(iii) If the returns are filed the Assessing Officer shall re-assess the income under section 153A(b) in respect of the year(s) in respect of which the assessment is complete.
(iv)In case of the year(s) in respect of which the assessment or re-assessment is pending, as per the second proviso to section 153A(b), the same shall abate. In other words, the assessment or re-assessment shall not be made by way of regular assessment under section 143(3) or re-assessment under section 147, but it shall be made under section 153A(b).
(v)Computation of total income as per the provisions of the Act (implying computation as per the provisions of Chapters IV, V, VI, VIA, etc.)
(vi) Determine tax liability for each year (for this purpose tax would be computed for each year, at the rate applicable for that year).
(vii) Charge interest, if any payable under sections 234A and 234B as under :-
Rate of interest shall be those as applicable to each of the relevant assessment years.
7.5. The ld. D.R. further explained that under the new procedure, assessment of return and undisclosed income, if any merge, whereas in block period under old procedure contained in Chapter XIB-B, the undisclosed income were defined. Under the old procedure, determination of total income of the concerned previous year was essential and in certain cases, assessment of undisclosed income, which will have to be done in accordance with normal procedure. Under the 17 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 new scheme contained in section 153A only one assessment is required to be made and assessment, if any, earlier made shall abate. Under the new provisions, tax liability is determined at normal rates applicable for that year, whereas under Chapter XIV-B, undisclosed income is assessed @ 60% plus surcharge. Under the new scheme, interest is leviable whereas no interest was leviable under the old scheme contained in Chapter XIV-B. 7.6. To sum up, the ld. D.R. pointed out that under the new scheme contained in section 153A all the provisions of the Act (as applicable to the regular assessment or re-assessment pursuant to reopening of any assessment under section 148) would apply to the new procedure. This would include computation of income (which would include computation of income under the respective heads of income; clubbing or aggregating; set off of losses; deductions under Chapter VIA), calculation of tax, procedure for making the assessment, charge of interest, initiation of penalty proceedings and the levy of penalty, prosecution, etc. He further pointed out that for making the assessment of the person who is search, under the new procedure contained in sections 153A, the procedure as laid down in sections 142 and 143 and other related or applicable provisions would apply. This would mean issue of the requisite notices under the said provisions as well as followance of the procedure for making the assessment. The assessment can be based on the material or evidence available with the Assessing Officer for making the assessment and not only the material found during the course of search and seizure operation.
This aspect was not considered in various decisions relied by the ld. counsel of the assessee. Moreover the various judgments relied by Ld. Counsel of Assessee relates to assessee of person other than referred to in section 153-A of the Act, therefore, these are not applicable.
8. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. For assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act only requirement is that person concerned should be searched. The requirement of detection of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material is not mandatory whereas these may be mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Admittedly, in the case before us assessee Shri Rakesh H. Thakkar was searched u/s. 132 on 9-2-2006. We therefore, found considerable force in the submissions made by the ld. D.R. that once the search is conducted, the Assessing Officer has no option but to make assessment or re-assessment for each of the six assessment years under 18 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 the new procedure as provided u/s.153A of the I.T. Act. In case, for some of the assessment years, assessment has already been completed in that event the Assessing Officer shall also make fresh assessment under section 153A of the Act. Even the new procedure would not affect the pending appeal against the original assessment. The ITAT, 'C' Bench, Delhi in the case of Ms. Shyam Lata Kaushik -vs.- ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad reported in [2008] 114 ITD 305(Delhi) held as under :-
"The contentions of the assessee could not be accepted. There is no requirement for an assessment made under section 153A being based on any material seized in the course of search. Further, under the second proviso to section 153A, pending assessment or reassessment proceedings in relation to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in section 153A(b) shall abate. Thus the Assessing Officer gets jurisdiction for six assessment years referred to in section 153A(b) for making an assessment or reassessment. It was not the complaint of the assessee that any income, which was already subjected to assessment under section 143(3) or under section 148 completed prior to the search in respect of six assessment years referred to in section 153A(b) and in the second proviso to section 153A had also been included in the assessment framed under section 153A. In such circumstances, the plea of the assessee could not be accepted".
8.1. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee namely, Shri Rakesh Hiralal Thakkar was searched u/s. 132 on 9-2-2006. Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A for six assessment years i.e. from A.Y.1999-2000 to 2005-06. The assessee is not questioning the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A of I.T. Act for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06. In this case, a Panchnama has been prepared, therefore, in our opinion irrespective of the fact whether valuable article, etc., or documents seized containing an undisclosed income or not is immaterial. In such a situation it is mandatory for the A.O. to issue notice u/s. 153A (a) for filing the Returns of Income and frame the assessments in terms of section 153A. The decision of ITAT C-Bench Delhi in the case of Ms. Shyamlata Kaushik (supra) is squarely applicable to facts of assessee's case. We, therefore, decline to interfere. Consequently ground No.1 to 4 for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2003-04 and ground No.9 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 of assessee's corss objection are rejected.
9. With regard to Grounds No. 1 to 3 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment years 1999- 2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06, the ld. D.R. pointed out that in 19 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in admitting fresh evidences and consequently deleting the addition amounting to Rs.11,45,144/- (AY 1999- 2000), Rs,.17,26,750/- (AY 2000-01), Rs.70,56,309/- (AY 2001-02), Rs.95,46,646/- (AY 2002-
03), Rs.81,01,620/- (AY 2003-04), Rs.3,01,95 447/- (AY 2004-05), Rs.6,58,02,973/- (AY 2005-
06) made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that to the extent the additions sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeals. The ld. D.R. submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in admitting the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A. As against this, the ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) called the remand report. In the remand report, to the extent the Assessing Officer accepted the unexplained cash credits in capital account, he deleted the addition. Therefore, the ld. D.R. submitted that the view taken by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be upheld.
9.1. With regard to the confirming the part of disallowance, the ld. A.R. pointed out that one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to furnish the necessary evidences. This plea of the ld. counsel of the assessee was strongly objected by the ld. D.R. He submitted that enough time was available to furnish the necessary evidences before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or at the time of Remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer. No further evidence was furnished, therefore, the addition to the extent confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be upheld.
10. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits, deleted by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the basis of remand report is as under :-
Assessment year Total cash credit Found explained Not explained 1999-2000 Rs.13,51,394/- Rs.11,45,444/- Rs.2,05,950/-
2000-2001 Rs.21,43,059/- Rs.17,26,750/- Rs.4,16,309/-
2001-2002 Rs.71,01,309/- Rs.70,56,309/- Rs.45,000/-
2002-2003 Rs.96,21,646/- Rs.95,46,646/- Rs.75,000/-
2003-2004 Rs.85,42,120/- Rs.8,10,18,620/- Rs.4,40,500/-
20
ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 2004-2005 Rs.3,03,55,447/- Rs.3,01,95,447/- Rs.1,60,000/-
2005-2006 Rs.6,58,62,973/- Rs.6,58,62,973/- NIL 10.1. It is pertinent to note that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the partial relief only to the extent found correct by the Assessing Officer. On verification and admitted by his Remand Report. He further confirmed the addition only to the extent the assessee could not explain before him. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference in this regard is called for. Consequently, Grounds No. 1 to 3 of Revenue's appeals for all the assessment years are rejected.
10.2. With regard to part of the addition which is confirmed by Ld.CIT (A) in the impugned order, it is pertinent to note that assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source of credits during the course of Remand proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion no useful purpose will be served in giving one more inning to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, ground No.1 for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02, Ground No.2 for the Assessment Year 2003-04, Ground No.2 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 are rejected.
10.3. In the assessment year 2004-05 the Ld. C.I.T. (A) restored the addition of Rs.32,50,000/-
to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This is objected by the assessee vide Ground No.2 of Cross Objection. In our opinion, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) has given cogent reasons for setting aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer. Ground No.2 of Cross Objection for the Assessment Year 2004-05 is accordingly rejected.
11. Ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, Ground No. 5 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 is against granting depreciation on electric fittings @ 25% as against of 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. According to the ld. D.R., these electrical fittings are part of furniture and fittings, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 15% as has been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
21ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 11.1. On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee vehemently supported the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given cogent reason for holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation as per the decision dated 20.10.2006 of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Hotel Marwar in ITA No. 881/AHD/2006, which is relied by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the impugned order. Therefore, the view taken by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be upheld.
11.2. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Hotel Marwar (supra). The assessee is also in hotel business, therefore, we incline to uphold the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Resultantly Ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 as well as Ground No. 5 of the Revenue's appeal for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 are rejected.
12. Grounds No. 5 & 6 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2000-01 are against deleting the addition amounting to Rs.16,71,439/- made by the Assessing Officer and Ground No. 7 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2001-02 is against deleting the addition amounting to Rs.31,684/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO's report.
12.1. We have heard both the sides on the controversy involved and carefully gone through the relevant portion of the impugned order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is pertinent to note that the addition was made purely on the basis of D.V.O.'s report. The said valuation report is only advisory in nature as held by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In absence of any other material, we are of the view that no addition in this regard can be made. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Resultantly, Grounds No. 5 & 6 for the assessment year 2000-01 and Ground No. 7 for the assessment year 2001-02 of Revenue's appeal are rejected.
22ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007
13. Ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 is against the deletion of addition amounting to Rs.7,688/-, Rs.3,81,182/- and Rs.1,70,803/- respectively out of interest expenses and Ground No. 5 for the assessment year 2005-06 amounting to Rs.2,04,566/- made by the Assessing Officer and Ground No. 8 of assessee's C.O. for the assessment year 2002-03 is against upholding the disallowance of Rs.2,00,566/- made by the Assessing Officer out of interest expenses.
13.1. We have heard both the sides on the controversy involved and carefully gone through the relevant portion of the impugned order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is pertinent to note that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed relief to the above extent by observing that the assessee has given huge interest free advances from its different proprietary concerns. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Resultantly, Ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, Ground No. 5 for the assessment year 2005-06 and Ground No. 8 of assessee's C.O. for the assessment year 2002-03 are rejected.
14. Ground No. 5 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 to 2002-03 and ground No.9 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 of Cross Objections were not pressed by the ld. counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, this ground of Cross Objection is accordingly rejected.
15. Ground No. 2 of assessee's appeal for AY 2000-01, 2001-02, 2004-05 and Ground No. 7 for the assessment year 2002-03 and Ground No. 2 for the assessment year 2005-06 of assessee's Cross Objection is against confirming the disallowance out of telephone expenses. The disallowance of expenses on account of personal user, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is fair and reasonable. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Resultantly, Ground No. 2 of assessee's appeal for AYs 2000-01, 2001-02, 2004-05 and the Ground No. 7 for the assessment year 2002-03 and Ground No. 2 for the assessment year 2005-06 of assessee's Cross Objection are rejected.
16. Ground No.3 of Cross Objection for A.Y. 2005-06 is against confirming disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.24,000/-. This is confirmed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 23 ITA No. 3218-3222, 3412-3418/AHD/2007 & CO-358-364/AHD/2007 (Appeals) in the impugned order because the assessee has not established that it is paid on borrowing used for the purpose of business. Even before us assessee could not prove that this interest of Rs.24,000/- was paid for the purpose of business. Therefore, this ground of Cross Objection is rejected.
17. In result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
The Order was pronounced in the Court on 30.11.2010
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.N. Pahuja) (T.K. Sharma)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
DATED :30 / 11 / 2010
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1) The Assessee
2) The Department.
3) CIT (A.) concerned.
4) CIT concerned.
5) D.R., ITAT, Ahmedabad.
True Copy
By Order
Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad.
Laha/Sr.P.S.