Supreme (India) Impex Ltd.,, Surat v. The ACIT.,Circle-4,, Surat

ITA 4366/AHD/2007 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 436620514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AADCS9506P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 4366/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Supreme (India) Impex Ltd.,, Surat
Respondent The ACIT.,Circle-4,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 24-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 24-02-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 10-12-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : A HMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL VICE-PRESIDENT(A Z) & HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M.) I.T.A. NO. 4366/AHD./2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 SUPREME (INDIA) IMPEX LTD. SURAT -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PAN : AADCS 9506 P) CIRCLE-4 SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : N O N E (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL S R. 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 01.10.2007 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I SURAT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON 22.02.2010. WE T HEREFORE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/ MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD. CIT.(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VA LIDITY OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 & 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED THEREBY U/S. 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS AND CONTENTS TH AT THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS WRONG AND BE YOND THE LAW 4. WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID GROUND IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION IT IS MENTIONED THAT RE- OPENING IS DONE SOLELY ON THE GROUND OF RETROSPECTI VE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 80HHC BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT ACT) 2005. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS EE A CONCLUDED AND COMPLETED CASE CANNOT BE RE-OPENED ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSEQUENT RETROS PECTIVE AMENDMENT OF THE LAW. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE RE-O PENING HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. EARLIER ONLY I NTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) WAS ISSUED. THE LD. D.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT CAN BE DECLARED TO BE LAW EXISTING 2 ITA NO. 4366/AHD/2007 FROM THE DATE THAT IT WAS GIVEN RETROSPECTIVITY AND IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. ON THESE FACTS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- RAJE SH JUARI STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD. [291 ITR 500] IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. WITH REGARD TO RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON CIRCULAR NO. 11/2001 DATED 23.07.200 1 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREIN IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE CONCLUDED CASES SHOULD NOT BE RE- OPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF RETROSPECTIVELY AMENDED SECTION 14A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. THE SAME RATIO/ LOGIC MUST BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED ONLY IN RESPECT OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. NO SUCH CIRCULAR IS ISSUED REGARDING RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 80HHC. THEREFORE THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BE REJECTED. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NO ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). ONLY AN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) WAS ISSUED. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JUARI STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THEREFORE THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ONE MORE PLEA I.E. T HE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE A CT IS ALSO WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME HAD BEEN PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WITH REGARD TO THIS PLEA THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE A.O. HAS ISSUED THE NOTICES WHI CH ARE DULY ATTENDED BY ASSESSEES A.R. SHRI O.P. SONI C.A. FROM TIME TO TIME. BEFORE THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE NEITHER TOOK THE GROUND NOR THIS PLEA. EVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NO SUCH PLEA WAS TAKEN. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES PLEA NOW TAKEN BEFORE US BE REJECTED. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUT HORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA REGARDI NG NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT TAKEN EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFO RE THE LD. CIT.(A). THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICES ISSUED THE ASSESSEES A.R. SHRI O.P. SONI C.A. ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE CASE WAS DI SCUSSED WITH HIM. FROM THE RECORD WE FIND 3 ITA NO. 4366/AHD/2007 THAT THIS GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ARISI NG FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THEREFORE THIS PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE IS REJECTED. 8. GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 OF THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER : - 2. THAT THE LD. CIT.(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE/ REJECTION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 (THE ACT) BY WRONGLY INTERPRETING THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE TAX ATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005 (THE AMENDMENT ACT). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT.(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE WORKING OF APPELLANT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AS PER THE AMENDM ENT ACT BY WRONGLY INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AMENDME NT ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U /S. 80HHC BY CORRECTLY INTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF THE AMENDME NT ACT. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS NO. 2 3 & 4 IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER :- 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE REFERRED GROUND THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED A.O HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80HHC OF RS. 45 02 924/- AND CALCULATING THE SAME AT RS. NIL. THE ID. AO HAS DISALLOWED THIS DEDUCTION BY MISINTERPRETING THE RETROSPECTIVE AMEN DMENTS MADE IN SECTION 80HHC R.W.S. 28(IIID) BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005. THE ID. AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT WHOLE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB ARC COVERED BY SECTION 28(IIID) AND CONSEQUENTLY WHILE CALCULATING THE DED UCTION U/S 8OHHC HE EXCLUDED THE 90% OF THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DEPB. FURTHER A S THE APPELLANT'S TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS. 10 CRORE AND APPELLANT IS NO T FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC (3) O F THE ACT HE DID NOT ADD BACK ANY AMOUNT OF DEPB SALE PROCEEDS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS WAY WHOLE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEP B HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC (3) OF THE ACT. THIS INTERPRETATION OF ID . AO IS CLEARLY WRONG AND INCORRECT. IT WAS CONTENDED BY TH E APPELLANT THAT AS THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 28(IIID) IS 'PROFIT ON TRA NSFER OF DEPB' ONLY THE SURPLUS REALIZED OVER AND ABOVE THE DULY CREDIT AMOUNT (FAC E VALUE) MUST BE EXCLUDED AND THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB SHOULD BE DIRECTLY REDUCED FROM THE C OST OF INPUTS FOR EXPORTS. HOWEVER THIS CONTENTION OF APPELLANT WAS REJECTED BY THE ID AO AND HE EXCLUDED WHOLE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB AND IN THIS WAY HE WORKED OUT NIL DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT TH IS INTERPRETATION OF ID. AO IS COMPLETELY WRONG. FURTHER THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTE NDED THAT CONDITIONS LAID DOWN 4 ITA NO. 4366/AHD/2007 IN THE THIRD PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC (3) WERE I MPOSSIBLE TO BE FULFILLED. THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IIHC ON T HE DOCTRINE OF 'LEX NON COGIT AND IMPOSSIBILIA'. AS PER EXIM POLICY (PARA 4.1) DE PB ITSELF IS A DRAWBACK OF IMPORT DUTY AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY OPTIO N BETWEEN THE SAME SCHEME. THE DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEFOR E ID. AO IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 5 PAGE NO. 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACC ORDINGLY THE APPELLANT PLEADED THAT EVEN IF WHOLE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB THEN ALSO DISALLOWANCE U/S 80HH C CANNOT BE MADE ON ABOVE REFERRED PRINCIPLE AS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR FULFILL THE CONDITIONS OF THE SAID THIRD PROVISO. MOREOVER IT IS ONLY THE SURPLUS ARISING O VER AND ABOVE THE LACE VALUE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF 28(IIID). THE ID. AO REJE CTED BOTH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE HON'BLE CIT (A ) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ID. AO. 5) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CASE IS NOW COVCRED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE 1TAT MUMBAI (SPECIAL BCNCH) IN IHE FOLLOWING CASE:- - TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO (2009) 125 TTJ (MUM) (SB) 289 IN THIS CASE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH HAS CLEARLY LAI D DOWN THAT SECTION 28(IIID) COVERS ONLY PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB I.E. (SALES PROC EEDS - FACE VALUE OF DEPB). IT HAS BEEN FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT FACE VALUE OF DEPB FALLS UNDER SECTION 28(IIIB) AND NOT U/S 28(IIID). HENCE ONLY PROFITS ON SALE OF DE PB IS COVERED BY THE THIRD PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC(3) R.W.S. 28(IIID) OF THE ACT. THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB FALLS UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC (3) R.W .S 28(IIIB) OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY ONLY THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AND IN RESPECT OF FACE VALUE THE DEDUCTION HAS TO BE GRANTED UNDER THE FIR ST PROVISO. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB IS AS FOLLOW S;- TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB (A) RS. 2 71 66 735/- FACE VALUE OF DEPB LICENSE (B) RS. 2 54 1 1 577/- PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB (A-B) RS. I7 55 I5 8/- THUS. IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ONLY RS. 17 55 158/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM PROFITS AS PER THIRD PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC (3). THE ID. AC HAS REDUCED WHOLE THE SALES PROCEEDS OF RS. 2 71 66 735/-WHICH IS CLEARLY WRONG AND INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE LD. A O BE DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE DEDUCTION AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AS PER WHICH THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB WILL BE DEDUCTIBLE AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO R.W.S. 28(IIIB) THE ACT AND ONLY PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB I.E. RS 17 55 158/- WILL FALL UNDER THE THIRD PROVISO R.W.S. 28(IIID) OF THE ACT. 6) FURTHER IN THE ASSESSED OWN CASE OF A.Y. 2003-04 IN IT A NO. 1840/AHD/2007 HON'BLE ITAI. AHMEDABAD (SURAT CAMP) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC FAL LOWING JUDGMENT OF TOPMAN EXPORTS. THUS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOW ALSO COVERED BY ASSESSED OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 1840/AHD/2007 (COPY ENCLOSED). 5 ITA NO. 4366/AHD/2007 7) IN ADDITION TO ABOVE THE APPELLANT FURTHE R PRAYS THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB COVERED BY THIRD PROVISO BELOW SECTION 80HHC(3) R.W.S. 28(IIID) THE APPELLANT MUST BE GRANTED DEDUCTION W ITHOUT READING THE CONDITIONS OF SAID THIRD PROVISO. IN PARA 4.1 OF CHAPTER 4 OF EX1 M POLICY 2002-07 IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE DEPB SCHEME ALLOWS DRAWBACK OF I MPORT CHARGES OF INPUTS USED IN EXPORT PRODUCTION. HENCE THE DEPB ITSELF I S THE NATURE OF DUTY DRAWBACK. FIRST OF ALL THIS DUTY DRAWBACK MUST GO ON TO REDU CE THE COST OF INPUTS AND IS THEREFORE DIRECTLY A PROFIT FROM BUSINESS OF EXPORT S AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BJE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. I NDIA GELATINE & CHEMICALS LTD. 275 ITR 284 (GUJ). SECONDLY THE SAI D THIRD PROVISO PROVIDES FOR OPTION BETWEEN DUTY DRAWBACK AND DEPB. WHEN THE DEPB ITSELF IS DULY DRAWBACK THERE IS NO SITUATION OF ANY SUCH OPTION. THE RIDERS OF CLAUSES (A) & (B) OF SAID THIRD PROVISO ARE THEREFORE REDUNDANT AND IMPO SSIBLE TO BE FULFILLED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. THEREFORE AS PER THE DOCTRINE OF 'LEX NON COGIT AND IMPOSSIBILLIA' (LAW DOES NOT COMPEL THE DOING OF IM POSSIBILITY) THE SAID THIRD PROVISO MUST BE READ WITHOUT THIS RIDERS SO FAR AS APPELLANT'S CASE IS CONCERNED AND IN THAT SITUATION THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB ALSO. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF WHOLE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB AND FOR DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY ID. AO. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENU E SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL SR. D.R. APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT IN GROUND NOS.2 TO 4 IN THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. HE POINTED OUT TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN RS.10 CRORES. ACCORDING T O A.O THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. HOWEVER IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT OUT OF TOTAL CLAI M OF THE DEPB LICENSE SALES THE COMPONENT OF PROFIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NOW FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTI NG DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC ITAT MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 87 (MUMBAI)[SB] HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 28(III D) WHICH REFERS TO THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB OBVIOUSLY REFERS ONLY TO THE PROFIT ELEMENT AND NO T THE GROSS SALE PROFIT OF DEPB . CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT (I.E . THE SALE VALUE LESS THE FACE VALUE) IS REQUIRED T O BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN E XPORTS (SUPRA) RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR REDETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THEREFORE IN THESE THREE CASES ALSO THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF A.O. WHO WILL RECALCULATE THE 6 ITA NO. 4366/AHD/2007 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC KEEPING IN VIEW THE J UDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) WAS DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI ON 11.08.20 09. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH THE DIREC TION THAT HE WILL RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HON'B LE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AFTER GIVING OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26.02.201 0 SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 / 02 / 2010 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 AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.