Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1,, Ahmedabad

ITA 3961/AHD/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 396120514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABCA3182H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3961/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 07-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 07-12-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 05-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA AM ITA NO.3961/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2005-06) ADANI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 8 TH FLOOR SHIKHAR NEAR MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD PAN: AABCA 3182 H [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI VIJAY RANJAN REVENUE BY:- SHRI K MADHUSUDAN DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATE D 25-09-2008 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-6 AHMEDABAD RA ISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDIC ATING UPON THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM R EADING AS UNDER BY REGARDING IT AS BEING ONLY GENERAL IN NATURE: '1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID AND DES ERVES TO BE CANCELLED.' 2.1 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR RS.4 18 119 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT AS BAD DEBT U/S. 36 ON THE GROUND THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36 EVEN AFTER THEIR AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-198 9 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN QUESTION HAD BECOME BAD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED INTER ALIA : (A) THAT THE VERY PURPOSE BEHIND MAKING THE AMENDME NT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF S.36 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989 WAS TO ELIMINATE THE LITIGATION (ARISING OUT OF THE EARLIER REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD) B Y NOW REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE MERELY TO WRITE OFF THE DEBT AS BAD IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT (WHICH HAD ADMITTEDLY BEEN DONE BY THE APPE LLANT); ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 2 (B) THAT BY INSISTING UPON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLI SH THAT THE DEBT WAS BAD THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CLEARLY DISO BEYED THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 551 DATED 23.1.1990 WHICH ENJOINED THA T AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 36 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989 AN ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS MUST BE GRANTED WITHOUT REQUIRING HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HA D BECOME BAD; (C) THAT EVEN AS THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WAS BINDING UPO N THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD BY UPHOL DING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE GIVEN HIS OWN CONSENT TO THE DISOBEDIENCE OF A BINDING CIRCULAR BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER WHICH IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE CIT(A) TO DO; (D) THAT EVEN AS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE BY RELYING ON WHAT MAY BE REG ARDED AS OUTDATED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DY. CIT V. IND IA THERMIT CORPORATION LTD. (56 ITD 307) RENDERED ON 29-9-1995 AND OF A RELATIVELY OLD DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN BHAWARLAL C. BAFNA V. ADDL. CIT (25 SITC 440) RENDERED ON 5-6-20 02 REFERRED TO AT PARA 3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE HIM IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CHOSEN TO J USTIFY UPHOLDING OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN A. V. THOMAS & CO. LTD. V. CIT (48 ITR 67) IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT THAT DECISION HAVING BE EN RENDERED WAY BACK ON 25-10-1962 COULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH I NTERPRETING SUCH PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH HAD BEEN DRASTICALLY AMENDE D LONG AFTER IN THE YEAR 1989; (E) THAT IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO UP HOLD THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AFTER IGNORING AND/OR WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES IN THE FORM OF DECISIONS NOT ONLY OF TH E ITAT (INCLUDING ONE RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT) BUT ALSO OF HIGH COURTS (INCLUDING THAT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARA T HIGH COURT) ALL OF WHICH WERE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36 AS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989 AND MOST OF WHICH WERE QUITE RECENT: (1) CIT V. GIRISH BHAGWATPRASAD (256 ITR 772)(GUJ) RENDERED ON 28-9-1998 (2) CIT V. MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS (P) LTD. (29 2 ITR 339) (DELHI) RENDERED ON 7-12-2006 (3) CIT V. AUTOMETERS LTD. (292 ITR 345)(DELHI) REN DERED ON 2-3- 2007 (4) DY. CIT V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG (100 ITD 285)(S.B.) RENDERED ON 17-5-2006 ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 3 (5) DAI-ICHI KARKARIA LTD. [300 ITR (AT.) 200] REND ERED ON 28-7- 2006 (F) THAT LIKE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HE TO O HAD COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR IN PROCEEDING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS.4 18 119 WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT AS IRRECOV ERABLE REPRESENTED TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE APPELLANT 'S CUSTOMER KVAERNER CEMENTATION (I) LTD. FROM THE AMOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT'S INVOICE ON ACCOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE (U/S . 194C) EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLEAR FROM PARA 2.2 OF THE APPELLANT' S WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 21.8.2008 TO HIM AS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF ON PAGE 8 THAT AS AGAINST THE INVOICE AMOUNT OF RS.2 04 96 000 THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED PAYMENT BY CHEQUE OF RS.1 98 68 822 AND A TDS CERTIFICATE FOR RS.2 09 05 9 BOTH AGGREGATING TO RS.2 00 77 881; (G) THAT IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO PE RMIT HIS JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR THE IMPUGNE D DEDUCTION TO BE CLOUDED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE (EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE) THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT REPRESENTED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF TAX DEDU CTIBLE AT SOURCE BY THE APPELLANT'S DEBTOR FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE APPELLANT'S INVOICE ON THE DEBTOR BECAUSE THE CHARACTER OF THE AMOUNT EVEN IF IT REPRESENTED SUCH DEDUCTION BY THE DEBTOR REMAIN ED THAT OF A DEBT WHICH HAD ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSI NESS TURNOVER CREDITED TO THE APPELLANT'S PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN AN EARLIER YEAR; THAT FAR FROM ALLOWING HIS JUDGMENT TO BE SO CLOUDED HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED CREDIT FOR SUCH IDS NOR RECEIVED PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM THE DEBTOR WENT CONCLUSIVE LY TO SHOW THAT THE DEBT IN QUESTION HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. 2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE FOLLOWING PECULIAR FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE FACT THAT THE DE BT HAD BECOME BAD STOOD ESTABLISHED ALTHOUGH SUCH ESTABLISHMENT WAS N OT REQUIRED IN LAW: (A) THAT THE APPELLANT'S INVOICE WAS A REPUTED COM PANY WHICH WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF A FOREIGN MULTINATIONAL ; (B) THAT THE APPELLANT'S INVOICE WAS RAISED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO A.Y. 2001-02; (C) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT AGAINST ITS INVOICE AFTER THE ONLY PAYMENT THAT IT HAD RECEIVED WAY BACK IN JUNE 2001; ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 4 (D) THAT EVEN AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2005 THE FACT REMAIN ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT EVEN THE REAFTER AND RIGHT UP TO THE TIME THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS HEA RING THE APPEAL. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OMITTING TO CONSIDER THE APPELLANT 'S ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS A BUSINESS LOSS U/S. 28 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING T HE FOLLOWING GROUND OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS CONSEQUENTIAL TO HIS UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR RS.4 18 199 CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE GR OUND NO. 3 OF ITS APPEAL BEFORE HIM: 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 234D FOR RS.13 700 WHEN NO SU CH INTEREST IS LEVIABLE. FURTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ERRED IN WITHDRAWING INTEREST U/S 144A OF THE ACT OF RS.16 2 24/-. IT MAY BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT COMPANY DENIES ITS LI ABILITY TO PAY INTEREST. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER AME ND AND / OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFOR E OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS OR ARGUMENT AND NOT EVEN A WH ISPER ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 IN THE APPEAL. S INCE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AC CORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 3. ADVERTING NOW TO GROUND NOS. 2.1 TO 2.3 IN THE APPEAL FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN D ECLARING INCOME OF RS.31 88 390/- FILED ON 24-10-2005 BY THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF RENTING OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL P ROPERTIES AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y WITH THE SERVICE OF ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 5 A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 20-07-2006. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.4 18 119/- ON ACCOUNT OF 'SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF'. TO A QUERY BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 14-2-2007 THAT IN THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2000- 01 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTER ED IN TO A WORKS CONTRACT OF EARTH FILLING WITH KVAERNER CEMENTATION INDIA AND GOT THE RECEIPT OF RS.2 04 96 000/-. HOWEVER THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT RECOVER THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4 18 119/- FROM TH E SAID PARTY TOWARDS TDS DEDUCTED BY THE COMPANY AND IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE REJECTED THEIR CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF WAS TOWARDS TDS DEDUCTED BY THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO SHOW ANY EFFORT MADE BY IT TO RECOVER THE DEBTS IF ANY. SINCE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT THE WRITING OFF WAS PERMISSI BLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS AND NOT OF ANY DEBT RELYING UPON DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. INDIA THERMIT CORPORATION LTD. 56 ITD 307(DELHI) AND BH AWARLAL C. BAFNA VS. ADDL. CTT (MAD) (2004) 25 SITC 440 (MADRAS) THE AO DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBT. 4 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT DURING THE F.Y. 2000-01 IT HAD RECEIVED A CONTRACT OF EARTH FILLING WORK FROM M/S. KVAERNER CEMENTATION (I) LTD. AND BILL OF RS.2 04 9 6 000 WAS RAISED IN A.Y.2001-02. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2001-02. AS AGAINST THE SAID AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.2 00 77 881 AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CHEQUE ON 27.6.2001 1 98 68 822 TDS DEDUCTED @ 1 2% ON CONTRACT VALUE OF RS.2 04 96 000. 2 09 059 ----------------- 2 00 77 881 ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 6 4.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER THE MINOR AMOUNT OF RS.4.18 LACS THE SAME HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT DU RING THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER THE HEAD 'SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF'. WHILE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(I)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT AND DECISIONS IN CIT VS. G IRISH BHAGWATPRASAD REPORTED AT 256 ITR 772(GUJ) CIT VS. MORGAN SECURI TIES & CREDITS (P) LTD. 292 ITR 339 (DELHI) CIT VS. AUTOMETERS L IMITED 292 ITR 345 (DELHI) DY. CIT V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG 100 ITD 285(SB)(MUM.) AND DAI-ICHI KARKARIA LTD. REPOR TED AT 300 ITR (AT) 200 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUN T HAVING BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 18 1 19/- MAY BE DELETED .AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN AS PER THE A MENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 W.E.F. 1.4.1 989 THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBTS ARE REALLY BAD DEBTS. 5 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED A R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN TRF LIMITED VS. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) . TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LD. AR DENIED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTED TDS. THE LE ARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT OPPOSE THESE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISION RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED VS. CIT 32 3 ITR 397 (SC) WHILE ADJUDICATING A SIMILAR CLAIM CONCLUDED AS UND ER: THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL-SETTLED. AFTER 1ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DE BT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRI TTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE DEBT HAS IN FACT BEE N WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS ITA N O.3961/AHD/2008 7 OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN BAD DEBT OCCURS THE BAD DEB T ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND THE CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT IS CREDITED THUS CLOSING THE A CCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER. IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES THE PROVISION IS DEDUCTED FROM S UNDRY DEBTORS. AS STATED ABOVE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER IN FACT TH E BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE MA TTER IS REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASPECT ONLY AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE WRITE OFF. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION IN TRF LTD.(SUPRA) AND UNDISPUTE DLY DEBTS HAVING BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS APPARENTLY THE AMOUNT OF RS. RS.4 18 119/- WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS IS AD MISSIBLE DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 2.1 & 2.2 IN THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED WHILE THE ALTERN ATE CLAIM IN THE GROUND NO. 2.3 OF THE APPEAL DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. 8. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED IN TER MS OF THE RESIDUARY GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY T HIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 10 -12-2010 SD/- SD/- (T K SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 10-12-2010 MRVALERA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ADANI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 8 TH FLOOR SHIKHAR NEAR MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD 2. DCIT CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-6 AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR ITAT BENCH-C AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGIST RAR ITAT AHMEDABAD