Smt. Heena Sharma, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT.Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 3415/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 341520514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AMDPS6419E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3415/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Heena Sharma, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT.Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 08-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 24-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBL E SHRI A.K.GARODIA A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 3415/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005 SMT. HEENA SHARMA AHMEDABAD -VS- ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) ABAD (PAN : AMDPS 6419E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHATA A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWALA SR.D. R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 05-10-2009 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III AH MEDABAD CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2 47 981/- LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.11.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1 48 070/-. SHE HAS ALSO SHOWN AGRICUL TURE INCOME OF RS.2 23 252/-. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 31 .03.2006 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11 92 674/-. IN THIS RETURN OF INCOME THE AO TR EATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 98 252/- AS NON-AGRICULTURE INCOME A ND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.8 46 352/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHATT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND LATER ON BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ADDITION OF TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS REDUCED TO RS.66 976/- BY THE TRIBUNAL AS AGAINST THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1 98 252/- MADE BY THE AO. THE ADDITION OF RS.8 46 352/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 2 UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN BHATT LAND WAS REDUCED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.6 77 082/- AND THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2.1 AFTER THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE AO ISSU ED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MERELY ON PRESU MPTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THER E WAS GUILTY MIND OF WILFUL NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON CASE LAWS (I) CIT-VS- GANGA COLD STORAGE (1995) 125 TAXATION 45 (II) C IT-VS- DHARAMCHAND C. SHAH REPORTED IN 204 ITR 452 (III) CIT-VS- CLIVE MILLS CO. LTD. IN LIQUIDATION REPORTED IN 138 ITR 182 AND (IV) NATIONAL TEXTILE VS- CIT REPO RTED IN 249 ITR 125 (V) NEWCHEM LTD. VS- DY. CIT 49 TTJ 177 (DELHI) AND ( VI) HP STATE FOREST CORPORATION LTD. VS- DCIT REPORTED IN 94 TTJ 792 (CHD.). 2.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS TH E AO OBSERVED THAT ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTU RE INCOME AND ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COST. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFY THE MATTER AND QUANTUM OF CONSTRUCTION ETC. THE AO ACCORDINGLY VIDE ORDER DATED 25/06/2009 LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.2 47 981/- UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ADDITIONS. 3. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ADDITION FOR INVESTMENT IN LAND/CONSTRUCTION WAS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE ALON E. THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF NON- AGRICULTURE INCOME MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED BY T HE TRIBUNAL ON ADHOC BASIS WHICH IS ALSO ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND DO NOT SUGGEST OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS. WITH REGARD TO ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENT IN LAND AT BHATT AND CONSTRUCTION THEREON IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 77 082/- ONLY ON EST IMATE BASIS BASED ON VALUATION REPORT AND NOT ON THE -FINDING THAT THERE HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED PAYMENT. THE VALUATION ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 3 REPORT WAS ONLY AN ESTIMATION AND THIS IS NOT SUFFI CIENT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.2 47 981/- LEVIE D BY THE AO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHIC H READS AS UNDER: 6. THE CONTENTIONS WERE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT I S SEEN THAT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FOUND TO BE NON-AGRICULTURAL WERE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME WERE ON SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES FOUND TO BE FALSE. SIMILARLY T HE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND WERE BASED ON REPORT OF VALUATIO N THOUGH BASED ON REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WERE SEEN TO BE VALID AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO SPECIFY THE MATTER QUANTUM OF CONSTRUCTION AND MA TCH IT WITH THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN THE REPORTED CASE OF R.K. BROTHERS (2003) 87 ITD 649(ALL) IN SIMILAR FACTS IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT WHEN CONCEALMENT OF IN COME IS APPARENT FROM RECORD PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED EVEN ON BASIS OF EST IMATE OF INCOME. IN THE DECISION IN CASE OF KIRIT DAYABHAI PATEL DATED 17/ 7/2009 REPORTED IN 28 DTR AHD(TM)(TRIB) 380 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FACT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN SOME OF THE YEARS MAY HAVE BEEN DROPPED WAS NOT OF MATERIAL CONSIDERATION. THE PLEA THAT MENS REA HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF DH ARMENDER TEXTILE 219 CTR 617. THIS DECISION ALSO UPHOLDS THE APPLICABILI TY OF SECTION 271(1)(C) TO ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A. THUS ON A HOLISTIC CONSIDERATION NO INFIRMITY IS SEEN IN THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSE D BY HIM AT RS.2 47 981/- IS CONFIRMED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US SHRI GAURAV NA HATA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 23 252/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO TRE ATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 98 252/- AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN QUANTUM APPEAL THIS ADDITION WAS REDUCED TO RS.66 976/-. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS AN AD HOC ADDITION. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST ANY CONCEALMENT OR FU RNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF R S.8 46 352/- MADE BY THE AO FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHATT AND CONSTRUCTION THEREON. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 77 082/- ON ESTIMATE BAS IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 4 FURNISH THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO/CIT(A) SUCH AS OF OUTSTANDING/EXPENSES PARTY-WISE ETC. THIS ADDITION WAS BASED ON VALUATI ON REPORT AND THERE IS NO SUPPRESSED PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT C ONSTRUCTION WAS DONE IN STAGES PAYMENTS WERE MADE SUBSEQUENTLY AND THIS RESULTED I N DIFFERENCE OF OPINION FOR WHICH NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS- JCIT REPORTED IN 291 ITR 519 (SC) WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT AUTOMATIC. ONLY IN T HE EVENT THE FACTORS ENUMERATED IN CLS. (A) AND (B) OF EXPLN. 1 ARE SATISFIED AND A FI NDING IN THIS BEHALF IS ARRIVED AT BY THE AO THE LEGAL FICTION CREATED THEREUNDER WOULD BE ATTRACTED. FOR THE SAID PURPOSE THE AO MUST ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION IN THIS BEHALF . PRIMARY BURDEN OF PROOF OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS ON T HE REVENUE AND IT IS ONLY ON DISCHARGE OF PRIMARY BURDEN THAT SECONDARY BURDEN O F PROOF WOULD SHIFT ON THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT SHOW AS TO WHAT W ERE THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION. WHILE MAKING THE VALUATION REPORT THE REGISTERED V ALUER DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS VIZ. THAT HE HAD CHOSEN THE INDEX VALUE METHOD. ON LY BECAUSE THE OPINION OF REGISTERED VALUER AN EXPERT APPOINTED IN TERMS OF A STATUTORY SCHEME IS NOT ACCEPTED OR SOME OTHER EXPERT GIVES ANOTHER OPINION IS NOT BY ITSELF SUFFICIENT FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS ATTRACTING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) EXPLANATION. 5.1 COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THA T IN THIS JUDGMENT THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS CANCELLED. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATIO N REPORT. VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO IS MERELY AN ESTIMATE WHICH MAY BE MADE BASIS F OR MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME BUT CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE RE WAS CONCEALMENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. FO R THIS PROPOSITION THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI H BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT-VS- JMD ADVISORS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 124 ITD 223 (DEL) . ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 5 5.2 CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHENNAI D BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT-VS- MRS. N. MEENAKSHI REPORTED IN 125 TTJ 856 (CHENNAI) WHEREIN PENALTY L EVIED BY THE AO ON CAPITAL GAIN WORKED OUT ON SALE OF PROPERTY BY TAKING THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL 1981 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT. THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE OBTAINED FROM SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD T HAT IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION. THE PENALTY LEVIED I N THAT CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. 5.3 ON THE STRENGTH OF AFORESAID THREE DECISIONS T HE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF SECOND ADDITION OF RS.6 77 082/- WHICH WAS MADE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION B E CANCELLED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). W ITH REGARD TO PENALTY LEVIED ON TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL IN COME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.66 976/- THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MAD E ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PROD UCES EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN QUANTUM APPEAL ALSO THESE WERE NOT PRODUCED. HE ACCORDINGLY POINTED OUT THAT TO TH E EXTENT AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS NON-GENUINE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BE UPHELD. 6.1 WITH REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF PENALTY LEVIED UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 77 082/- MADE BY THE AO ON TH E BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER THE LD. D.R. POINTED OU T THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS SOUGHT BY THE AO/CIT(A). THE DE CISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION BE UPHELD. ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 6 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN PARA 3.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT SALES BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE BEEN FOUND INGENUINE. TO FURNISH CORRE CT DETAILS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THE RESPON SIBILITY OF THE PERSON FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. APART FROM THIS THE AO IN THIS PARA HAS MENTIONED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SURVEY ACT ION TOOK PLACE AT THE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHATT ON 17.10.2003. DURING THE SURVEY IT WAS FOUND THAT NO CROP WAS STANDING IN THE FIELDS SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHATT. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS BEING CARRIED OUT AT THAT TIME AT VILLAGE BHATT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CROP STANDING AT THE LAND SITUATED AT BHATT. APART FROM THIS IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT NO CROP WAS STANDING AT LAND SITUATE D IN VILLAGE AMIYAPUR. ON THE BASIS OF THIS IT WAS MENTIONED THAT FOR THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE EARLI ER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.43 920/- ON THE BASIS OF YIELD DATE OF GUJARAT G OVERNMENT. CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND PENALTY ORDER WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION TO THE E XTENT OF RS.66 976/- SUSTAINED IN QUANTUM APPEAL PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 7.1 WITH REGARD TO PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADD ITION OF RS.6 77 082/- WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS ADDITION IS MADE ON ESTIMATE BA SIS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 40%. THE AO REFERRED THE MATTE R OF VALUATION TO THE VALUATION CELL. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THE AO HAS ST ATED THAT COPY OF VALUATION REPORT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS OBJEC TED BY FILING ANOTHER VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO FOUND THA T THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COMPLETE AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE THE ADDITION R EJECTING THE DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADD ITION AND CONFIRMED RS.6 77 082/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. APART FROM THIS THERE I S NO FINDING INDICATING THE ITA NO.3415/AHD/2009 7 RECORDING OF UNRECORDED INVESTMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE GROUP CASE OF ROYAL GROUP ON 17.10.2003. THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION INDICATES THAT THIS ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT. ITAT H BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF JMD ADVISORS (P) LTD. ( SUPRA ) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HEL D THAT VALUATION DONE BY THE DVO ON ESTIMATE WHICH MAY BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME BUT CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THERE WAS CONC EALMENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFORE F OLLOWING THIS DECISION CANCEL THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 6 77 082/- LEVIED AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TO SUM UP PENALTY ON ADDITION OF R S.66 976/- IS UPHELD AND PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 6 77 082/- IS CANCELLED. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO RE-WORK OUT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 66 976/- WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.07.2011 SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08/07/2011 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 AH MEDABAD. TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.