Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd., (Formerly known as Ajanta Electronics Pvt. Ltd.), Morbi V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 1101/RJT/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7338 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I VIJAYKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M P SARDA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 80IA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) AND SHRI N.R.S. GANESA N (JM) I.T.A. NO.1101/RJT/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CIR. 1 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AJANTA RAJKOT ELECTRONICS PVT LTD) NATIONAL HIGHWAY 8A, TRAJPAR CHOWKDI, MORBI PAN : AAECA6115B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MP SARDA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI I VIJAYKUMAR O R D E R PER AL GEHLOT, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I V, AHMEDABAD DATED 24- 08-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. AS MANY AS FOUR GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THE APPEAL PERTAIN TO NON GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON EXPORT INCENTIVES, VIZ. SALE OF IMPORT LICENCE, DUTY DRAW BACK AND DEPB LICENCE SALE. 3. THIS IS A SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALL OW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: (I) SALE OF IMPORT LICENCE RS. 2,44,14,467 (II) DUTY DRAW BACK RS. 1,52,189 (III) DEPB LICENCE SALE RS. 9,08,234 ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 2 THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 18-10-2007 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.A.R. FOR THE ASWSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME AROSE ON EXPORT INCENTIVES. AS THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON THE EXTENDED BENEFIT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 80IA AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE , WE RESTORE THIS GROUND WITH RESPECT TO TREATMENT OF EXPORT INCENTIV E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN VIEW OF TH E JUDGMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CITED BY THE LD..A.R. FOR THE ASS ESSEE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MAXCARE LABORATORIES LTD 273 ITR 1 (ITAT). IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE W ITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IA. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT PASSED ANOTHER ASSESSMENT DATED 31-12-2008 U/S 143( 3) WHEREIN HE HAS REPEATED HIS EARLIER ACTION OF DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED TH E DEDUCTION ON RECEIPT OF DUTY DRAW BACK OF RS.1,52,189 BY FOLLOWING THE JUDG MENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INDIA GELATINE & CHEMIC ALS LTD 275 ITR 286 (GUJ). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON SALE OF IMPORT LICENCE AND DEPB LICENCE. 5. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE WORDING IN SECTION 80I & 80IA ARE DIFFERENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, INCENTIVES ARE COVERED AS BUSINES S INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON THE SAME. A BRIEF NOTE IN THIS REGARD IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT AS SESSING OFFICER DERIVED JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SET AS IDE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN OTHER WORDS, T HE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IS RESTRICTED WITH IN THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER NO CIRCUMSTA NCES CAN DEVIATE FROM THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.AR IN SUP PORT OF THIS CONTENTION HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SP KOCHHAR VS ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 3 ITO 145 ITR 255 (ALL). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ITAT DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS MAXCAR E LABORATORIES LTD 273 ITR 1. THEREFORE, THE LIMITED JURISDICTION AVAILABLE T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO DECIDE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON INCOME INCLUDING THE INCOME IN THE NATURE OF EXPORT INCENTIVES IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MAXCARE LABORAT ORIES LTD (SUPRA). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CARRY OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VI TIATED. THE LEARNED AR IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDG MENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GANI SILK PALACE 171 ITR 373 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHINDRA & CO 215 ITR 922. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE DIRECTION ATTAINED FINALITY, IT CANNOT BE MODIFIED EVEN BY THE HIGH COURT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENT ION, THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH I N THE CASE OF SUDARSHANKUMAR VS ITO 62 ITD 243 (ASR)(TM). IN RES PECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERT Y INDIA LTD 317 ITR 218, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THIS JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT CANNOT ALTER THE POSITION EMERGING FROM THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE ITAT HAVE INITIATE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS TO INVOKE OR APPLY THE JUDGMEN T OF THE SUPREME COURT. THE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED HAD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BEEN ALLOWED. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MAIN ITEM OF INCOME UNDER CONSIDE RATION IS SALE OF LICENCE RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF EXPORT PERFORMANCE AND NOT DEPB OR DUTY DRAW BACK. BOTH ITEMS ARE INSIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, THE JUDGM ENT OF SUPREME COURT IS NOT RELEVANT. ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 4 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE REVENUE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD VS CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC). THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS CITED. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FIRST ROUN D OF LITIGATION, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 18-10-2007 IN ITA NO.598/RJT/2003 HAD R ESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING DI RECTIONS: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.44/RJT/2004 IN THE CASER OF DCIT VS M/S ELLORA TIME PVT LTD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ORD ER DATED 31-3- 2005 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ACIT VS MAXCARE LABORATORIES LTD 273 IT R 1 (ITAT). WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, RESTORE THE ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE SAME DIRECTION AS GIVEN IN ITA NO.4 44/RJT/2004 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FI ND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.A.R. FOR THE ASSES SEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME AROSE ON EXPORT INCENTIVES. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON THE EXTE NDED BENEFIT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 80IA AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE RESTORE THIS GROUND WI TH RESPECT TO TREATMENT OF EXPORT INCENTIVE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN VIEW OF TH E JUDGMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CITED BY THE LD.A.R. FOR T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE PF ACIT VS MAXCARE LABORATORIE S LTD 273 ITR 1 (ITAT). IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT T HEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE CUTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS MAXCARE LABORATORIES LTD (2005) 92 TTJ 179, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 5 THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE PERTAINED TO INTEREST ON DEPOSITS MADE UNDER BUSINESS COMPULSION AND THEREFORE IT WAS HELD TO BE QUALIFIE D FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND FURTHER NETTING OFF WAS ALSO REQUIRED WITH THE INTE REST EXPENDITURE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S 80IA TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF IMPORT LICENCE, DUTY DRAWBACK AND DEPB LICENCE SALE INCOMES. THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION INASMUCH AS THAT A JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED AFTER THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE NOW TO BE EXAMINED HERE IS THAT WHETHER WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT OR TO FOLLOW THE DECISION / DIRECTIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. 10. THE MAIN THRUST OF ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECI DE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAXCARE LABORATORIES LTD CI TED SUPRA, WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOUND WAS NOT RELEVANT AT ALL TO THE ISSUE ON HAND, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFINED TO T HE DIRECTION ONLY. IN ARGUING SO, THE LD.AR FOUND SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF THE M ADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GANI SILK PALACE (SUPRA); RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHINDRA & CO (SUPRA); SP KOCHHAR VS ITO (SUPRA) AN D THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE AMRISTAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF SUDARSHANKUMAR VS ITO (SUPRA). THE RATIO OF THESE DECISIONS IS THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, IF NOT APPEALED AGAINST, ATTAINS FINALITY AND THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, THE ORDER OF THE AO IS VITIATED. THOSE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THOSE CASES THERE WAS NO JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT. ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 6 11. IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) , THE APEX COURT HELD THAT - DEPB IS AN INCENTIVE. IT IS GIVEN UNDER DUTY EXEMP TION REMISSION SCHEME. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS AN EXPORT INCENTIVE. NO DOUBT, THE OBJECT BEHIND DEPB IS TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF CUSTOMS DUTY PAYMENT ON THE IMPORT CONTENT OF EXPORT PRODUCT. THIS NEUTRALIZATION IS PROVIDED FOR BY CR EDIT TO CUSTOMS DUTY AGAINST EXPORT PRODUCT. UNDER DEPB, AN EXPORTER MAY APPLY FOR CREDIT AS PERCENTAGE OF FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS MADE IN FREELY CONVERTIBLE CUR RENCY. CREDIT IS AVAILABLE ONLY AGAINST THE EXPORT PRODUCE AND AT RATES SPECIF IED BY DGFT FOR IMPORT OF RAW MATERIALS, COMPONENTS ETC. DEPB CREDIT UNDER THE S CHEME HAS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DEEMED IMPORT CONTENT OF THE EXPORT PRODUCT AS PER BASIC CUSTOMS DUTY AND SPECIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY PAYA BLE ON SUCH DEEMED IMPORTS. THEREFORE, DEPB / DUTY DRAWBACK ARE INCENTIVES WHIC H FLOW FROM THE SCHEMES FRAMED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR FORM S.75 OF THE CU STOMS ACT, 1962, HENCE, INCENTIVES PROFITS ARE NOT PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS UNDER S.80-IB. THEY BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF ANCILLARY PROFITS OR SUCH UNDERTAKINGS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SEC.75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AND S.37 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT., 1944 EMPOWER GOVER NMENT OF INDIA TO PROVIDE FOR REPAYMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTY PAID BY AN ASS ESSEE. THE REFUND IS OF THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF DUTY PAID ON MATERIALS OF ANY PAR TICULAR CLASS OR DESCRIPTION OF GOODS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF EXPORT GOODS OF SP ECIFIED CLASS. THE RULES DO NOT ENVISAGE A REFUND OF AN AMOUNT ARITHMETICALLY E QUAL TO CUSTOMS DUTY OR CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ACTUALLY PAID BY AN INDIVIDUAL IMPORTER-CUM-MANUFACTURER. SUB-S.(2) OF S.75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT REQUIRES THE A MOUNT OF DRAWBACK TO BE DETERMINED ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTAN CES PREVALENT IN A PARTICULAR TRADE AND ALSO BASED ON THE FACTUAL SITUATION RELEV ANT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF GOODS IMPORTED. BASICALLY, THE SOURCE OF DUTY DRAWBACK RECEIPT LIES IN S.75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT AND S.37 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT. 12. IN OUR VIEW THE APEX COURT CLEARLY LAYS DOWN TH E LAW THAT DEPB / DUTY DRAW BACK ARE INCENTIVES WHICH FLOWS FROM THE SCHEM E FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN SECTION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 A ND HENCE INCENTIVE PROFITS ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 7 ARE NOT PROFITS DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THER EFORE, DUTY DRAW BACK / DEPB / OTHER EXPORT INCENTIVES ARE INCENTIVES FLOWING FROM THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CUSTOMS ACT AND OTHERS; HENCE INC ENTIVE PROFITS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, T HESE BENEFITS DO NOT FORM PART OF NET PROFIT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA / 80IB OF THE ACT. THERE IS A LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HIGHEST C OURT OF THE LAND, WHICH IS BINDING ON ALL COURTS, TRIBUNALS AND ALL AUTHORITIE S IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT OPEN TO DISTINGUISH THE SAME BY REFERRING TO CERTAIN WORDS OF THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH WERE VERY MUCH BEFO RE THE SUPREME COURT, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OTHER ARGUMENTS COUL D HAVE BEEN URGED WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IS ALWAYS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE SAME WA S THE LAW WHEN THE ITAT GIVEN THE DIRECTION IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGAT ION. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE LAW LAID DOW N BY THE SUPREME COURT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCENTIVES INCLUDING DEPB LICENCE. 13. THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LICENCE IS RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF EXPORT PERFORMANCE AND NOT DEPB, AND THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE. HERE, IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LIT IGATION THE ITAT HAS GIVEN CLEAR DIRECTION WHILE SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MATTER PERTAINING TO EXPORT INCENTIVE WAS ONLY SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AND IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME, THE ITAT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. IF, AS PER THE INTERPRETATION OF LD.A R THAT CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LICENCE IS NOT AN EXPORT INCENTIVE, THEN TH IS PART OF THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITI GATION AGAINST THE ASSESSE AND IF IT IS THE PART OF THE INCENTIVE, THEN IT IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA LTD (SUPRA). THEREFOR E, THIS ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR ALSO FAILS. ITA NO.1101/RJT/2009 8 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-02-2011. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT, DT : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT, CENTRAL-II, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT