Kandla Port Trust, GANDHIDHAM V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 1135/RJT/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 113524914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12AA; 11

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.1135/RJT/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). KANDLA PORT TRUST, VS. THE A.C.I.T. (CIRCL E), GANDHIDHAM. GANDHIDHAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.1199/R JT/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05). THE A.C.I.T. (CIRCLE), VS. KANDLA PORT T RUST GANDHIDHAM. GANDHIDHAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT). C. O. NO.42/RJT/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.1199/RJT/2009). (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ). KANDLA PORT TRUST, VS. THE A.C.I.T. (CIRCLE ), GANDHIDHAM. GANDHIDHAM. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH. DEPARTMENT BY : S.L. MEENA, D.R . O R D E R PER AL GEHLOT, AM: APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARISES OUT OF ORDER C.I.T.(A)-II TO RAJKOT DATED 12-10- 2006. THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004- ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 2 05. THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A)-II, RAJKOT DATED 17-09- 2009. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THE APPEAL S AND THE CROSS- OBJECTION BASED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND PERTA IN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, T HEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO,1135/RJT/09 BY ASSESSEE A.Y.2006-07. 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 READS AS UNDER:- 1) LD C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NO T ALLOWING INCOME OF THE APPELLANT EXEMPT U/S.11 TO 13 OF THE ACT AS YOUR APPELLANT HAS GOT THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT AND BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 TO 13, IT S WHOLE INCOME IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. FOR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, INCOME OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXEMPT U/S. 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. 2) LD C.I.T.(A) II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY MENTIONING IN THE ORDER THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED IN EARLIER AS SESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN APPEAL NO. 0041/07-08 BY TAKING THE WDV OF VARIOUS ASSETS AS PER BOOKS AS ON 1/4/200 HO LDS GOOD IN CURRENT APPEAL ALSO WHEREAS A.O. HAS WORKED THE DEPRECIATION BASED ON WDV OF VARIOUS ASSETS ASS ON 1/4/2001 IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND NOT AS ON 1/ 4/2002 AND SO THE DIFFERENCE OF WDV ADOPTED NEEDS TO ALLOWED 3) LD C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NO T TAKING ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS CORE ASSETS OF PORTS LIKE WHARVES, PAVEMENTS, DOCKS, DRA INS, JETTIES, RAILWAYS, ROLLING STOCK WAS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT BA SED ON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF SUCH ASSETS TREATING T HE SAME AS PLANT AND MACHINERY BUT THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE SA ME AS BUILDING AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON SAME AT TH E RATE APPLICABLE TO BUILDING. LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS MENTION ED IN THE ORDER THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEA LT BY HIM ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 3 IN APPEAL NO. 0041/07-08 FOR A.Y.2003-04 AND THUS T HE SAME HOLDS GOODS FOR CURRENT APPEAL ALSO WHEREAS YOUR AP PELLANT WANTS TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THAT APPEAL NO SUCH I SSUE WAS THERE AND THUS THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS PER AVAILABLE DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT COURTS. HONBLE ITAT, RAJKOT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND HONBLE CIT(A) II, RAJKOT FOR A.Y.2004-05 HAS ALLOWED THE D EPRECIATION OF ABOVE MENTIONED ASSETS OF THE RATE APPLICABLE TO PLANT & MACHINERY BASED ON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ASS ETS. NO SUCH ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. FOR THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CORE ASSET OF THE APPELL ANT AS MENTIONED ABOVE NEEDS TO CLASSIFIED UNDER THE CATEG ORY PLANT & MACHINERY AND THE DEPRECIATION NEEDS TO BE ALLOWE D AT THE RATE APPLICABLE TO PLANT & MACHINERY. 4) LD C.I.T.(A) II HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEP RECIATION ON COMPUTER INSTALLATION ITEMS LIKE SPECIAL CIVIL WORK PLATFORM, HDPE PINE & ELECTRICAL WIRING DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION OF COMPUTERS AT THE RATE ALLOWABLE TO COMPUTER. FOR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DEPRECIATI ON ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ITEMS NEEDS TO ALLOWED AT THE RATE APPLICABLE TO COMPUTER AS ALL THE COST INCURRED FOR BRINGING T HE ASSETS TO ITS WORKING CONDITIONS IS INCLUDED IN ACTUAL COT OF ASS ETS AND IS CAPITALIZED UNDER THE SAME HEAD IN WHICH THE ASSETS FALL AND THUS DEPRECIATION RATE NEEDS TO BE APPLIED UNIFORML Y ON ALL SUCH ITEMS. ITA NO.1199/RJT/09 BY REVENUE A.Y.2004-05 GROUND REPRODUCED: 1. THE LD C.I.T.(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE OF THE ASSETS EVEN THOUGH THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WERE QUITE O LD AND OBSOLETE. 2. THE LD C.I.T.(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AT 25% INTEREST OF AT 10% ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 4 C.I.T. VS. ANAND THEATRES (244 ITR 193), ETC ON THE FOLLOWING ASSETS, VIZ; 1) WHARF, ROAD & BOUNDARIES 2) RAILWAY SIDING & PERMANENT INCLUDING SIGNAL 3) DOCKS, PIER AND JETTY 4) FENDER, BOUYS AND MOORING 5) NAVIGATION STRUCTURE 3. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) OUGH T TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. C.I.T.(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. C.O. NO.42/RJT/10 BY ASSESSEE A.Y.2004-05. THE ASSESSEE RAISED A GROUND IN C.O. THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA W.E.F. 1-4- 2002 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.11 TO 13 OF T HE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ARE THAT THE A.O. REJECTED THE ASSESSEES C ONTENTION THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME IS EXEMPTED AS THE REGISTRATION U/S.1 2AA OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE U/S.12AA ISSUE D BY THE C.I.T. TILL THE TIME OF FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. ALS O NOTICED THAT AS PER AMENDMENT TO SEC.43(6) THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE AT RS.51,73,70,684/- WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.55,85,16,720/-. THE A.O. FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION RS.4,11,46,036/-. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,46,036/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION STATING THAT ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 5 ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT AS PER AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS OF SEC.43(6), IT IS SETTLED THAT THE DEPRECIATION SHAL L BE ALLOWABLE BY TAKING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS PER BOOKS AND NOT BASED ON ORIGINAL COST OF THE ASSETS. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY A.O. IN A.Y.2004-05. 4. THE A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION ON VARIOUS ASSETS LIKE WHARFS, DOCKS, PIER AND JETTY HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING AND RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS APPLICA BLE ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE WERE THE PLAINT AND MACHINERY AND THEREFORE, RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO PLAIN T AND MACHINERY IS TO BE APPLIED. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10% AND EXCESS DEPRECIA TION CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED. 5. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON THE ELECTRICAL WIRING, HDPE PIPELINE, CIVIL WORK PLATFORM, ETC. CLAIMING THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PRO TECT COMPUTER AND HENCE ITS COST IS CAPITALIZED IN THAT OF THE COST O F COMPUTE. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIA TION, HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.47,713/-. SIMILAR A DDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN A.Y.2004-05. 6. BEFORE THE C.I.T.(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA W.E.F. 1-4-2 002 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11,1 2 & 13 OF THE ACT. ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 6 THE C.I.T.(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION OBSERVING THAT GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA DOES NOT SUO MOTO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE EXEMPTION U/S.11,12 & 13 OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPROACH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS. IT IS ONLY THE A.O. WHO HAS GOT THE P OWER TO ANALYZE AND GRANT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 AND 12, AFTER VERIFYING WHE THER THERE WAS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME OR NOT. THE C.I.T.(A) ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE GRANT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT HIS JOB IS ONLY TO CONFINE HIMSELF WITH THE ISSUES RAISED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, THE C.I.T.(A) NOTED THAT THE SAME ISSUE AROSE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04, 2004- 05 & 2005-06. THE C.I.T.(A) NOTED THAT THERE IS OR DER OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04. BUT DIFFEREN TIATED THAT DECISION AND OTHER DECISIONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON IN RESPECT OF MEANING OF THE WORD ACTUALLY ALLOWED. IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE, FOR A.Y.2003-04 THE C.I.T.(A) NOTED THAT HE HAS SYSTEM ATICALLY ANALYZED THE SAID ORDER AND BROUGHT ON RECORD CERTAIN VIEWP OINTS THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THAT DECISION BY THE ITAT. HE FURTHE R NOTICE THAT FINALLY, HE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CHANGES MADE IN EXPLANATION 6 TO SECTION 43(6) OF THE ACT WITH R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1-4-2003 AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 AND CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT A.O. WAS RIGHT IN PASSIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AS PER WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS ON 1-4- 2002 AS AGAINST THE DEPRECIATION ON ORIGINAL COST O F ASSETS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE C.I.T.(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THIS ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 7 ISSUE IN A.Y.2006-07. THE C.I.T.(A) ALSO CONFIRME D THE ORDER OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,713/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DE PRECIATION ON COMPUTER IN A.Y. 2006-07 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. HOWEVER, IN A.Y.2004-05 C.I.T.(A) FOLLOWED THE ITA T ORDER FOR A.Y.2003-04 AND UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE ON BOTH THE COUNT RATE OF DEPRECIATION COST ON WHICH DEPRECIATI ON WAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORD ER OF C.I.T.(A) FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS TAK ING GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA W.E.F.1-4-2002. 7. THE LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT, RAJKO T VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20-07-2008 ALLOWED THE REGISTRATION US/12AA T O THE ASSESSEE AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS EX EMPTED U/S.11 AND 13 OF THE ACT. 8. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PORT CREATES FACILITIES FOR RECE PTION OF VESSELS AND THE VESSELS ARE DOCKED AND UNDOCKED AT THE WHARF/JE TTY/QUAY/MOORING ETC. ONCE THE VESSELS ARE BERTHED THE CARGO HANDLI NG LOADING AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS ARE DONE BY USING THE WHARF WI TH EQUIPMENTS LIKE CRANES, UNLOADING ARMS. ETC. THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THESE ASSETS ARE PLANT AND MACHINERY, THEREFORE, THE DEPR ECIATION RATE IS APPLICABLE ACCORDINGLY. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T UP-TO A.Y. 2002- 03 THE QUESTION OF CLAIMING DEPRECIATION DID NOT AR ISE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS EXEMPTED U/S.10. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF GETTING ANY DEPR ECIATION UP-TO A.Y. ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 8 2002-03, THEREFORE, THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE WAS THE SAME AS ORIGINAL COST. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE FIRST TIME CAME BEFORE THE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH FOR A.Y.2003-04 AND HAS BEEN DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 25-04-2006, KANDLA PORT TRUST VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 104 TTJ (RAJKO T) 396. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN OTHER WORD, THE ISSUES COVER S IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HANDS, RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND SUBMITTED THAT EXPLA NATION 6 OF SEC.43(6) HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT,2008 W.E.F. 1-4-2003 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN A.Y.20 03-04. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES, RECORD PERUSED. WE NOTICED THAT GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 4 RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2006-07 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN A.Y.2004-05. GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2006-07 AND GROUND RAISED IN C.O. FOR A.Y.2004-05 BY ASSESSEE IS ALSO IDENTICAL, IN RESPE CT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. IN C.O. FOR A.Y.2004-05 GROU ND NO.1 HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE ITAT. SINCE THESE GROUNDS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, SA ME IS ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AFTER HEARING LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT BY THE C.I.T. ORDER DATED 05-12 -2008 W.E.F.01-04- 2002. THE C.I.T. DID NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO CONSID ER THE REGISTRATION ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 9 GRANTED U/S.12AA IN A.Y.2004-05 AS THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T. IS 12-10- 2006 WHEREAS THE DATE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION BY C .I.T. IS DATED 05- 12-2008. IN A.Y. 2006-07 THE C.I.T.(A) REJECTED TH IS GROUND RELATING TO REGISTRATION U/S.12(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE RE GISTRATION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. AS HE IS TO VERIF Y THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SS. 11,12 AND 13 OF THE ACT. THE C .I.T.(A) NOTED THAT HIS JOB ONLY TO CONTINUE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THUS, WE FIND THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S.12AA WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES. AS STATED ABOVE THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF REGISTRATION U/S.12 AA GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND CERTAIN FACTS ARE TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF REGISTRATION GRANTED BY C.I.T. W.E.F. 01-04-2002. WE, THEREFORE, SENT BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRE CTION, FIRST EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION U/S.12(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER DECIDING THIS ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, THE A.O. WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS BY BOTH THE PARTY REGARDING DEPR ECIATION ALLOWANCE AND OTHERS KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT FOR A.Y.2003-04 ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 350/RJT/2007 E VEN DATED AND AMENDMENT IN SECTION 43(6) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. WIL L PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR A.Y.2004-0 5, C.O. BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2006-07 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED A BOVE. ITA 1135 & 1199 /RJT/2009 IN C.O.42/RJT/10 10 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-05-2011. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( A. L. GEHLOT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. RAJKOT, DT : 31-05-2011. NVA/- COPY TO: 1. KANDLA PORT TRUST. GANDHIDHAM 2. THE A.C.I.T.,(CIRCLE), GANDHIDHAM. 3. THE CIT(A)- RAJKOT. 4. THE C.I.T. 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T., RAJKOT. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT.