Shri Dilip Jani, Ahmedabad v. The DY.CIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 1389/AHD/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 138920514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAQPJ7805E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1389/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Shri Dilip Jani, Ahmedabad
Respondent The DY.CIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 09-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-03-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 05-04-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2010 DRAFTED ON: 22/ 03/2010 1. ITA NO.1389/AHD/2007; A.Y. 2004-05 2. ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007; A.Y. 2004-05 1. SHRI DILIP JANI 14/159 NETAJINAGAR NR. AMBAJI TEMPLE MEGHANINAGAR AHMEDABAD 2. THE DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) AHMEDABAD VS. 1. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) AHMEDABAD 2. SHRI DILIP A.JANI 14/159 NETAJINAGAR AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAQPJ 7805 E (APPELLANTS) .. (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI GAURAV NAHTA A.R. REVENUE BY: SHRI JAGDEO CIT-DR O R D E R PER SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2007 OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS)-III AHMEDABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.2 79 332/- TO RS.60 770/- AS SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO INCOME ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 2 - EARNED DUE TO INABILITY OF ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE P&L A/C. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.99 950/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THAT THE ENTRIES MADE ON PAGE NO.45 OF ANNEXURE A-1 SEIZED F ORM RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE DID NOT INDICATE ANYWAY THAT THE JEWELL ERY WAS PURCHASED AGAINST SALE OF OLD JEWELLERY AND NO EVID ENCE OR WHATSOEVER NATURE WAS FURNISHED TO SO THE SALE OF OLD JEWELLERY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 22 600/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BULLION (TWO GOLD BARS) W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NEVER PROVE HI S CLAIM THAT SUCH BULLION WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF INHERITANCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. SHRI GAURAV NAHTA APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT TAX EFFECT IN THI S REVENUES APPEAL IS RS.1 32 334/- I.E. LESS THAN RS.2 LACS. HE ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS WORKING OF TAX AS UNDER:- SL.NO(S) PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY 99 950/- 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY 1 22 600/- 3. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES 2 18 562/- TOTAL ADDITION 4 41 112/- TAX @ 30% R1 32 334/- ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 3 - 4. A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO THE MAINT AINABILITY OF THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR RESTRICTING FILING OF APPEAL(S) BY THE REVENUE THE LEARNED DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME AND STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BELOW THE TAX LIMIT PRESCRIBED THE CBDT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEND S THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT RESTRICTING TH E FILING OF APPEAL(S) BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS HIGH COURTS AND SUP REME COURT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 5. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES CONSIDE RING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CBDT CIRCULARS ON THIS ISSUE WE FIND THAT ITAT IS TAKING CONSISTENT VIEW IN NUMBER OF CASES A BOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL(S) FILED BY THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF VARIOUS I NSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME VIZ. INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DA TED 27-3-2000 NO.1985 DATED 29-6-2000 NO.6 OF 2003 DATED 17-07-2 003 NO.19 OF 2003 DATED 23-12-2003 NO.5/2004 DATED 27-5-2004 N O.2/2005 DATED 24-10-2005 AND NO.5/2007 DATED 16-7-2007 AND LAST LY INSTRUCTION NO.F.NO.279/MISC.142/2007-IT DATED 15-5-2008 WHERE IN MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL(S) (INCOME-TA X MATTERS) AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPEALS BEFOR E APPELLATE TRIBUNALS HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. DECISION OF CO-ORDI NATING BENCH OF ITAT RAJKOT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJOO ENGINE ERS LTD.[2006] 100 ITD 555 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS DISMISSED TH E REVENUES APPEAL BY HOLDING AS UNDER (HEAD NOTES):- IT IS TRUE THAT THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX V. PITHWA ENGG. WORKS [2005] 276 ITR 51 9 WAS NOT ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 4 - DEALING WITH THE NEW LIMIT OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24 -10-2005. IT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE EARLIER CIRCULAR WHERE REFERE NCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED TO THE HIGH COURT IF THE TAX E FFECT WAS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE WAS THAT RS.2 LAKHS LIMIT WAS INCREASED BY CIRCULAR DATED 27 -3-2000 AND PRIOR TO THAT THE LIMIT WAS ONLY RS.50 000/- AND T HE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE NEW LIMIT WOULD NOT BE APP LICABLE TO THE OLD REFERENCES. THE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE SAID C ONTENTION OF THE REVENUE [PARAGRAPH 4]. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THOUGH THE SAID HIGH COURT DECISION DID NOT DEAL WITH THE CIRCULAR DATED 24-10-2005 BUT IT HAD DEALT WITH THE EARLIER CIRCULAR AND THE LIMITS OF THAT CIRCULA R WERE APPLIED EVEN TO THE CASES WHICH WERE PRIOR TO THE OLD CIRCU LAR. THEREFORE THE RATIO OF THAT DECISION WAS APPLICABLE IN THE IN STANT CASE AS WELL. THE CBDT HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE AP PEALS IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES AND THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE RE VENUE EVEN TO APPEALS FILED BEFORE 31-10-2005 AND THE DEPTT.. WOU LD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THOSE APPEALS WITHIN T HE MONETARY LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT PRESCRIBED IN THE CIRCULAR DATE D 24-10-2005 [PARAGRAPH 5]. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION 3 HAD ALSO NO FORCE INASMU CH AS THE SAID EXCEPTION PROVIDES THAT THE CBDT HAS ALSO DECIDED T HAT IN CASES INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF IMPORTANCE AS WELL AS IN CASES WHERE THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW WILL REPEATEDL Y ARISE EITHER IN THE CASE CONCERNED OR IN SIMILAR CASES SHOULD B E SEPARATELY CONSIDERED ON MERITS WITHOUT BEING HINDERED BY THE MONETARY LIMITS [PARAGRAPH 6]. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG VARIOUS ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE INCLUDING THE DECISION CITED ABOVE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE . ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 5 - 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEE APPEAL ITA NO.1389/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 200 4-05 8. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS-III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24/01/200 7 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES RS.60 770/- AND NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTI ON THAT RS.9 76 597/- OUT OF THE CASH SEIZED PERTAINED TO R OYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCT P.LTD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN HOLDING THAT RS.9 76 597/- BEING PART OF CASH SEIZED PERT AINED TO THE APPELLANT AND NOT TO THE COMPANY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES RS.60 770/- OUT OF EXP ENSES CLAIMED. 9. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN GR OUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT OFFERED THE ENTIRE CASH SEIZED SURRENDERED AS HIS INCOME OF TH E CURRENT YEAR FROM BUSINESS OF DALALI FOR PURCHASE-SALE OF LAND/H OUSE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ON 17/11/2003 (REPLY TO QUESTION NO.11). HOWEVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.9 76 597/- PERTAINING TO M/S.ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT .LTD. THE ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 6 - ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE POST SEAR CH INQUIRY ASSESSEE HAD OWNED UP THE WHOLE CASH AND HAD NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE PART OF CASH SEIZED PERTAINS TO AFORESAID COMPA NY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE AUDIT REPO RT U/S.44AB OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FILED ON 31/10/2004 THE ENTIRE CASH OF RS.1 19 45 750/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS NET INCOME FROM SALE OF DISPUTED LAND. IT IS ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 23/12/2004 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CAS H SEIZED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.9 76 597/- PERTAINS TO ROYAL MARWAR TOBA CCO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SUCH CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS MERELY AN AFTER-THOUGHT. HOWEVER THE CASH SEIZED OF RS.3 LACS FROM ANOTHER PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17/10/2003 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PERTAINING TO R OAYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. BECAUSE SUCH CLAIM WAS MA DE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING POST SEARCH INQUIRY. ON THIS BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE CASH SE IZED OF RS.1 19 45 750/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 10. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT BENEFIT OF CASH TO THE T UNE OF RS.9 76 597/- BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO ROY AL MARWAR ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 7 - TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM FOR THE DETAIL ED REASON GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO.11 AT PAGE NO.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH READS AS UNDER:- 11. REGARDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING TH E ADOPTION OF INCOME AT RS.1 19 45 750/- IT IS SEEN T HAT THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 17/10/2003 IN REPLY TO Q.NO.LL HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 19 45 750/- EARNED BY HIM FROM BUSINESS OF DAL ALI FOR PURCHASE-SALE OF LAND/HOUSE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIA L YEAR WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY HIM AND THEREFORE H E AGREED TO PAY THE TAX PAYABLE ON THIS AMOUNT. MOREOVER NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.9 76 5 97/- AS PERTAINING TO M/S. ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PV T. LTD. WAS FURNISHED. THE A.O. HAS APPARENTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM THAT THE CASH OF RS.3 LAKHS SEIZED AT THE RESIDENCE I.E. 14/159 NETAJINAGAR PERTAINED TO THE APPELLANT'S COMPANY M/S. ROYAL MARSVAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND HAS NOT MADE ADDITION IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THUS CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE CASH OF RS.1.19 CRORE WA S FOUND AND SEIZED AND ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS HIS OWN IN HIS STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) DTD 17/10/2003 AND THE DISCL OSURE SO MADE IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 8 - THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.19 CRORE AS OF THE APPELLANT ONLY WAS JUSTIFIED. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT RS.9 76 597/- PERTAINED JO HIS COMPA NY THEREFORE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE RELATED GROUND O F APPEAL THEREFORE FAILS. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BE LOW ON DOUBT AND SUSPICION REFUSED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF CASH OF RS.9 76 597/- WHICH PERTAINED TO M/S.ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCT S PVT.LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THI S AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION BECAUSE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M/S.ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PROUDCTS PVT.LTD. HAS SHOWN THAT CASH OF RS .9 76 597/- WHICH WAS SEIZED FROM ASSESSEE BELONGED TO THEM. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT ASSESSI NG OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF CASH TO THE TUNE O F RS.1 09 69 153/- (I.E. RS.1 19 45 750 RS.9 76 597). 13. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN POS T SEARCH INQUIRY ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 9 - NO SUCH PLEA WAS RAISED. THE ONLY PLEA TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.3 LACS WAS RAISED AND THIS WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BE UPHELD. 14. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT T O NOTE THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 17/10/2003 IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.1 1 ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY COERCION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE VOLUNTAR ILY ASSERTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 19 45 750/- EARNED BY HIM FROM B USINESS OF DALALI FOR PURCHASE-SALE OF LAND/HOUSE IN THE CUR RENT FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY HIM. IN THE SAID S TATEMENT ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED TO PAY THE TAX PAYABLE ON THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1 19 45 750/-. THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED AFTER THE SEARCH BUT NO SUCH CLAIM THAT OUT OF AF ORESAID AMOUNT RS.9 76 597/- BELONGED TO M/S.ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. THEREFORE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT CLAIM M ADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT RS.9 76 597/- BELONGED TO M/S.ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER-T HOUGHT. THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S. 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ON 17/10/2003 WAS NOT RETRACTED TILL THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED ON 23/12/2007. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITA NOS.1389/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) & ITA NO.1525/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) DCIT VS. DILIP JANI ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 10 - LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRE CT IN HOLDING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. GROUND NO.3 DID NOT PRESS BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS REJECTED AS SUCH. 16. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.1389/AHD/2007 IS DISMISSED. 14. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/04/2010. SD/- SD/- ( N.S. SAINI ) ( T.K.SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/ 04 /2010 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD