Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Gujarat Dairy Dev. Corpn. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 12 September, 2011
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ûयायपीठ 'ए
ए ' अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
" A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
सव[ौी ौी जी.डȣ.अमवाल, माननीय उपाÚय¢ एवं ौी मुकुल कुमार ौावत, Ûयाियक सदःय के सम¢ ।
BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND
SHRI MUKUL Kr.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1193/Ahd/2009
( िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2005-06)
Gujarat Dairy बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer
Development Corpn.Ltd. Vs. Ward-2
Sector-16 Gandhinagar
Gandhinagar
ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AABCG 4321 Q
(अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.G. Patel, A.R.
ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ravindra Kumar,
CIT-D.R.
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 12/09/2011
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2011
आदे श / O R D E R
PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal arising from the order of CIT-Gandhinagar passed u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 17/02/2009. The appellant has challenged the order of the ld.CIT on the following grounds:-
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar has erred in law and on facts of the case by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and accordingly has cancelled assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and set aside after holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with regard to the following issues:ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009
Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -2-
(a) Income from other sources of Rs.10,16,010/- wrongly set off against unabsorbed depreciation by the Assessing Officer.
(b) Surplus on transfer of assets to NDDB and remission of liabilities requires to be taxed.
(c) Book profit u/s.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claimed as exempt under the provisions of SICA, 1985, requires to be examined.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar has erred in law in holding that the income from other sources of Rs.10,16,010/- cannot be set off against unabsorbed depreciation.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar has erred in law and on facts of the case by holding that the surplus on transfer of assets to NDDB and remission of liabilities is taxable in spite of the fact that BIFR order dated 14/01/2003 has been passed in case of the Appellant, exempting capital gain and profit u/s.41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar has erred in law in holding that tax on book profit u/s.115JB is leviable though profits of sick industrial company are to be reduced from book profit of the company as per the provision of Explanation (vii) of Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Your Appellant, therefore, prays to cancel the order passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Your Appellant prays to reserve the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.
2. The ld.CIT has raised three issues vide a notice dated 08/12/2008, relevant portions extracted below:-
(a) The First objection of ld.CIT is in respect of set off of interest taxed under the head "Income from other ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -3- sources" against the unabsorbed depreciation which was questioned by the ld.CIT as follows:-
"3..... During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of the profit and loss account, it is seen that the assessee has earned interest of Rs.10,16,010/- which is not business activity of the assessee and hence is liable to be taxed under the head 'Income from Other Source' in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lahore Electric Supply Co. [1996 (601 ITR SC)].
4. The assessee by the A.O. was, therefore, show caused as to why the said income should not be taxed under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. The assessee had consented to the addition but has requested that the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years 1998-99 to 2005-06 amounted to Rs.3.28 crores may be adjusted against the same. The A.O. had thus made the proposed addition under the head "Other Income" and had also given set off for the unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The final income assessed was thus "NIL".
It appears that the A.O. could not understand the nuances of the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the Company. The "other income" was already accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and adjusted against the brought forward business loss in the statement of total income accompanying the return of income. As such, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudiced to the interest of Revenue."
(b) The second objection was in respect of transfer of assets to NDDB and sale consideration was treated as capital reserve as follows:-
"5. Scrutiny of the assessment record reveals that the assessee was declared sick by the order of the BIFR dated 29.10.1994. The BIFR has passed a final order on 14.01.2003 setting out to transfer ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -4- part of its assets to NDDB against their dues from the assessee as per the terms determined in the said order. The assessee is still having the ownership of surplus land of the Dairy at Jamnagar measuring 20405 sq.mt and Ahmedabad Dairy along with the plant and machinery land measuring 37,729 sq.mt (equivalent to 45107 sq.yd).
In compliance to the BIFR's order, the assets were transferred to NDDB on 01.03.2005. The sale consideration in excess of the liability of the assessee receivable from the NDDB was treated by the assessee as capital reserve written back to the profit and loss account amounting to Rs.12.23 crores. Further, an amount of Rs.15.86 crores was also credited to the profit and loss account as remission of liability of NDDB account. The assessee has shown a net profit of Rs.26,38,48,170 in the profit and loss account before deducting Voluntary Retirement Scheme expenses. From the above amount, the assessee had reduced Rs.12.23 crores as capital reserve written back and after making some other deductions there was a positive income of Rs.14,15,00,443 which was set off against the business losses of the A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2003-2004."
(c) The third objection was claiming exemption on the ground of Sick Industrial Company while applying the provisions of section 115JB of the Act as follows:-
"7. The assessee was having book profit during the year as per Companies Act, 1956 under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 at Rs.26,19,75,975/- which was claimed as exempt under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985.
The order of the BIFR lays down the Reliefs and concessions, Rights and Obligations in para 6 thereof. As per para 6.1(g) it has been laid down that the Government of Gujarat shall exempt the assessee, as a one time measure, from applicability of sales tax liability on sale of assets by the assessee in respect of all the assets identified for sale in the scheme. Regarding the Central Government dues, para 6.7 lays down as under:ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009
Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -5-
(i) To consider exempting the company from, taxation liability, if any, under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act,
(ii) To consider exempting the company from Capital Gains Tax Liability, if any, arising from proposed sale / transfer of assets.
(iii) To consider permitting free and unhindered sale of assets by GDDCL/GOG as envisaged in thescheme so as to ensure successful implementation of the scheme.
(iv) To consider not insisting on TDS and/demand advance tax whatsoever on the assets sale."
It is further seen that the assessee has been getting various grants against machineries and also in kind in the past. The assessee has been availing of depreciation on all its assets without deduction of the grant / subsidy as per the Income-tax Act. The Auditor's Report, Note No.(iii) of Schedule XV reads as under:
"Note A-7 : Regarding treatment of grants as against As-12 (Accounting for government grants) issued by ICAI wherein it is provided that amount of grant equal to depreciation of Assets purchased by these grants, should be credited to profit and loss account by debiting capital reserve. But in absence of details of such assets and depreciation, the said entry could not be passed. This has effect of overstating capital reserve and losses".
8....
9. In view of the above reasons, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. You are, therefore, hereby given on opportunity to show cause as to why the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (supra) should not be cancelled u/s.263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and directed to make fresh assessment as per the law. Your explanation in the matter should reach the undersigned within 7 days of the receipt of this notice."
3. Finally, it was held by ld.Commissioner that the order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2005-06 dated 03/09/2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The said order ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -6- of the AO was cancelled with a direction to make a fresh assessment after verifying the facts of the case.
4. In respect of the first objection, while passing the order u/s.263, ld. Commissioner have commented that on perusal of the profit and loss account, it was found that the interest income of Rs.10,16,010/- was shown under the head "other income" which had already been accounted for and adjusted against the brought forward business loss in the statement of income. In respect of the second issue, ld. Commissioner has noted that the business of the assessee was closed since long. The assessee has not shown the brought forward losses in the statement of income while filing the return of income for AYs 1998-99 to 2202-03. Ld. Commissioner has commented that since the assessee was not carrying on the business, therefore, there was no question of allowing the depreciation of earlier years.
4.1. In respect of the provisions of section 115JB, ld. Commissioner has noted that the book profit amounting to Rs.26,19,75,975/- was claimed as exempt on the ground that the provisions of "Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985" would apply. Ld. Commissioner has discussed certain rights and obligations as prescribed under the said Act and also verified that the assessee was obtaining certain grants against machineries in the past but availing the depreciation on those assets without deducting the subsidy/grant. Ld. Commissioner has also noted an another objection that the assessee had deducted Rs.12.23 crores as capital reserve from the Gross Profit of Rs.26.38 crores. In his opinion, ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -7- the capital reserve should have reduced the WDV of the assets transferred by the Company. He was of the view that the difference between the WDV and the actual cost which were stated to be transferred to NDDB would have resulted into capital gain. There was an objection in respect of liability for capital gain. From the order of BIFR it was not clear to ld. Commissioner that whether the assessee had specifically applied for its exemption from the Board. That aspect was not probed by the AO. The assessee had deducted Rs.12.23 crores from the GP of Rs.26.38 crores. Since the issue was not taken up by the AO, therefore, he has held that due to lack of enquiry, the total income was not correctly assessed by the AO.
5. Lastly, he has objected that the company had wrongly claimed exemption u/s.115JB of the book profit of Rs.26,19,75,975/-. In the result, the order of the AO was cancelled with a direction to make a fresh assessment after correctly verifying the facts of the case. The appellant has challenged of the said order of the ld.Commissioner.
6. From the side of the appellant, ld.AR Mr.M.G.Patel appeared and from the side of the Revenue ld.DR Mr.Ravindra Kumar CIT appeared. Ld.AR has informed that while passing the order u/s.143(3), the AO has issued a show-cause notice dated 09/08/2007 and asked as to why the interest income of Rs.10,16,010/- should not be taxed under the head income "from other sources". On verification of the accounts of the assessee, it was noted by the AO that it was evident that the interest income was taxable u/s.56 of the I.T. Act, and not as business income ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -8- u/s.28 of the I.T. Act. The AO has, therefore, held that the said interest income was to be added to the total income of the assessee, under the head "other sources". To that extent the unabsorbed depreciation was granted and total income at Rs.NIL was assessed. Ld.AR has further mentioned that the AO had properly applied his mind and decided the issue after considering the legal as well as the factual aspect of the case. The AO has discussed a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Bank Ltd. 152 ITR 557 (Mad), wherein the assessee has claimed unabsorbed carried forward loss of the previous years to be set off against the interest income. According to AO, in that case, the Hon'ble Court had held that because the assessee was not carrying on the business during that years of claim, therefore, not entitled for such set off. However, assessee was entitled for the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and in this connection the AO has placed reliance on Deepa Textile 168 ITR 773 (Guj).
6.1. In respect of surplus on transfer of assets to National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), ld.AR has mentioned that the said amount of surplus of Rs.15.86 crores was set off against the business loss for AYs 1997-98 to 2003-04. According to ld.AR, BIFR vide an order dated 14/01/2003 has directed the Central Government to exempt the assessee-company from the followings:
"i) To consider exempting the company from taxation liability, if any, u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ii) To consider exempting the company from Capital Gains Tax Liability, if any, arising from proposed sale/transfer of assets.ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009
Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06 -9-
iii) To consider permitting free and unhindered sale of assets by GDDC/GOG as envisaged in the scheme so as to ensure successful implementation of the scheme.
iv) To consider not insisting on TDS and/demand advance tax whatsoever on the assets sale."
Accordingly, capital gain on transfer of assets to NDDB was claimed as exempt under IT Act. He has argued that the said order of the BIFR dated 14/01/2003 had overriding effect over the provisions of the IT Act, therefore, the same were applied by the assessee.
6.2. About the book profit u/s.115JB, ld. AR has stated that vide Explanation-(vii) of section 115JB(2) a Sick Industrial Company is entitled for relief and profits of such a sick unit is to be reduced from the book profit. There was no liability to tax the book profit u/s.115JB. On legal aspect, ld. A.R has argued that the AO has examined all the necessary details and thereafter framed the assessment order. Since the AO has passed the order after due application of mind, therefore, the said order was not an erroneous order. For this legal proposition, he has placed reliance on CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502(Guj), CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) and CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj).
7. From the side of the Revenue, Ld. CIT(DR) Mr. Ravindra Kumar has supported the order of the AO. His first objection was that in respect of gain earned by the assessee on transfer of assets to NDDB was not at all enquired upon by the AO. Likewise AO has not applied his mind in respect of the applicability of the provisions of Section 115JB on a sick industrial unit. Since there is no enquiry at all made by the AO, therefore, that assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 10 -
Revenue. For this legal proposition ld.DR Mr.Ravindra Kumar has placed reliance on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd 291 ITR 500(SC). Ld.DR has also placed reliance on paragraph No.11 of the order in question reproduced below for ready reference:-
"11. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, reasons given, a fortiori, it becomes evident and palpably manifest that the assessment order dated 3-9-2007 (supra) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the said order is hereby cancelled with a direction to make a fresh assessment by correctly verifying the facts of this case by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee."
He has thus argued that no prejudice had caused to the assessee by the said directions of ld. Commissioner because he has not given any final finding, but simply directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment after verifying the facts of the case. As far as the claim of unabsorbed depreciation, ld.DR has also pointed out that the business was not carried out during the intervening period, hence, returns were not filed in time, therefore, there was no question of carried forward losses for the subsequent years. He has also pointed out that the question of subsidy which was received by the assessee has not been considered by the AO.
7. We have heard both the sides and perused the order of the ld.CIT. We shall taken up all the three issues one by one as follows:
a) As far as the issue of claim of depreciation is concerned, it is evident from the order of the AO that indeed an enquiry was made. After due application of mind as also the provisions of the Act, AO has arrived at the conclusion that the interest ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 11 -
income though taxed u/s.56 and to be assessed under the head "other sources", but entitled for set off of unabsorbed depreciation to that extent only. We have been informed that a letter dated 09/08/2007 was issued by the AO and through that letter it was enquired as under:-
"2. It is seen that no business activity is carried out by you, hence you have not shown your income from business as Nil during the year. However, on verification of the details submitted by you, it is seen that you have earned interest income of Rs.10,16,010/- which is reflected as income in the return of income. Since the income has arisen from deposits of surplus fund in fixed deposits in banks, the same is taxable u/s.56 of the IT Act as income from other sources."
b) In compliance, the assessee has submitted before AO vide a letter dated 10/08/2007 that there was unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.3,28,75,495/- from the AYs 1998-99 to 2005-06. Through that letter, it was requested to grant benefit of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and assess the income at Rs.NIL. As far as the legal aspect of this question is concerned, the decision cited before the ld.Commissioner were as follows:-
i) ITO vs. Selchem Engineers (P) ltd. [272 ITR 10(Del)]
ii) ACIT vs. Poddar projects ltd. [275 ITR 1 (Kol)]
iii) CIT vs. Jaipuria China Mines (P) Ltd. [59 ITR 555 (SC)]
iv) CIT vs. Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. [168 ITR 773(Guj)]
v) CIT vs. Virmani Industries P.Ltd. [216 ITR 607 (SC)] ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 12 -
The decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, pronounced in the case of Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. 168 ITR 773(Guj) says that the unabsorbed depreciation is to be allowed to be carried forward and set off against assessable income of a subsequent year notwithstanding the fact that the business in respect of which it arose ceased to exist in the year of such set off. The Hon'ble Court has also said that the receipt of income during the relevant previous year is not a sine-qua-non for the deduction of allowances like depreciation. Upto this extent, once the AO had made requisite enquiry and on investigation he was of the view that the set off of depreciation against the interest income was legally sustainable following Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision of Deepak Textile Industries Ltd.(supra), therefore, we can hold that no prejudice was caused to the Revenue and upto that extent the order of the AO cannot be termed as an erroneous order.
7.1. Now the question of about rest of the two objections as raised by the ld.Commisisioner are concerned , those were in respect of surplus on transfer of assets to NDDB and the taxability of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. At the outset, it is to be placed on record that the admitted factual position was that the AO had not made any enquiry in respect of these two issues. It has not been demonstrated before us that the AO had either issued a show cause notice to enquire these two aspects or from the side of the assessee any clarification/explanation was ever tendered before the AO for his consideration. So, it is apparent that the AO as well as the assessee both were silent on these two issues. The omission of enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings were ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 13 -
held by the Courts as causing prejudice to the Revenue. There are large number of decisions wherein it was held that an AO is expected to complete the assessment after proper enquiry and thorough investigation. If under the circumstances, as in the present case, an assessment was completed without ascertaining certain legal as well as factual aspect, then such an order of the AO was termed as an erroneous order. Reasons assigned for holding so were that the relevant material facts were not before the AO hence neither there was an enquiry nor there was application of mind and due to this reason there was no question of difference of opinion. Applying this basic principle on the present facts of the case, we hereby hold that the ld. Commissioner was legally correct in directing the AO to investigate and decide accordingly as per law.
7.2. ld.AR has cited R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (supra), but the facts of that precedent were that the necessary informations were furnished to the AO and on the basis of those evidences the AO had taken a particular view. However, this is not the fact in the present appeal because it has not been demonstrated before us that in respect of these two issues all the necessary details were furnished to the AO. Ld.AR has also cited Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (Bom)[supra] but the facts of that case were that the AO had arrived at certain finding after a specific enquiry and those findings were treated by the ld.Commissioner as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Once the AO had made an enquiry and a response came from the assessee and thereafter a view was adopted by the AO then the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that there was no justification for invocation of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act. As against ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 14 -
that, in the present case, an enquiry was lacking and requisite information was not called for therefore ld.Commisisoner has power to invoke the provisions of section 263 of I.T. Act. Ld.AR has also cited CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj), but the facts were that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered an explanation in pursuant to certain notices and after considering the material as also the explanation the Hon'ble Court had found that the ITO had come to a definite conclusion. After considering those facts, it was held by the Court that mere fact that a different view was taken, then that should not be the basis for an action u/s.263 of I.T. Act.
7.3. Ld.AR has also cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Indian Shaving Products Ltd. vs. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction 218 ITR 140 (SC) for a legal proposition that u/s.72 an amalgamated company can avail the benefit of the loss, or as the case may be, the allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected is admissible. The Hon'ble Court has said that the scheme of amalgamation in respect of a sick unit was to be sanctioned by BIFR. But the Hon'ble Court has also held that BIFR cannot sanction scheme of amalgamation without declaring that carried forward is allowable and therefore directed to make a declaration in this regard. If we correctly follow the intent of this decision, then also it is required to examine the directions of BIFR that whether any recommendation was made for the proposed benefits. Ld.AR has also cited CIT vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. 331 ITR 303(Cal.) and in that case as well it was held that the BIFR acts on behalf of the Central Government and when the ITA No.1193/Ahd/2009 Gujarat Dairy Development Corpn.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2005-06
- 15 -
BIFR is satisfied that all the conditions are fulfilled for giving consent for taking rehabilitation measures by way of amalgamation, then in view of the provisions of 1985 Act which is a special one, the Income Tax Authority cannot have any jurisdiction to render the operation of the scheme a nugatory.
7.4. In view of these circumstances and considering the legal aspects of the precedents as discussed in detail hereinabove, we are of the view that the order of the ld.Commisisoner passed u/s.263 deserves to be partly upheld . In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
8. As a result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30/ 09 /2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT )
VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 30 / 09 /2011
टȣ.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant
2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-Concerned
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad