M/s. Bahubali Print Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Surat

CO 150/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5461 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HON' BLE SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, A.M. ) I.T.A. NO. 1192/AHD./2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -VS.- M/S. B AHUBALI PRINTS PVT. LTD., SURAT CIRCLE-1, SURAT (PAN : AABCB 6232 H) (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) & C.O. NO. 150/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1192/AHD/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 M/S. BAHUBALI PRINTS PVT. LTD., SURAT -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SURAT (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BANDISH SOPARKA R DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ROHIT MEHRA, D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2010 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, SURAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING (MA STER MANUFACTURING) IN TEXTILE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 17.12.2007 DETERMINI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,11,80,180/- AS AGAINST RETUNED INCOME OF RS.83,71,849/-. IN THIS A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.28,08,327/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS S UB-CONTRACTORS PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI BALRAMSINGH SENGAR AND SHRI ARJUNSINGH SENGAR. SUBS EQUENTLY, ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURS E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION REGAR DING SUB-CONTRACTORS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SUB-CONTRACTORS FOR BAHUBALI PRINTS PVT. LTD. AND THE INFORMATION FOR RAJGIRI SA REES WHICH IS A UNIT OF THE BAHUBALI PRINTS PVT. 2 ITA NO. 1192-AHD-2010 & CO-150-AHD-2010 LTD. WAS NOT FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE INFORMATION WAS ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE ITO, WARD-2(2), SURAT THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PE RSONS HAVE NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS EXCEPT GIVING ENTRIES TO M/S. BAHUBALI PRINTS PVT. LTD. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED TAT THE INQUIRY BY THE INSPECTOR, THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT, SELF-CHEQUES ISSUED, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE, ETC. REVEALED THAT THE AFORESAID PERSONS WERE GIVING ENT RIES TO BABUBALI PRINTS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSU ING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 12.03.2009. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSM ENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 29.10.2009, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,98,086/- ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE PAYMENTS OF RS.13,59,430/- AND RS.14,48,897/- MADE TO SHR BALRAMSINGH SENGAR AND S HRI ARJUNSINGH SENGAR RESPECTIVELY WERE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS BOGUS SUB-CONTRACTORS PAYMENT. THUS THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.16,98,086/- IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,98,086/-. 3. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE THE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AGAIN. ON MERIT ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THESE TW O SUB-CONTRACTORS HAD WORKED OUT THE VALUE ADDITION OF SAREES ON JOB WORK BASIS, THE PAYMENT H AD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTING TDS AND THE COPIES OF BILLS WERE FURNISHED DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT STATEMENT OF SHTRI BALRAMSINGH SENGA R HAD BEEN RECORDED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON OATH AND HE HAD CATEGORIC ALLY STATED THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY HIM. THE OTHER SUB-CONTRACTOR DIED AND SO CO ULD NOT PRODUCE. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ANSWER NO. 8 OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAD STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES AND HE USE D TO WITHDRAW CASH FROM BANK ACCOUNT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO THE WORKERS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK HE USED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO LADIES WORKERS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SAY THAT THE PAYMENT WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY OR TO ITS DIRECTORS. THE LD . COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT IN ANSWER NO. 10 OF THE STATEMENT SHRI BALRAMSINGH SENGAR HAD CLEARLY S TATED THAT AFTER 2004, HE HAD DONE EMBROIDERY WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN ANSWER NO. 11, HE STATED THAT HIS LATE BROTHER HAD ALSO DONE 3 ITA NO. 1192-AHD-2010 & CO-150-AHD-2010 THE WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT INSPITE OF CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR AND WITHOUT PROVING IT WRONG, THE ASSESSEE HAD RELI ED ONLY ON THE INFORMATION FROM THE ITO AND HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY PART OF THE FUNDS GIVEN TO THE TWO SU B-CONTRACTORS BY THE ASSESSEE CAME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY OR TO ITS DIRECTORS IN ANY FORM. T HERE ARE SUFFICIENT MATERIALS TO PROVE THAT NO ANY FUND CAME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE SE TWO SUB-CONTRACTORS IN THE FORM OF ONE OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR SHRI BALRAMSINGH AS IS CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.K. BROTH ERS 163 ITR 249 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL VEGE TABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 315 ITR 265 AND CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADD ITION OF RS.16,98,086/- MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 FOR THE DETAIL ED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 8, WHICH IS RE- PRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AP PELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. WHILE DECIDING THE ORIGINAL APPEAL IN CAS- I/327/07-08 IN THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2008, THE CIT(A.) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- '2.3. 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THA T THE AO HAS SUMMONED THE CONTRACTOR AND HAS TAKEN THE STATEMENT IN HIS O WN OFFICE ON 27.11.2007. THE CONTRACTORS HAVE REITERATED IN THE STATEMENT TH AT THEY HAD DONE THE WORK FOR THE APPELLANT, THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE PAYMENT T RY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THESE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCO UNTS. THE PAYMENTS SO RECEIVED WERE USED FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT TO THE L ABORERS BY WITHDRAWING CASH. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT BY SHRI BALRAMSIN GH SENGAR WAS FALSE OR THE WORK WAS NEVER DONE OR THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF CASH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH IN THE CASE OF M. K. BROTHERS (SUPRA), THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE ONLY POINT IS THA T THE CONTRACTOR HAS WRITTEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS INCOME-T AX RETURN BUT THIS FACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT AO'S ARGUMENT NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN HE TAKEN SPECIALLY BECAUSE THE AO HIMSELF HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACTORS AND THERE IS NOTHING I N THE STATEMENT WHICH CAN GO AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO. HENCE THE CONTENT ION OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL ARE ALLOWED.' 4 ITA NO. 1192-AHD-2010 & CO-150-AHD-2010 IT IS SEEN FROM THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT T HE A.O. HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE ITO, WARD-2(2), SURAT HAS GIVEN AN INFORMATION THAT THESE TWO SUB-CONTRACTORS HAVE NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS EXCEPT GIVING ENTRIES TO BAHUBALI PRINTS PVT LTD. THIS WAS BASED ON THE INQUIRY BY THE INSPECTOR, BANK ACCOUNT STATEMEN T, SELF-CHEQUE ISSUED AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE. HOWEVER, IN THE ENTIRE ORDER THERE IS NO DESCRIPTIVE AS TO WHAT IS THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR FROM WHOM HE HAD MADE INQUI RY. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT, SELF-CHE QUE ISSUED AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE REVEALED THAT THESE TWO PARTIES HAD GIVEN ONLY ENTRIES. AS STATED ABOVE, THE A.O. HAS EARLIER RECORDED A STATEMENT OF SHRI B ALRAMSINGH SENGAR IN HIS OWN OFFICE ON 27.LL.2O07. THE CONTRACTOR HAS REITERATED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THEY HAD DONE THE WORK FOR THE APPELLANT, THEY HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THESE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. THE PAYMENTS SO RECEIVED WERE USED FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT TO THE LABORERS BY WITHDRAWING C ASH. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE STATEMENT BY SHRI BALRAMSINGH SENGAR WAS FALSE OR THE WORK WAS NEVER DONE OR THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF CASH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH IN THE CASE OF M. K. BROTHERS (SUPRA), THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE ONLY POINT IS THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS WRITTEN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSES COMPANY IN HIS INCOME-TAX R ETURN BUT THIS FACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT A.O.S ARGU MENT NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN SPECIALLY BECAUSE THE AO HIMSELF HAS RECORDED THE S TATEMENT OF THE CONTRACTORS AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATEMENT WHICH CAN GO AGAINST TH E APPELLANT. THIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO. HENCE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOL LOWING GROUND :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A.)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.16,98,086/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SUB-CONTR ACT PAYMENT. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF REVENUE SHR I ROHIT MEHRA, LD. D.R. APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,98,086/- IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FO R THE FOLLOWING REASONS :- (1) THE LD. CIT(A.) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT NO PROOF/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE SO-CALLED SUB-CONTRACTOR ON T HE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN WASHED DURING THE FLOOD. (2) THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THROUG H SUPPORTING EVIDENCES THAT A PARTICULAR ALLOWANCE/ EXPENDITURE IS JUSTIFIED. (3) RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON CIT VS.- SOUTHERN SEA FOODS LTD. [1995] 215 ITR 176 (MAD.) AND ASSAM PESTICIDES & AGRO CHEMICALS [1 997] 227 ITR 846 (GAU.) 5 ITA NO. 1192-AHD-2010 & CO-150-AHD-2010 (4) THE ITAT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT AS PER RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES :- (A) CIT VS.- CALCUTTA AGENCY LTD. 19 ITR 19 (SC); (B) LAXMI MARATHAN COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. 73 ITR 63 (SC); (C) DALMIA JAIN & CO. 33 ITR 294. IN ORDER TO CLAIM THAT EXPENSES FALLS U/S. 37(1), T HE BURDEN TO PROVE NECESSARY FACTS IN THAT CONNECTION IS SOLELY ON THE ASSESSEE. (5) THE CIT(A.) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT T HE SO CALLED SUB-CONTRACTOR HAS FILED HIS IT RETURN SHOWING ADDRESSES OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WHICH VERY STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE CONTRACTORS HAD VERY LOW MEANS TO CARRY SUCH CONTRACT WORK AND THEY WERE MERELY NAME-LENDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI BANDISH SOPARKAR, LD. CO UNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, D BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2705/AHD/20 08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ORDER DATED 24.09.2010, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CO NFIRMED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,08,327/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143 (3). THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF BOGUS SUB-CONTRACTORS WAS DULY EX AMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE MADE THE ADD ITION. THIS WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT VIDE O RDER DATED 28.05.2008. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER HAD BEEN DISMISSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.09.2010. HE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE UPHELD. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION DATED 24.09.2010 OF ITAT, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2705/AHD/2008 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 17.12.2007, WHEREIN HE MADE THE A DDITION OF RS.28,08,327/- ON ACCOUNT OF 6 ITA NO. 1192-AHD-2010 & CO-150-AHD-2010 BOGUS SUB-CONTRACTORS PAYMENT. AGAINST THIS ORDER, APPEAL WAS FILED AND ITAT, D BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.09.2010 DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OB SERVING THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ON WHICH TDS WERE DEDUCTED AN D PAYMENTS ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK A/C. OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THEREAFTER IN THE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED PAYMENT MADE TO SUB-CO NTRACTORS AMOUNTING TO RS.16,98,086/-, WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN THE ADDITION EARLIER MADE I N THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 17.12.2007. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE CONTRACTORS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD DONE THE WORK FOR T HE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THEY HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND THESE CHE QUES WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,98,086/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. THE GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION REGARDING CHALLENG ING VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10.12.20 10 SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10/ 12 / 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 REGI STRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.