M/s. Saffron Enterprise, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 1100/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0248 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH C CC C BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING:2-8-2010 DRAFTED ON: 2-8-2010 ITA NO. 1100 /AHD/ 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 M /S. SAFFRON ENTERPRISE, 1 VALMIK COMPLEX, NR. PARIMAL CHAR RASTA, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCVLE-10, NARAYAN CHAMBERS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. :AANFS 7229J (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.M. MAHESH, SR.D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, A HMEDABAD, DATED 30-1-2008. 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- (I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF `.3,67,271/- UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW AND DISALLOWANCE A S CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE DELETED. (II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LOAN AVAILED FROM RELATIVES ON WHICH INTEREST IS PAID ARE UNSECURED LOANS FOR WHIC H NORMALLY THE RATE OF INTEREST IS HIGHER THAN THE RA TE OF INTEREST PAID TO BANKS ON UNSECURED LOANS AND ARE A LSO OF PERMANENT NATURE AS COMPARED TO LOANS FROM OUTSIDER S WHICH ARE FOR SHORT TERM DURATION ONLY AND HENCE AL SO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. - 2 - 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST @ 18% TO RELATIVES COVERED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B).THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INTERE ST PAID TO SPECIFIED PERSONS WAS `.14,02,678/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECO VERED `.3,00,864/- FROM THESE PERSONS. THE NET INTEREST PAID IS `.11,0 1,814/- TO THESE PERSONS. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID @ 12% AMOUNTING TO `.5,75,74 7/- TO THE OTHER PERSONS NOT RELATED TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THAT INTEREST PAYMENT TO BANK VIZ. NARODA NAGRIK CO-OP. SAHKARI B ANK LTD. HAS BEEN PAID @ 17.81 PER CENT (ANNUALIZED INTEREST). SO, TH E PAYMENT OF 18% TO SPECIFIED PERSONS IS NOT EXCESSIVE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EX CESS INTEREST PAID TO RELATIVES IS DISALLOWABLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING R EASONS :- (I) THE BORROWINGS FROM RELATIVES AND FROM OUTSIDER S ARE BOTH PRIVATE AND PERSONAL BORROWINGS AND ARE IDENTICAL I N NATURE AS THEY BEING THE UNSECURED LOANS; (II) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTER EST IS PAYABLE TO THE OUTSIDERS WHEREAS THE SAME IS CREDITED IN THE N AMES OF THE RELATIVES IS NOT RELEVANT; (III) THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT BANK RATE IS 16.5% IS NOT CORRECT SINCE THE COMMITMENT CHARGES ON THE LIMIT SANCTIONED OF `.145 LAKHS BY THE BANK HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE INTEREST RATE AND IF THE INTE REST IS DISBURSED OVER THE ENTIRE SANCTIONED AMOUNT, THE IN TEREST PAID IS LESS THAN 10%; (IV) PRIME LENDING RATE OF VARIOUS BANKS DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2003-04 WAS 11% TO 12%. (V) ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT INTEREST PA ID TO RELATIVES IS NOT EXCESSIVE; (VI) THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE QUALITY OF LOANS OBT AINED FROM, THE OUTSIDERS TO WHOM INTEREST OF 12% WAS PAI D AND LOANS FROM SPECIFIED RELATED PERSONS TO WHOM 18% IN TEREST WAS PAID. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BANK RATE IS THE REAL YARDSTICK OF RATE OF INTEREST PREVAILING IN THE MAR KET ON THE BORROWED FUNDS. THE RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED BY THE NARODA N AGRIK SAHKARI CO- OP. BANK LTD. WAS 16.5% PER ANNUM WHICH IS PAYMENT ON MONTHLY BASIS WHICH IS 17.81% PER ANNUM ON ANNUALIZED BASIS . IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INTEREST RATE HAS BEEN CHARGED @ 16.5% PER ANNUM PE R ANNUM - 3 - (PAYABLE ON MONTH TO MONTH BASIS) ON FUNDS UTILIZED AND NOT ON THE SANCTIONED LIMIT OF `.145 LAKHS. THE BALANCE OUTSTA NDING AS ON 31-03- 2004 IS `.91.29 LAKHS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT INTEREST IS CHARGED @ 16.5% PER ANNUM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REITERATED THAT NARODA NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD. HAS CHARGED INTEREST @ 16.5%% PER ANNUM ON C.C. LIM IT UTILIZED BY THE FIRM AND THE INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON MONTHLY B ASIS. SO, THE EFFECTIVE COMPARABLE RATE COMES TO 17.81% IF CONSID ERED ON ANNUAL BASIS. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT HAS BEEN ANNE XED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHARES WORT H `.3.32 LAKHS AS PER THE NORMS OF THE BANK FETCHING DIVIDEND OF 12% PER ANNUM ONLY. MOREOVER, HIGHER INTEREST RATE WAS PAID TO THE RELA TIVES AS THE BORROWINGS ARE MORE CONSISTENT AND ARE REPAYABLE ON DEMAND AS THEY CAN BE REQUESTED NOT TO WITHDRAW THE FUNDS IN THE S EASON TIME WHILE THE DEPOSITS FROM THE OUTSIDERS ARE REPAYABLE ON DE MAND. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FUNDS WERE WITHDRAW N BY THE OUTSIDERS IN THE NEXT YEAR ONLY WHILE THE LOANS TAK EN FROM THE RELATIVES ARE CONTINUING EVEN TILL DATE. ALSO, ALL THE RELATI VES ARE REGULAR INCOME- TAX PAYEES AND HAVE SHOWN THE INTEREST INCOME IN TH EIR PERSONAL INCOME-TAX RETURNS. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT E XPENDITURE IS TO BE CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR LEGIT IMATE BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OR BENEFIT DERIVED BY IT OR ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAYMENTS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIM ED THAT IN HIS CASE, THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONA BLE LOOKING TO THE ABOVE CRITERIAS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS HELD AS UN DER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE THREE CRITERIAS LAID DOWN BY THE ACT ARE THE REASONABLENE SS OF THE EXPENDITURE OR FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS AND S ERVICES, LEGITIMATE BUSINESS NEED AND BENEFIT DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAYMENTS. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE APP ELLANT HAS - 4 - PAID 18% INTEREST ON THE UNSECURED LOANS TO THE SPE CIFIED PERSONS I.E. RELATIVES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND 12% INTEREST TO OTHER THAN SPECIFIED PERSONS. THE LOAN OF `.14.0 6 LAKHS HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE SPECIFIED PERSONS AND `.5.75 LA KHS FROM OTHER PERSONS. BOTH THESE LOANS ARE UNSECURED LOANS AND THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE RATE OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF 6%. T HE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT OUTSIDER CAN WITHDRAW THE DEPOSI TS AT ANYTIME WHILE THE RELATIVES CAN BE REQUESTED NOT TO WITHDRA W THE DEPOSITS IF REQUIRED. THIS IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE P OINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF LOANS OBTAINED FROM RELATIVES AND OUTSIDERS. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE REASON GIVEN BY THE APPELLA NT THAT OUTSIDERS CAN WITHDRAW THE LOAN ON DEMAND IS NOT BO RNE OUT FROM THE FACTS AS NONE OF THE OUTSIDERS HAVE WITHDR AWN THEIR LOANS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LOANS ARE NORMALLY OBTAINED FOR DEFINITE PERIOD AS SETTLED BE TWEEN BORROWER AND LENDER. MOREOVER, THE COMPARISON CAN BE MADE BETWEEN TWO THINGS I.E. UNSECURED LOAN ONLY. THE BA NK LOANS ARE SECURED LOANS AND NOT UNSECURED LOANS. SO, THEY CAN NOT BE COMPARED WITH UNSECURED LOANS OBTAINED BY THE APPEL LANT. ALSO, THE QUANTUM OF THE LOAN IS SUFFICIENT FROM THE OUTS IDE PARTIES TO MAKE THE COMPARISON OF RATE OF INTEREST. AS REGARDS TO THE BENEFIT DERIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LOAN, TH IS IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROSS PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF `.28.52 CRORES AND HAS SHOWN GROSS P ROFIT. OF 1.06 CRORES AT THE RATE OF 3.74%.THE NET PROFIT WIL L EVEN BE LESS THAN THIS. SO EVEN, BY THIS CRITERIA OF BENEFIT DER IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LOAN DOES NOT GO IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT PRIME LENDING RATE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CON SIDERATION WAS 11% TO 12% IN THE VARIOUS NATIONALIZED BANKS. I N VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT EXCESS INTEREST OF 6% WAS PAID TO THE SPECIFIED PERSON WHICH IS DISALLOWABLE. SIMILAR DIS ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE CASE OF ANANDJI SHAH VS. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (1990) 81 ITR 171 BY THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INTEREST PAYMENT. IN VIEW OF A BOVE DISCUSSION AND REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF `.3,67,271/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS TAKEN UNSECU RED LOAN AMONGST OTHERS FROM PERSONS DEFINED AS RELATIVE UND ER SECTION 40A (2) OF THE ACT ALSO AND PAID INTEREST @ 18% ON SUCH LOA NS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE INTERES T @ 12% WAS PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN FROM NON RELATIVE. THE LEA RNED ASSESSING - 5 - OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN LOAN FROM BANK ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH THE RATE OF INTEREST WAS 16.5% CHARGED BY THE BANK BUT AS THE SANCTIONED LIMIT WAS MORE THAN THE LOAN UTILIZED THEREFORE, ON CALCULATING TOTAL INTEREST PAYMENT ON TOTAL SANCTIONED AMOUNT RATE OF INTEREST WORKS OUT TO LESS THAN 10%. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED 12% AS THE REASONABLE MARKET RAT E OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWE D INTEREST @ 6% PAID TO RELATIVES WHICH WORKS OUT TO `.3,67,271/-. 7. ON APPEAL, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER 8. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST PAID TO T HE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SECURED LOAN WAS MORE THAN 1 6.5% AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OBSE RVING THAT RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF BANK LOAN WAS LESS THAN 10%. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST @ 18% ON UNSECURED L OAN IS SO HIGH SO AS TO WARRANT ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE SAME BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT AS RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SECURED LOAN TO BANK WAS MORE THAN 16.5% THE RATE OF INTEREST @ 18% IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN CANNOT BE HELD AS EXCESSIVE. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE GENUINENESS OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS NOT IN DOUBT. THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH IS R EQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON BY US IS WHETHER INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM PAID IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN CAN BE HELD AS EXCE SSIVE AND CAN ANY - 6 - AMOUNT OUT OF SUCH INTEREST PAYMENT CAN BE DISALLOW ED BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) BY THE REVENUE ON THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 11. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST TO BANK IN RESPECT OF SECURED LOAN ACTUALLY UTILIZED B Y THE ASSESSEE @ 16.5%. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE INTEREST RATE IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL BORROWED AMOUNT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF SANCTIONED AMOUNT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CALCULATING INTEREST RATE BY CONSIDERING THE TOTAL SANCTIONED AMOUNT OF LOAN AND BY IGNORING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WHICH WAS BO RROWED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE OBSERVATION TO THE EFFECT THAT ACTUAL INTE REST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK WAS LESS THAN 10% IS ACTUALLY ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT G ENERALLY IN THE MARKET RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN IS A BIT HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF INTEREST PREVALENT IN RESPECT OF SECURED LO AN. THUS, AS RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SECURED LOAN FROM THE BANK I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 16.5%, RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN @ 18% CANNOT BE HELD AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLY HIG HER THAN THE MARKET RATE. FURTHER, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE C OULD MAKE A BETTER BARGAIN WITH SOME PARTIES AND COULD SECURE UNSECURE D LOAN AT A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST, IT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE MARKET RATE OF INTEREST WAS LOWER. IN THE INSTANT CASE MARKET RATE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SECURED LOAN IS EVIDENT BY THE BANK LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE ON WHICH INTEREST @ 16.5% WAS CHARGED IN RESPECT OF ACTUAL B ORROWING AND THEREFORE INTEREST OF 18% IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED L OAN CANNOT BE HELD AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE THAN THE MARKET RATE S O AS TO WARRANT ANY DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF `.3,67,271/- AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. GROUND NO. 2 READS AS UNDER :- - 7 - 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF D EPRECIATION OF `.28,519/- BEING 20% OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR C LAIMED ON THE GROUND OF USER FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. YOUR APPE LLANT SUBMITS THAT DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE SO DISALLOWED ON THE BA SIS OF ESTIMATE FOR PERSONAL USER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF THE LE ARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DEPRECIA TION WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF THE CAR SH OULD NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK O F ASSETS FOR DETERMINING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYE D THAT DIRECTION BE ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT. THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PRINCIPLE WE FIND THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(6) OF THE ACT ONLY ACTUAL DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE REDUCED TO ARRIVE AT OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YE AR. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE A BOUT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE CAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEPRECIAT ION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN EFFECT SEEKS A DIRECT ION BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR. AS THE ISSUE OF SUBSEQUENT YEA R IS NOT BEFORE US, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION WE CANNOT ISSUE SUCH A DI RECTION. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 - 8 - PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2-8-2010 ----------- -------- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 2-8-2010 --- ---------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 3-8-2010 --------- ---------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED ------------------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S ---------------- -------------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- -------------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- ---------------------