Shri Hemendra Chandulal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Addl.CIT.,Range-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1129/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0208 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAUSHIK D SHAH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 133A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND D.C.AGRAW AL, AM HEMENDRA CHANDULAL SHAH, PROP. ADCOM, 323, PANJARAPOLE, RELIEF ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN AFDPS 6617R VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI KAUSHIK D. SHAH, AR REVENUEBY:- SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SU STAINING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271D OF RS.1,18,000/- AND THERE BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAINED PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271D OF THE I.T. ACT BUT OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) M AY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT L D. AO LEVIED AND LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED OF PENALTY OF RS.1,18,000/- UNDER SECTION 271D. ITA NO.1129/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR :2005-06 2 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE DEPOSITE D IN CASH RS.1,18,000/- ON 12.4.2004 IN HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT M AINTAINED FOR THE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S ADCOM WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, RELIEF ROAD BRANCH HAVING A/C NO.11162. IT W AS EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS.1,00,000 WAS BORROWED FROM HIS SON SHRI R AHUL H. SHAH ON 7.4.2004 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.18,000/- WAS BORROWE D BY HIM ON 12.4.2004 AND WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AC CORDING TO THE AO DEPOSITING MONEY IN CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT IS VIOLATI ON OF SECTION 269SS AS ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN AND DEPOSITED MONEY OTHERWI SE THAN BY WAY OF BANK DRAFT AND CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE MONEY WAS IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO CLEAR THE DEBIT BALANCE WITH THE SAID BANK AND AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE BANK. TH E NECESSARY CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI RAHUL . H. SHAH, HIS SON, WA S SUBMITTED WITH HIS PAN. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASS T. YEAR 2005-06 THIS SUM WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE AO BY LD. CIT(A). THE AO ACCEPTED THE CREDIT AS GENUINE AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO MENTI ON OF ANY VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS HAS BEEN MADE. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE IT WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME LOAN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/- WAS TAKEN FROM HIS SON TO CLEAR THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SO AS TO AVOID BOUNCING OF CHEQUES. ON LEGAL SIDE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- 1. IT MAY KINDLY BE NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS U/S 269SS PROVIDING FOR MODE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING CERTAIN LOANS AND DEPOSITS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON STATUTE UNDER CHAPTER XXB THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 1984 W.E.F. 01.04. 1984 WHICH STATES THE HEADLINE AS : REQUIREMENT AS TO MODE OF (ACCEPTANCE, PAYMEN T OR) REPAYMENT IN CERTAIN CASES TO COUNTERACT EVASION OF TAX. YOU WILL APPRE CIATE THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF EVASION OF TAX AS ALLEGED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.1,18,000/- BY WAY O F CASH FROM SHRI RAHUL H. SHAH. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NO SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OR SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN MY CASE. HENCE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF INTRODUCTION OF CASH TO JUSTIFY OR ESTABLISH THE VALID SOURCE OF CASH FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH ACTION. 3 THUS, THE OBJECT AND THE INTENT AS CONTAINED UNDER THE SAID CHAPTER HAS NO APPLICATION IN MY CASE VIS--VIS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271-D OF THE IT ACT. 2. WHERE CONTRAVENTION ALLEGED AGAINST ASSESSEE IN ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED LIMIT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY UN ACCOUNTED TRANSACTION SUCH AS LENDING AND REPAYMENT AND TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED IN BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND FIGURE INVOLVED WAS ALSO MEAGER AND TRANSACTION WERE ENTER ED INTO ONLY FOR MEETING SUDDEN DEMAND OF OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. RATNA AGENCIES (2006) 284 ITR 609. 3. TRANSACTION BETWEEN CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS, SUC H AS FATHER & SON WOULD FALL OUTSIDE SCOPE OF SEC.269SS AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF HON. BANGLORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF G.D. SUBRAYA SHENEGAR VS. ITO (2006) 10 SOT 378. 4. WHERE NO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION O F SEC.269SS WAS INITIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271-D OF THE ACT AND THUS NO PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE AUT HORITIES TILL THE DATE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271-D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVING NOT BE EN INITIATED DURING THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THE SAME WERE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LA W AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF HON. AGRA ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST V S. CIT (2006) 99 TTJ 212. 5. WHERE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS ACCEPTED, PE NALTY U/S 271-D IS NOT LEVIABLE AS HELD IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) DR. DEEPAK MUCHHALA 58 TTJ 524 II) BOMBAY CONDUCTORS & ELECTRICALS LTD. 56 TTJ 580 III) HARPAL SINGH JASWANT SINGH 82 TAXMAN (MAG) 81 IV) VIR SALES CORPORATION 121 CTR 46 (ABAD) 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A REASONABLE CAUSE. HE OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 5. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BUT I AM AFRAID I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. SECTION 269SS I MPOSES AN OBLIGATION OF AN ASSESSEE TO DO TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CH ANNELS, OVER A CERTAIN SPECIFIED LIMIT, AND FOR NOT FOLLOWING THIS SECTION PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271D. HAVING COMMITTED A DEFAULT U/S 269SS THE ONLY ESCAPE FOR NON-LEVY OF PENALTY IS EITHER TO BE COVERED BY ONE OF THE PR OVISO TO SECTION 269SS OR SECTION 273B, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ADVANCE A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO FOLLOW SUCH A LAID DOWN PROV ISION OF LAW. A REASONABLE CAUSE HAS TO BE EQUATED TO AN HAPPENING WHICH ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN AND WHICH WAS BEYOND ASSESS EES CONTROL. IN THE 4 PRESENT CASE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THIS CATEGORY. THE APPELLANT RAN INTO A DEBIT BALANCE WI TH THE BANK AND THEREFORE HAD TO CLEAR DEFICIT. TO START WITH FIRST LY HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF DEBIT BALANCE AND SECONDLY T HERE IS NO REASON WHY SUCH A DEBIT BALANCE NEEDED TO BE CLEARED UP ONLY B Y A CASH TRANSACTION. IF ONE WERE TO SEE THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT, W HICH HAS BEEN FILED FROM 1/4/2004 IT HAD A DEBIT BALANCE RIGHT FROM 1/4 /2004 (IT MAY HAVE HAD IT EARLIER ALSO) AND THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTIO N HAD BEEN MADE ON 7/4/2004. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY UR GENCY OR A SITUATION WHERE BANKING TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESO RTED TO. THEREFORE, NOT ONLY IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY PROVISO TO SECTIO N 269SS THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY REASONABLE EXPLA NATION TO BE COVERED BY SECTION 273B. AS FAR AS THE DECISION CITED BY TH E APPELLANT PARTICULARLY OF THE HON. JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OME C ENGINEERS (SUPRA) THE DECISION CONCLUDES BY SAYING THAT IN SUCH A CAS E THE PENALTY SHALL BE HARSH. THEREFORE, THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A COMPAS SIONATE VIEW OF SITUATION. SUCH A LIBERAL VIEW IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF CIT(A)S LEVEL AND HENCE CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. 5. BEFORE US, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T - (1) THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE INASMUCH AS ASSESSEE WA S DIRECTED BY THE BANK TO CLEAR THE DEBIT BALANCE FOR HONOURIN G THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE WAS CO MPELLED TO MAKE IMMEDIATE DEPOSIT. THE DEPOSIT IN CASH WAS ACC EPTED AS GENUINE BY THE LD. AO AS NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 HAS BEEN MADE. (2) THE AO HAS NOT INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE LEVY OF PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW. (3) LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE SON THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF OTHER PERSON AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 269SS. IF A LOAN IS TAKEN FROM CLOSE RELATIVE THEN PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. (4) THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS IS FOR THE COUNTERIN G THE TAX EVASION AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN TO EVADE THE TAX. 5 (5) THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION BEFORE INI TIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. (6) THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT DEALT WITH THE A UTHORITIES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMI TTED THAT IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS W ILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF LOAN IS TAKEN FROM SON OR CLOSE RELATIVE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS A REASON ABLE CAUSE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSITING THE MONEY IN BANK ACCOUNT. WHERE BANK DIRECTS TO CLEAR THE DEBIT BALANCE THEN SOME SORT OF PANIC IS CREATED IN THE BUSINESSMAN AND ANY HOW HE MAKES ARRANGEMENT TO CLE AR THE DEBIT BALANCE. IF THE MONEY IS TAKEN FROM SON AND DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK THEN UNLESS AO CARRIES OUT ENQUIRIES AND REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS NO PANIC POINT CAUSED BY THE BANK, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD THEN CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAU SE. IN THIS REGARD WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL S MC BENCH IN ITA NO.2121/AHD/2010 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI PATEL, PROP. OF M/S SILP HOCHEM INDUS. VS. JT. CIT, RANGE-6, AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED ON 7/7/2010 WHEREIN A SIMILAR PROPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271-D WAS CANC ELLED. THE SMC BENCH HAD HELD AS UNDER :- 6. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED AN EXPLANATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND FALSE OR INCORRECT. THIS I S ONE OF THE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR DEPOSITING MONEY IN CASH. HIS OD L IMIT STATED BY THE BANK WAS APPROACHING FAST AND THERE WAS AN APPREHEN SION OF CHEQUES BEING DISHONOURED AND ACCORDINGLY IMMEDIATELY CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY BORROWING FROM MRS. M. K. TRIVEDI. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THIS CASH DEPOSIT MEANIN G THEREBY THAT THEY 6 HAVE ACCEPTED IT TO BE GENUINE BORROWING. ONCE THIS IS SO AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DOUBTED, THEN EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SATISFA CTORY UNLESS ANY MATERIAL IS COLLECTED BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT FACTS STATED IN THE EXPLANATION ARE INCORRECT OR FALSE. THE AO SHOULD H AVE VERIFIED FROM THE BANK AS TO WHAT IS THE OD LIMIT AND WHETHER THERE I S ANY CONTRADICTION IN WHAT IS STATED BEFORE HIM. FURTHER GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND SHOWN THAT IT WAS IN FACT MO NEY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THAT OF MRS. TRIVEDI. ONCE HAVING ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS U NSATISFACTORY UNLESS IT IS INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE FALSE. IF THE EVENT S NARRATED IN THE EXPLANATION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE THEN WITHOUT CON TRADICTING THE FACTS STATED IN THE EXPLANATION, IT CANNOT BE REJECTED. I F THE LAW PROVIDES THAT PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED AS EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFA CTORY THEN SATISFACTION OF THE AO ON THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE SHOULD BE OBJECTIVE AND NOT MERELY SUBJECTIVE REJECTING OUT-R IGHTLY, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FACTS STATED IN THE EXPLANATION. I ACCORDINGLY HOLD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPLAN ATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY CANCEL THE PENALTY. 8. IN A SIMILAR CASE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN IT A NO.1801/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SMT. BHANUBEN R. SHAH, PROP. PADMAVATI TRADING CO., PRO NOUNCED ON 11.9.2009 HELD THAT WHEN TRANSACTION IS DONE TREATI NG SISTER CONCERN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF BUSINESS IT WOULD CONSTITUT E REASONABLE CAUSE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE PARA 5.3 F ROM THAT ORDER AS UNDER :- 5.3 MOREOVER, THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH N C' IN THE CASE OF VLR SALES CORPORATION V AC1T (1994) 50TTJ 130(AHD), HAVE HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS INTER SE BETWEEN THE SISTER CONCERNS M ADE WITH A VIEW TO MEET THE BUSINESS NEEDS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF AND WITH REASONABLE CAUSE, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADMITTEDLY TRANSACTIONS ARE BE TWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR GOEL{SUPRA} WHILE RELYING UPON THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SAINI MEDICAL STORE,277 ITR 420(P&H) CONCLUDED T HAT BONAFIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SEC, 273B OF THE ACT IT WAS HELD 7 THAT A FAMILY TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT A SSESSEES BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUALNESS, SPECIALLY WHEN DISCLOSURE IS CON TAINED IN THE ACCOUNTS WOULD ESTABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 273B OF THE ACT. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CA SE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICE THAT NO LOSS OF REVENUE HAS OCCURRED IN T HIS CASE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED . THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1 972] 83 ITR 26 HAD LONG AGO SETTLED THE LAW THAT PENALTY IS NOT TO BE ORDINARILY IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIA NCE OF LAW AND WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTE D IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. PENALTY WILT ALSO NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOU LD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATT ER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSI DERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO I MPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO DO SO, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BR EACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT FN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FUL LY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. E VEN IF, THERE WAS ANY IGNORANCE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INFRACTION OF LAW, THE DEFAULT IS TECHNICAL OR VENIAL WHICH DID NOT PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR TAX EVASION WAS INVOLVED. THEREFORE, B ONA FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WO ULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B FOR NOT INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 D OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, WE CANCEL THE PENALT Y LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONSTITUTING REASONABLE CAUSE, WE DECLINE TO GO INTO OTHER ARGUM ENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THEY ARE MERELY ACADEMIC. 8 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/8/2010 SD/- SD/- (MUMUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD, DATED : 6/8/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD