The ITO, Ward-9(2),, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Kushal Developers, Ahmedabad

ITA 2233/AHD/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 223320514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AANFM0580C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2233/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-9(2),, Ahmedabad
Respondent M/s. Kushal Developers, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 17-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 17-09-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 05-10-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER ITO WARD 9(2) AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS BINORI NARAYAN BUNGLOWS SARDAR PATEL RING ROAD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING BOPAL AHMEDABAD PAN: AANFM 0580 C (RESPONDENT) M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS BINORI NARAYAN BUNGLOWS SARDAR PATEL RING ROAD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING BOPAL AHMEDABAD PAN: AANFM 0580 C (CROSS OBJECTOR) VS ITO WARD 9(2) AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI SUBHASH BAINS CIT-D.R . ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.H. SHAH A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-20 13 ITA NO. 2233/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 C.O. NO. 217/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO. 2233/AHD/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 2 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE REVENUES APPEAL AND CO OF ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XV AHMEDABAD DATED 04-07-2012. 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1A). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS)-XV AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.6 87 73 233/- U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT. 1B). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -XV AHMEDABAD HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE NO. 1 ON THE GROUND IN HOLDIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDU CTION U/S. 80IB(10) EVEN WHEN THE LAND WAS IN THE NAMES OF SHRI PRASHAN T VIMALBHAI & OTHERS ( THEREAFTER 'K.N. PARK MEMBERS ASSOCIATION ) WHICH ARE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THE A SSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THEM. T HE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJECT AND A BIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ITS APPROVAL RIGHT FROM THE INCEP TION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETION RESTS WITH THEM. THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY HAD GRANTED PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT TO THEM. ASSESSEE WAS J UST A CONTRACTOR OF THE LAND OWNERS CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS A ND NOT A DEVELOPER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS CONSTRUCTED A HOUSI NG PROJECT AND HAS SHOWN PROFIT OF RS. 6 87 73 233/- AS HAVING BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THIS AMOUNT U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. ON E XAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 3 I) THE LAND BEARING BLOCK NO.277 ( OLD SUR VEY NUMBER 205/1) ADMEASURING 14265 SQ MTRS WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI PRASHANT VIMALBHAI & OTHERS. II) AS PER THE APPLICATION AND PLAN FILED BY THE L AND OWNERS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCORDED THE PERMISSION FOR DEVELOP MENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO LAND OWNERS. III) THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT WITH THE LAND OWNERS AND K.N. PARK MEMBERS ASSOCIATION ON 12/12/2005. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT (I) THE ASSESSEE WA S GIVEN FREE ACCESS OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING UNITE A S PER THE PLAN. (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO ENROLL THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AS THE MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION. (III) THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO COLLECT THE CONSIDERATION FOR LAND AS WELL AS SU PER-STRUCTURE FROM THE BUYERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION. (IV) THE A SSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTI ON AND TRANSFER THE LAND COST TO THE ASSOCIATION. IN OTHER WORDS THE AS SOCIATION WAS FORMED FOR GROUP HOUSING OF THE MEMBERS AND WAS SUP POSED TO CONSTRUCT AND TRANSFER THE HOUSES TO THE MEMBERS. A CCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS THE ASSOCIATION WAS NOT EX PERIENCED IN CONSTRUCTION THE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS A CONTR ACTOR TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION AS PER THE TERMS AND THE APPROVED PLAN OF THE LANDOWNERS. IV) MOREOVER MEMBERS OF BINORI RESIDENCY HAVE PURC HASED PLOTS FROM THE SAID LAND OWNERS AND CONSTRUCTION WAS CARR IED OUT AS PER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE ASSESS EE. THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF BELOW 300 SQUARE YARDS AND HENCE THE CONDIT ION TO BE AS REGARDS AREA OF THE LAND WHICH SHOULD BE ONE ACRE L AND IS ALSO NOT FULFILLED. V) VERIFICATION OF THE LAND DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID LAND BUT THE OWNER WERE SHRI PRASHANT VIMALBHAI & OTHERS (THEREAFTER MEMBERS OF ASSOCIATI ON) WHO WERE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP THE LAND BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTIN G THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM APPEARS NEIT HER IN THE APPLICATION NOR ON THE PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE LOCA L AUTHORITY FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT. I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 4 VI) ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM IT WAS OBSERVED THAT PERMISSION/RAJACHIT TI ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SHOWS THAT THE PERMISSION FOR CONS TRUCTION WAS ISSUED NOT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT TO THE LAND OWNERS WHO HAD APPLIED FOR THE SAME. THE PERMISSION/RAJACHITTI CATEGORICALLY STATE S THAT PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS BEING GRANTED AS PER THE AP PROVED PLAN ENCLOSED WITH THE APPLICATION AND THE PERMISSION W AS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS RULES AND BYE LAWS OF GUJARAT TOWN PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT RULES AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATION ETC. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPON SE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO EARLIER SUBMISSION DATED 26.07.2011 FILED 'TAPAL' ON 28.07.2011 WITH THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(1) AHMEDABAD. ON GOING THROUGH FORM NO.10CCB ENCLOSED THEREIN PARA 23(C) ALONG WITH PLAN FILED IT IS FOUND THAT THE SIZE OF THE PLOT IS 14265 SQ. MTR. I.E. 3.525 ACRE AND AS SUCH THE QU ERY RAISED IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER IN PARS 2.1 IS NOT CORRECT. 'FROM THE COPY OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE Y EAR ENDED ON 31.03.2009 FILED ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 26.07.2011 YOU WILL BE PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRE D VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE LABOUR REGISTRATION FEES STAMP FEES ADVERTI SEMENT EXPENDITURE SALARY EXPENDITURE ETC. IN REFERENCE TO THIS PROJEC T ITSELF. 3. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WORK CONTRACTOR FOR THE LAND OWNER AND NOT A DEVELOPER AS PER THE VARIOUS T ERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE RELEVANT CONCLUSION OF T HE AFORESAID AGREEMENT MAY PLEASE BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: THAT HAS DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND AND THE SCHEME FLOATED UPON THE SAID LAND. THAT THE LAND OWNER HAS NO FINANCIAL CAPACITY NO R ANY EXPERIENCE REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEME AND AS SUC H AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING THE ASSESSES HAS ENTERED INTO THE LAN D AND MADE OUT THE SCHEME OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS (PARA 3 PAGE 11 OF THE AGREEMENT). I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPROVE ALL THE PLANS TO APPROVE REVISED PLAN TO HAVE CONSTRUCTION OF HIS OWN OR TO APPOINT ANY OTHER PERSON AND FOR THIS ENTER INTO AGREEMENT. (PARA 3 PAGE 11 OF THE AGREEMENT). THAT TO COLLECT THE BOOKING TO ISSUE RECEIPT T O GIVE POSSESSION (PARA 3 PAGE 11 OF THE AGREEMENT). IF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS NOT UNDERTAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE FIRM THEN HAS POWER TO REMOVE SUCH PERSON/EMPLOYEE WHO HAS CO NSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IF THE QUALITY OF THE SAID PROJ ECT IS NOT SUITABLE TO THE ASSESSES FIRM (PARS 3 PAGE 13 OF THE AGREEMENT ). TO COLLECT THE COST REGARDING LAND AND CONSTRUCTI ON FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND IF THE MEMBERS FAIL TO P AY SUCH AMOUNT WITHIN TIME THEN TO COLLECT INTEREST AND ONLY THERE AFTER TO GIVE POSSESSION TO THE CONCERNED MEMBER AND ALSO TO ENTE R INTO ANY DOCUMENTATIONS WITH THE MEMBERS DIRECTLY. (PARA 3 PAGE 14 OF THE AGREEMENT). THAT TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJ ECT TO HAVE ADVERTISEMENT TO PUT THE SIGN BOARD TO GET REGIST RATION AND BOOKING FROM MEMBERS TO COLLECT THE SALES CONSIDERATION T O ISSUE RECEIPT TO REMOVE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND THEREAFTER TO REP AY THE AMOUNT COLLECTED (PARA 4 PAGE 14 OF THE AGREEMENT). - TO EMPLOY CONTRACTOR SUB-CONTRACTOR LABOURERS SUPERVISOR SIGHT ENGINEERS SECURITY GUARD AND TO PAY REMUNERATION T O ALL THESE PERSONS AND IF DEEMED FIT TO REMOVE ALL THESE PERS ONS TO FINAL THE BILLS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION TO PAY ARCHITECT'S FEES EN GINEER'S FEES. (PARA 6 PAGE 15 OF THE AGREEMENT). 4. TO ENTER INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ETC. WITH M EMBERS DIRECTLY AND FOR THIS LAND OWNER HAS TO GIVE CONSENT. (PARA 10 PAGE 16 OF THE AGREEMENT). TO GIVE GUIDANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF 'BINORI RESIDE NCY' REGARDING LAND COST CONSTRUCTION COST TO GUIDE FOR THE LOAN TO PROVIDE LOAN PAPERS TO HAVE AGREEMENT WITH THE MEMBERS LIKE POS SESSION AGREEMENT DECLARATION AND TO GIVE THE POSSESSION O F THE PLOT AND POSSESSION OF UNITS TO RESPECTIVE MEMBERS. IN NO CI RCUMSTANCES THE LAND OWNER HAS TO GIVE POSSESSION OF THE UNIT DIREC TLY TO THE MEMBERS AND THIS PROCEDURE HAS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ASSES SEE FIRM ONLY (PARA 12 PAGE 16 OF THE AGREEMENT). -- IF THIS AGREEMENT IS CANCELLED/NOT VIABLE THEN T HE LAND OWNER HAS TO REPAY ALL THE EXPENSES AS WELL AS DAMAGES OF TOTAL PROJECT TO THE ASSESSES FIRM. (PARA 17 PAGE 17 OF THE AGREEMENT) I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 6 5. IT IS SAID THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN ARISEN IN SISTER CONCERN'S CASE IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHREYANSHNATH DEVELOPER HAVING PA NO.AAXFS 3932 L FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN YOUR HONOUR VIZ. SHRI R.D. MEENA HIMSELF HAS PASSED ORDER UNDE R SECTION 143(3) DATED 15.12.2011 AND C.I.T.(APPEALS) VIDE APPEAL OR DER DATED 28.10.2010 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. COPIES OF BOTH THE ORDERS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE AN D KIND PERUSAL. AFTER THE AFORESAID ASST. YEAR OF SISTER CONCERN T HE PROVISION HAS BEERS RETROSPECTIVELY AMENDED AND IN THIS CONNECTIO N THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 19.09.2011 WH EREIN THE CIRCULAR EXPLANATION REGARDING THE AMENDMENT IS BR OUGHT TO YOUR NOTICE. NOW THE ONLY CRITERIA IS 'INVESTMENT RISK' . IN OUR CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN INVESTMENT RISK AND MAKE THE DEV ELOPMENT AGREEMENT COLLECTED THE RECEIPT ACCORDING TO THE D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'WOR K CONTRACT'. 6. THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FOLLOWING MEANING OF THE 'DEVELOPER' WHICH HAS BEEN ULTIMATELY AFFIRMED IN A STATUTE BY WAY OF CIRCULAR REFERRED IN EARLIER SUBMISSION DATED 19 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. '(A) THE WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA UNABRIDGED DICT IONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE GIVES FOLLOWING MEANING OF THE TER M 'DEVELOPER' AS: 1. ONE WHO OR THAT WHICH DEVELOPS; 2. A PERSON WHO INVESTS IN AND DEVELO PS THE URBAN OR SUBURBAN POTENTIALITIES OF REAL ESTATE'. 5. AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(1 0) AND THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS N OT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 3.2 FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM DID NOT OWN THE LAND AND THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT WAS ALSO NOT RECEIVED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY STA TE THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PERMITTED THE OWNER OF THE LAND VIZ SHRI PRASHANT VIMALBHAI & OTHERS TO DEVELOP THE HOUSING SCHEME. THE ASSESSE E CAME IN TO THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT' ENTERED BY IT WITH THE LAND OWNERS. ACCORDINGLY ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS LAI D DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) RELATING TO THE APP ROVAL OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE AS MUCH AS IT HAD NOT TAKEN THE APPROVAL FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 7 OF THE SAID PROJECT. HENCE IT APPEARED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801B(10) AS CLAIMED BY IT. 6. IN APPEAL LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) BY HOLDING THAT SINCE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S RADHE DEV ELOPERS DECIDED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) NOW THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO WHILE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND TOOK US TO VARIOUS CLAUSES OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO SHOW HO W THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF M/S RADHE DEVELOPERS AND PRAYED THAT ORDER PASSED BY HIM MAY KINDLY BE UPHELD. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING RECO RD WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF TH E LAND AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT ISSUED TO HIM BY THE LOCAL A UTHORITY AND ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LAND OWNERS AND CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND HEN CE THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A CONTRACTOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FACTS OF THIS C ASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S. RADHE DEVELOPERS AND OTHE RS DECIDED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESS EE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR I.T.A NO.2233/AHD/2012 & CO NO. 217/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. KUSHAL DEVELOPERS 8 DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE FACT S THAT ASSESSEE EXERCISED THE DOMINION OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE LAND AND SUBSEQU ENT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL RISK AND REWARD INVOLVED WITH THE P ROJECT VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE LAND OWNERS WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO A FIXED CONSIDERATION WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US WE FEEL NO N EED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY D ELETED. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES C.O. NO. 217/AHD/2012 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING CO WAS NOT PRESSED AND T HE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS CO O F ASSESSEE ARE BOTH DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11/10/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /