The ITO,Vapi Ward-4,, Nani Daman v. M/s. Jalaram Plast Pack, Nani Daman

ITA 2023/AHD/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 202320514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAWFS7379E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2023/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant The ITO,Vapi Ward-4,, Nani Daman
Respondent M/s. Jalaram Plast Pack, Nani Daman
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 24-04-2015
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA K UMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 202 0 /AHD/20 1 1 (ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 0 9 ) A SSTT. C OMMISSIONER OF I NCOME - TAX VAPI CIRCLE VAPI APPELLANT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS S. NO. 372/8/8 HINGRAJ INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DABHEL DAMAN RESPONDENT PAN: AA WFS7379E & ITA. NO. 2023 /AHD/201 1 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 0 9 ) INCOME - TAX OFFICER VAPI - WARD - 4 DAMAN APPELLANT VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK SURVEY NO.200/4 GALA NO.1 PANCHAL UDHYOG NAGAR BHIMPORE NANI DAMAN RESPONDENT I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 2 PAN: AAEFJ3685L / BY REVENUE : SMT. SONIA KUMAR SR.D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 . 0 4 .2015 / D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 0 4 .201 5 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV J.M: THESE TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S FILED BY REVENU E ARE ARISING OUT FORM THE ORDER S OF CIT(A) VALSAD DATED 3 0 . 0 6 .201 1 IN CASE OF M/S. SANTOSHI POLYM ERS AND DATED 24.06.2011 IN CASE OF M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 0 9 IN BOTH CASES . BECAUSE OF SIMILAR ISSUE THEY ARE BEING HEARD ON SAME DATE AND BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN I TA NO. 2020 /AHD/20 1 1 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 0 9 IN CASE OF M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 80IB BENEFIT S ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTORY LICENSE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED BY THE FIRM. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ADDITION OF SCRAP SALES OF RS.43 79 701/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 3 3. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ALL TYPES OF PLAIN AND PRINTED PLASTIC TUBING SHEETS LAMINATIONS AND POUCHES. THE MANUFACTURING UNIT IS LOCATED IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN WHICH IS A BACKWARD AREA AS SPECIFIED IN THE V III TH SCHEDULED TO THE I. T. ACT. THE MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY WAS STARTED FROM THE F. Y. 2003 - 04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004 - 05 . THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE 5 TH YEAR OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80 I B OF THE ACT @ 100% OF MANUFACTURING PROFITS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKI NGS. ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18. 09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL WHEREIN AM AMOUNT OF RS. 1 02 99 165 / - WA S CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO TH E INCOME RETURNED. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE FAC TORY LICENSE WAS NOT OBTAINED BY TH E FIRM AND SHORTAGE OF RAW MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS.L 02 99 1 65/ - AND RS. 17 16 289/ - AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 0 2 15 450 / - . 3.1 . MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS C ONT ENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 4 ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS TO DISALLOW ANCE OF 8 0 IB BENEFITS . WE FIND THAT D URING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WA S NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION I.E. 31.03.2004. AS PER SECTION 6 OF THE FACTORY ACT FACTORY CANNOT START WORK OF MANUFACTURE WITHOUT OBTAINING LICENSE. A SSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS START ED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2004 . A SSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. SAMARTH HEALTH CARE DAMAN IN ITA NO.10 0 6/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 . IN THIS REGARD REVENUE STATED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT U/S . 260A OF THE ACT WHICH WA S SUBJUDICE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80I B ON THE GROUND OF FACTORY LICEN SE NOT OBTAINED IN THE F.Y. 2003 - 04 AND CONCLUDED THAT THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY STARTED AS ON 13.02.2004 WAS NOT THERE. WE FIND THAT IN CASE OF SAMARTH HEALTH CARE (SUPRA) WHERE IN TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 80 - IB EVEN WHEN ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE. MOREOVER CI T(A) HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUC TION U/S.80IB(10) FOR A.YS. 2004 - 05 200 6 - 0 7 AND 2007 - 08 ON SAME ISSUE. IN THIS BACKGROUND CIT(A) RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT FACTORY LICENSE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY ITAT AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF M/S. SAMARTH HEALTH CARE (SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT TO OBTAIN FACTO RY L ICENSE CONDITION WAS NOT PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 5 THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE . WE ALSO FIND THAT ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN CASE OF BALAJI POLYMERS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2 623/AHD/2009 HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I B OF THE ACT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSTT.YEAR 2007 - 08 DATED 22.7.2011 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED FACTORY LICENSE SUBSEQUENTLY AND HAS COMMENCED ITS ACTIV ITIES WITHIN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004 - 05 THOUGH NOT SIGNIFICANTLY. THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN ITO VS. JOLLY POLYMERS IN ITA NO.2763/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007 - 08 DATED 18.3.2011 WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MUMBAI IN ITO VS. JOLLY POLYMERS DATED 18.3.2011 (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JOLLY POLYMERS VIDE ORDER DATED 21.2.2013 (SUPRA). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN SILVASSA WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE ITAT AHMEDABAD AND ACCORDINGLY WE DECIDE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. THUS IN CASE OF JOLLY POLYMERS (SUPRA) TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN M/S. SAMARTH HEALTH CARE (SUPRA) WHICH WAS REVERSED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT . M EANWH ILE JURISDICTION - WISE APPEAL OF JOLLY POLYMERS (SUPRA) WAS CARRIED TO JURISDICTION AL BOMBAY HIGH COURT. I T SHOWS THAT APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SILVASSA LIES WITH BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHEREIN I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 6 SIMILAR ISSUE IN JOLLY POLYMERS (SUPRA ) WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN JOLLY POLYMERS (SUPRA) ISSUE WA S DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FACTORY LICENSE EVEN THOUGH OBTAINED SUBSEQUENTLY WILL ENTITLE THE A SSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN ITA NO.2764/AHD/2010 IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2011. IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) E VEN THOUGH AT INITIAL POINT FACTOR Y LICENSE WAS NOT WITH ASSESSEE. A CCORDINGLY ORDER OF CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE IS UPHELD. 4. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ADDITION OF SCRAP SALES OF RS. 43 79 7 01 / - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT INCOME FROM SALE OF SCRAP WA S NOT DERI VED FROM THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SO HE DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT ON THIS I SSUE. IN FIRST APPEAL STAND OF ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN THAT SCRAP W AS GENERATED FROM T HE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF INDUSTRIAL UNITS. ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DC1T VS. HARJIVANDAS JHU THABH AI ZAVERI & ANR. 2 50 ITR 785 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SC RAP CANNOT BE SEEN IN ISOLATION FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AS WITHOUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY THERE WOULD ALSO B E NO SCRAP GENERATED. THEREFORE I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 7 SUCH SCRAP GENERATED C AN BE SAID TO BE EMAN ATING FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE AND IN THAT SENSE HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN THIS BACKGROUND CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SCRAP SALE IS AN INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS DECIDED IN CASE OF HARJIVAND AS JHUTHABHAI ZAVE RI AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE INCOME FROM SCRAP SALE FOR COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. 4.1 BEFORE US LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE ALLOWABILITY OF INCLU SION OF INCOME FROM SCRAP SALE FOR COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. SO ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. IN THIS REGARD LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT ITAT AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN ITA NO.2764/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. THE GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67 585/ - MA DE ON SCRAP SALES INCOME. ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED SCRAP SALES INCOME OF RS.67 585/ - AND THIS INCOME WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 801B OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO HOW DEDUCTION CLAIM ON SCRAP SALE IS ALLOWABLE U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND THEREFORE THIS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY AO AND THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SELL OF SCRAP AMOUNTING TO RS S.67 585/ - WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 8 THE ACT. IN APPEAL LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - '8.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE SCRAP IS GENERATED DURING THE COURSE OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT AND THE INCOME IS CONSIDERED TO BE INCOME 'DERIVED' FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING AS DECIDED BY THE HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARJIVANDAS JHUTHABHAI ZAVERI AND ANOTHER 258 ITR 785 AND THUS SCRAP SALE OF RS.67 575 / - IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB. THUS I ACCEPT THE AR'S ARGUMENT AND DIRECT AO TO TAX SCRAP SALES UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFIT OR GAIN FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' AND THEREFORE THESE INCOME BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVE N RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. HARJIVANDAS JHUTHABHAI AND ANOTHER (2002) 258 ITR 785 (GUJ) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.2 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO INCLUDE INCOME FROM SCRAP SALE FOR COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT U/S.80IB OF THE ACT BECAUSE SCRAP IS GENERATED DURING COURSE OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE AND INCOME IS CONSIDERED TO BE DERIVED INCOME FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 9 HARJIVANDAS JHUTHABHAI ZAVERI AND ANOTHER (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 4.3 AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IN CASE OF M/S. SANTOSH POLYMERS IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO.2023/AHD/2011 IN CASE OF M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK WHEREIN REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT STATING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE IT STARTED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS E RRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE POINT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS STARTED ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2004 AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN ITA NO.2020/AHD/2011 VIDE PAR A 3.2. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S.80IB ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING FACTORY LICENSE BEFORE STARTED MANUFACTURING WITHOUT MERIT. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UPHELD. I.T .A. NO S. 2020 /A/ 1 1(ACIT VS. M/S. SANTOSHI POLYMERS) & 2023/A/11 (ITO VS. M/S. JALARAM PLAST PACK) FOR A .Y.08 - 0 9 PAGE 10 7 . AS A RESULT BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 24 /0 4 /2015 S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / /