Shri Dilip J.Shah, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-2(OSD), Baroda

ITA 1514/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9025 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 26/08/09 DRAFTED ON: 16/09 /09 APPEAL(S) BY SL. NO(S). ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPOND -ENT 1. 1513/AHD/2008 1996-97 DILIP J.SHAH PROP.OF MONACHEM CORPORATION 604, GALAV CHAMBERS SAYAJIGUNJ, VADODARA PAN : AJBPS 1830 J THE ACIT CIR-2 BARODA 2. 1514/AHD/2008 1996-97 -DO- -DO- 3. 1515/AHD/2008 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 4. 1516/AHD/2008 2002-03 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEES BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI C.K. MISHRA, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, BARODA DATED 15/02/2008 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 199 7-98, 2001-02 & 2002-03. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 2 - 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON, WE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, DISPOSE THESE APPEAL TOGETHER. ITA NO.1513/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED, BY WAY OF GROUND NO .1 CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,33,950/- ON ACC OUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- SL.NO(S) NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT (RS.) 1. RIKON INCORPORATION 70,000 2. RAJ INTERNATIONAL 45,000 3. OMEGA CORPORATION 2,00,000 4. SYNERGY SERVICES 30,450 5. S.S. CONSULTANCY 1,38,500 6. ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. 5,50,000 TOTAL 10,33,950 4. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL SECOND GROUND RELATES TO M AKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,430/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF INTENDING AGENT AND PROVIDES VARIOUS SE RVICES, SUCH AS, LOCATING BUYERS, BOOKING THE ORDERS, PROVIDING FOLL OW-UP CUSTOMERS ACTION FOR HIS PRINCIPLES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1996-97, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.17,56,290/-. T HE ASSESSMENT WAS ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 3 - COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON AN IN COME OF RS.31,04,373/- VIDE ORDER PASSED ON 08/02/1999. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROPOSED AN ADDITION OF RS.11,18,947/- BY DISALLOWING COMMISSION PAYMENT AND OF RS.11,430/- BY DISALLOWI NG INTEREST EXPENSES. THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28/01/2000. HOWEVER, THE TRIB UNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 02/09/2005 IN APPEAL, ITA NO.840/AHD/20 00 RESTORED THE ISSUE REGARDING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO BE EXAMINE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFRESH AND WITH FURTHER DIRECTION S TO VERIFY WHETHER THE AGENTS HAVE RENDERED ANY SERVICES AGAI NST SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE REGARDI NG DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1) (III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 W AS ALSO RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDED AN O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS, SUCH AS, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID. THE DETAILS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NAME OF THE AGENT, CU STOMER INVOLVED, PRODUCT INVOLVED AND THE LATEST ADDRESS. IN ADDIT ION TO THIS, THE ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 4 - ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO NINE (9) PARTIES ASKING THEM TO FURNISH FOLLOWING D ETAILS:- (I) PLEASE CONFIRM WHETHER YOU HAD MADE ANY PURCH ASE OF MATERIAL (CHEMICALS0 DIRECTLY FROM M/S.MONACHEM CORPORATION. PROP SHRI DILIP G.SHAH, BARODA OR THR OUGH HIS AGENT. (II) PLEASE STATE WHETHER ANY PURCHASE OF MATERIAL OR AN Y PAYMENT PROCESS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OR IN ANY OTHE R ACTIVITY RELATED THE PURCHASE OF ABOVE MATERIALS. MONACHEM CORPORATION OF DILIP SHAH IS INVOLVED. ALSO FURNISH WHETHER THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGENT EVER CONTACTED YOU ON BEHALF OF MONACHEM CORPORATION OR OTHERWISE IN THE MATTER RELATING TO PURCHASE OF MAT ERIAL. 7. THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE SOU GHT ARE AS UNDER:- SL.NO(S) NAME OF PARTY 1. LG POLYMERS (I) PVT.LTD. (EARLIER MC DOWELL & CO.LIMITED) 2. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 3. X-MOLD POLYMERS (P) LTD. 4. SANGHI THREADS (P) LTD. 5. TIPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED 6. PLASTIBLENDS L LIMITED 7. REMU PIPES LIMITED 8. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LIMITED NAGHOT HANE 9. VIDHYA TELELING LIMITED ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 5 - 8. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 SOME PARTIES RESPONDED AND SOME OF THEM DID NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PREPARED A SUMMARY OF RESPONSES AS UNDER:- SL.NO(S) NAME OF PARTY REMARK 1. LG POLYMERS (I) PVT.LTD. (EARLIER MC DOWELL & CO.LIMITED) COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN DE.1996. HENCE NO QUESTION OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTION AS PER THEIR REPLY DATED 11.12.2006. 2. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED NO REPLY RECEIVED. 3. X-MOLD POLYMERS (P) LTD. REPLY DTD. 12.12.06 WAS RECEIVED ON 29.12.2006. IT IS STATED THAT BILL WAS RAISED BY MONACHEM CORPORATION AND PAYMENT WAS ALSO PAID TO M/S.MONACHEM CORP.DIRECTLY. 4. SANGHI THREADS (P) LTD. NO REPLY RECEIVED. 5. TIPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION. 6. PLASTIBLENDS I. LIMITED ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION 7. REMU PIPES LIMITED UN-SERVED 8. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LIMITED NAGHOTHANE NO REPLY RECEIVED 9. VIDHYA TELELING LIMITED NO REPLY RECEIVED 9. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW-C AUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO SUBMITTED A REPLY VIDE ITS LETT ER DATED 27/12/07. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 6 - THE GIST OF REPLY HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- (I) IT IS A MATTER OF EIGHT AND TEN YEARS BACK AN D DUE TO DISTANCES INVOLVED AND CHANGES EFFECTED IN THE ORGANIZATION AND IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AGENTS (W HO WERE STATIONED AT VISAKHAPATNAM, MYSORE, CHENNAI, E TC.) REPLY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN BARODA. (II) TWO REPLIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT AN D ON THE BASIS OF THESE REPLIES COMMISSION PAID TO T HESE AGENTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED . 10. ON THE BASIS OF RESPONSES RECEIVED FORM THE AGENTS AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE PA YMENT OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.894,997/- MADE TO M/S.T IPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND M/S.PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMIT ED WHO HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE PAYMENT. IN RESPECT OF OTHERS WHO DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.10,33,950/-, OUT OF ADDITION ORIGIN ALLY MADE AT RS.11,18,947/-. 11. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION U/S.36(1)(III), THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT INTERE ST-FREE ADVANCES WERE NOT MADE OUT OF INTEREST-BEARING BORROWED FUNDS INS PITE OF ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 7 - OPPORTUNITIES HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO HIM TO SUBSTANTI ATE ITS CLAIM. HE ACCORDINGLY, PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.11,430/- AS ORIGINALLY MADE. 12. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT A S PER DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EV IDENCE OF SERVICES HAVING BEEN RENDERED BY THE AGENTS. THE ONUS IS O N THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES. TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE B ETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSE E HAD PRODUCED TWO EX-EMPLOYEES OF M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES AND M/S.IPCL WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BUT SUCH STATEMENTS WERE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THOSE COMPANIES. THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE OF SERVICES HAVING BEEN RENDERED WERE NOT PRODUCED. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE U/S.36(1)(III) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWE EN INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS AND INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 8 - 13. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED A NY EVIDENCE OF SERVICES HAVING BEEN RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGE NTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DOCUME NTS FILED IN THE PAPER-BOOK WHICH WERE ALSO CERTIFIED AS FILED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THESE DOCUMENTS CLEARL Y INDICATE THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE RENDERED SERVICES TO THE ASS ESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT CLIENTS ALO NE SHOULD CERTIFY THAT COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE RENDERED SERVICES FOR THE AS SESSEE. IT IS THE NATURE OF WORK ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS T HAT WILL DECIDE WHETHER ANY CERTIFICATE FROM CLIENTS IS NECESSARY O R OTHER DOCUMENTS WOULD SUFFICE TO PROVE THE FACT OF RENDERING SERVIC ES. 14. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHE D AND CONFIRMATION SENT BY THE CLIENTS, THE FACT OF RENDERING SERVICES BY SAME SET OF AGENTS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOU LD BE HELD OTHERWISE. FURTHER, THESE AGENTS CONTINUED TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 9 - ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING SERVICES TO HIM IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-01 WHOSE ASSESSMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT OF RE-OPENING. IN FACT, ONE PARTICULAR AGENT IS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE ASSES SEE SINCE LONG. HE IS KNOWN TO SHRI DILIP J.SHAH (ASSESSEE) PERSONALLY AN D HAS NOW COME INTO HIS EMPLOYMENT. STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJU SAVLA WHO IS RUNNING THE CONCERNS, NAMELY RIKON INCORPORATION AND RAJ IN TERNATIONAL AS PROPRIETOR IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND HUF CAPAC ITY RESPECTIVELY WAS RECORDED. HE HAD IN THE DETAILED STATEMENT REC ORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY SPELT OUT AS TO WHAT SER VICES HE HAS RENDERED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IGNORED THE A VERMENTS MADE BY HIM AND HAVE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS S UBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 15. FINALLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE LAPSES OF 10 YEARS OR MORE , THE DEGREE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FORM THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REDUC ED AS WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME EVIDENCES GET LOST. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 10 - 16. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CONFIRMATI ON FROM THE RESPECTIVE CLIENTS, THEREFORE, CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS FURNISHING IS ONLY THE SELF SERVING EVIDENCE. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIE D IN IGNORING THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI RAJU SAVLA AND THE DOCUMENT S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT SHRI RAJU SAVLA HAS RENDRED SERVICES FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID. FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE AND FOR NARROWING DOWN THE DISPUTE, WE REPRODUCE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 IN ITA NO.809/AHD/2000, DATED 08/08/2005. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THOUGH LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THERE IS AMPLE DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF VA RIOUS CORRESPONDENCES AND THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION WE RE IN TOUCH WITH THE NECESSARY PRODUCTS AND PROSPECTIVE C USTOMERS BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT WE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 11 - CORRESPONDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOM ERS TO CORRELATE THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, ENQU IRIES MADE BY AO REVEALED THAT PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION AND THERE WERE DIRECT DEALING BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROSPECTIVE C USTOMERS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS FACTUALLY WR ONG IN MENTIONING THAT THERE WAS AMPLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION WERE IN TOUCH WITH THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. HOWE VER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT AO DID NOT CONDUCT CO MPLETE ENQUIRES FROM ALL THE PARTIES AND ALSO KEEPING IN V IEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN CHANCE TO MEET THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THREE CUSTOMERS/SUPPLIERS WITH WHOM THE ENQ UIRIES WERE MADE, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER AND JUSTIFIED TO R ESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO ENABLE ASSESSEE TO MEET ITS CASE PROPERLY. UNLESS SERVICES ARE FOUND TO BE RENDERED , THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IF THE ASSESSEE IS A BLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES BY TH E RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON COMMISSI ON WILL BE ALLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE REGARDIN G PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO D ECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE DIRECTIONS AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES GROUND NO.1 ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 12 - IN REVENUES APPEALS FOR AYS 1996-97, 97-98 AND 01- 02 IS ALLOWED. 18. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SER VICES BY THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON COMMISSION WILL BE ALLOWED. 19. THUS, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ANY CONFIRMATION F ROM THE CLIENTS THAT THE AGENTS HAVE CONTACTED THEM ON BEHALF OF AS SESSEE OR IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT AGENTS ARE FURNISHING MARKET REPORT S, DATA ABOUT PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS THEIR ADDRESSES, CONTACT NUMBER S, ETC. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY THAT FA CTUM OF RENDERING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVED ON THE BASI S OF ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLIENTS WITH WHOM THE AGENTS MIGHT HAVE CONTACTED FOR PROCURING BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CONFIRMATION FIRST, MAY NOT BE FORTHCOMING AFTER PASSAGE OF TIME AS THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS IN THE CLIENTS OFFICE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TR ANSFERRED OR LEFT THE SERVICES OR SOME OF THEM MAY NOT HAVE ANY DEFINITE RECORD AS TO WHETHER AGENTS HAVE ACTUALLY CONTACTED THEM. SEC ONDLY, MERE ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 13 - VISITING CLIENTS OFFICE AND THEIR OFFICIALS BY IT SELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT AGENTS HAVE RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSES SEE. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT THE AGENTS HAVE NECESSARY EXPERTI SE, EXPERIENCE AND RESOURCES WHICH CAN SUPPORT THAT THEY HAVE SERVIC E RENDERING WORTHINESS. IN ADDITION, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT AGENTS HAVE PROVIDED VALUABLE INFORMATION WHIC H HAS HELPED THE ASSESSEE IN PROCURING BUSINESS, THEN IT WOULD BE SU FFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE AGE NT. 20. WE MAY DRAW PARALLEL WITH A SITUATION WHERE CO NSULTANCY SERVICES ARE RENDERED BY AN ADVOCATE FROM HIS CHAMB ER BUT HE ACTUALLY DOES NOT APPEAR BEFORE A COURT TO REPRESEN T ANY MATTER. SOMEONE WHO RENDERS CONSULTANCY SERVICES CANNOT BE DENIED HIS PROFESSIONAL FEES MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE I S NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS APPEARED IN THE COURT. DRAWING PARALLEL, I F AN AGENT PROVIDES SERVICES AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE CONTACTED OR APPEARED BEFORE THE CLIENT, TH EN MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLIENTS, IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT SERVICES ARE NOT RENDERED. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 14 - 21. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO SEVERAL DOCUME NTS FILED IN THE PAPER-BOOK. SOME RELEVANT DETAILS FROM THESE DOCUM ENTS ARE AS UNDER:- (A) SR.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY (WITH DETAILS) NO.OF PAGES 1. OMEGA CORPORATION - COMMISSION AGREEMENT DATED 15 TH MARCH 1995 - CORRESPONDENCES RECEIVED FROM OMEGA CORPORATION - CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY MONACHEM CORPORATION DATED 25 TH MARCH 1996 - CONFORMATION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MONACHEM CORPORATION 1 2 2 1 2. SYNERGY SERVICES - CORRESPONDENCES - CONFORMATION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MONACHEM CORPORATION 2 1 3. ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. - COMMISISON AGREEMENT DATED 18 TH MARCH 1995 - CORRESPONDENCES - CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY MONACHEM CORPORATION - CONFORMATION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MONACHEM CORPORATION 1 3 1 1 ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 15 - 4. S S CONSULTANCY & SERVICES - COMMISISON AGREEMENT - CORRESPONDENCES -CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY MONACHEM CORPORATION -CONFORMATION OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MONACHEM CORPORATION - CORRESPONDENCES 1 5 1 1 1 (B) - PAGE NO.1 IS THE LETTER FROM ASSESSEE TO UMEGA C ORPORATION DATED 15/03/1995 ASKING THE AGENT TO CONCENTRATE ON RELIA NCE INDUSTRIES LTD., NOCIL, BOMBAY AND OSWAL PETRO CHEMICALS. -PAGE NO.2 IS THE LETTER SENT TO THE AGENTS ON 17/0 4/1995 FROM ASSESSEE ABOUT CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE AGENTS AS TO HOW TO PROCEED AND CONTACT VARIOUS CLIENTS IN THE MATTER OF PROCUR ING BUSINESS FROM THEM. -PAGE NO.3 IS THE LETTER FROM OMEGA CORPORATION TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 15/04/1995 REGARDING INFORMATION IN RESPECT O F RELIANCE POINTING OUT THE ENQUIRY COMING TO THAT COMPANY AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIKELY TO ENQUIRE AND THE CHINES E AND TAIWAN COMPETITORS ENTERING INTO THE FIELD. - PAGE NOS.4 TO 6 ARE THE BILLS AND THE CREDIT- NO TES BY THE ASSESSEE TO UMEGA CORPORATION. - PAGE NOS. 7 TO 9 ARE THE LETTERS FROM SYNERGY SER VICES A COMMISSION AGENT INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE MEETINGS WIT H M/S.MCDOWELL & CO.LTD. AND INFORMING THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE MR.M. M.PRASAD HAS AGREED TO PLACE ORDER WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE BIL LS AND CREDIT NOTES. - PAGE NOS.10,11,12,13,14,15,16, & 17 ARE THE DOCUM ENTS RELATING TO DIRECTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE TO M/S.ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. DIRECTING ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 16 - THEM TO FOCUS ON PETROCHEMICALS, OIL REFINING, PLAS TIC PROCESSORS & COMPOUNDERS CABLE & WIRE INDUSTRIES AND HEAVY CHEMI CAL INDUSTRIES. INFORMATION FROM M/S.ARHIT COTSYN LTD. TO THE ASS ESSEE THAT THEY HAVE CONTACTED HINDUSTAN LEVER AND INDIAN PETROCHEM ICALS CORPORATION LTD. THAT THEY DO NOT BUY N-PARAFIIN BU T ONLY ALFA OLEFFIN. - PAGE NOS.18 TO 28 ARE THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO C ORRESPONDING BILLS AND CREDIT NOTES AND INFORMATION FROM M/S.S.S. CO NSULTANCY SERVICES WHO ARE WORKING IN TAMIL NADU AND ANDHRA PRADERSH STATES. THERE IS A DIRECTION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THEM TO WORK AS AN AGENT IN THOSE STATES. INFORMATION FROM S.S.CONSUL TANCY & SERVICES TO THE EFFECT THAT ONE COMPANY M/S.XMOLD IS INTERES TED IN PLASTIC ADDITIVES (ANTIOXIDANTS/UV STAB), FURNISH OF REPORT S OF REMU PIPES AND SANGHI THREADS AND M/S.SUNDARAM POLYMERS, CONFI RMATION ABOUT PLACING ORDERS BY XMOLD PVT.LTD., ETC. 23. IN RESPECT OF RIKON INCORPORATION AND RAJ INT ERNATIONAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJU SAVLA WHO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS AS TO WHAT SERVICES HE IS RENDERI NG TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPORT SOME ASPECTS FROM HIS STATEMENT:- Q.NO.2 BRIEFLY STATE YOUR VOCATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND OR BUSINESS ANTECEDENTS. ANS. AFTER GRADUATING I TOOK UP EMPLOYMENT WITH JAI NISH CHEMICALS LOCATED AT VADGADI, MASJID BUNDER, MUMBAI WHICH WAS PRIMARILY DEALING IN INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS AND SOLVENTS. I WAS WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT FOR 5 AND HAL F ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 17 - YEARS, I.E. BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF 1980 AND 1986. M/SJANISH CHEMICALS WERE PRINCIPALLY INTO TRADING O F INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS AND SOLVENTS. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE NAME OF AMISHA LABORATORIES PVT LTD., VAPI. THE MANUFACTURE OF INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS AND SOLVENTS WA S UNDERTAKEN, WHEREAT I WORKED AS LAB ASSISTANT. I HAPPENED TO MEET SHRI DILIP G SHAH WHICH WAS IN THE YEAR 1993 AT THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY BUSINESS ORGANIZATION. I BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH SHRI DILIP S HAH AND LEARNT THAT HE WAS FN LT>E BUSINESS OF INDENDNG CHEMICALS WITH OVERSEAS PARTIES .AS HIS PRINCIPLES. HE ALSO GAVE ME TO UNDERSTANDING THE HE WAS ON THE LOO K OUT FOR A PERSON FOR OVERSEEING HIS BUSINESS WING A T MUMBAI AS HE WAS OPERATING MAINLY FROM BARODA. SHRI DILIP SHAH MOOTED THE PROPOSAL OF A SERVICE AGENT CAPABLE OF HANDLING ALL ASPECTS OF DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO HIS BUSINESS AND WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT IN MUMBAI ITSELF AND FN THE WAKE OF THE FACT THAT SHRI DILIP SH.IH DID NOT HAVE ANY OFFICE IN MU MBAI, SINCE HE WAS BARODA BASED. AFTER SEVERAL MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN US BOTH AT MUMB AI AND BARODA, AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN US CHALKING OUT MY RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE REMUNERATI ON / COMPENSATION/ COMMISSION RECEIVABLE AGAINST FULFILL MENT OF SUCH RESPONSIBILITIES BY ME. I WAS RUNNING MY PROPRIETARY CONCERNS AT THAT TIME ALREADY NAMELY RI KON INC. AND RAJ INTERNATIONAL' LOCATED AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS CARRYING OUT VARIOUS ODD BUSINESS DEALS AND WITH THE PROPOSAL FROM SHRI DILIP J SHAH I DECIDED TO UTILIZE THE SAID PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF MINE FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS SERVICE AGENT FOR S HRI DILIP G. SHAH. RAJ INTERNATIONAL WAS PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF HUF WITH MYSELF AS KARTA (PAN AAEHR5104C) ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 18 - Q.NO. 5 WHAT WERE YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES A S SERVICE / COMMISSION AGENT FOR SHRI DILIP G. SHAH. PLEASE SUBSTANTIATE THESE WITH EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARDS. ANSWER: AS STATED ABOVE, I HAVE BEEN OPERATING AS SERVICE / SALES REPRESENTATIVE ON COMMISSION FOR DILIP. G. SHAH, (MONACHEM CORPORATION) IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERN NAMELY - M/S RIKON INC. END M/S RAJ INTERNATIONAL. THESE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF MIN E HAVE BEEI IN EXISTENCE FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995 -96 AND EVEN MUCH EARLIER. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE. AFTER DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROP OSAL OF MY BEING AN ASSOCIATE SERVICE AGENT FOR SHRI DILIP. G. SHAH, AN AGREEMENT IN WRITING, WAS DRAWN BETWEEN DILIP. G. SHAH, AND MY PROPRIETARY CONCERNS SEPARAT ELY CHARTING OUT MY JOB RESPONSIBILITIES, FUNCTIONS AND CONDITIONS UNDERLYING MY APPOINTMENT AS AGENT FOR S HRI DILIP G. SHAH SUBMIT TO YOU COPIES OF SUCH AGREEMEN T, WHICH ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY IN AS MUCH AS THEY SERVE TO STATE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY I AM SUPPOSE TO DO FOR FUR THERING THE CAUSE OF BUSINESS OF SHRI DILIP. G. SHAH. BROAD LY SPEAKING, MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BOTH RAJ INTERNAT IONAL AND RIKON INC. Q.8. PLEASE EXPLAIN ANS. I AM DRAWING YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT B AND C OF THE MAIN EXHIBIT 1 & II AND EXHIBIT N, THE CONTENTS WHEREOF INDICATE THE VARIOUS SERVICES THAT I HAVE RENDERED TO SHRI DILIP G.SHAH FOR SMOOTHENING AND PAVING THE WAY FOR GREATER FACILITY OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN GRATE LAKES AND RELIANCE ENABL ING THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION INCOME BY SHRI DILIP G.SH AH. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 19 - EXHIBIT 4 AND EXHIBIT N MAY ALSO BE PERUSED IN THIS REGARD. Q.9 WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT STATUS ? ANS. WITH EFFECT FORM 01-04-2003 I HAVE BEEN ABSORB ED AS THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF SHRI DILIP G.SHAH HANDLING TH E SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AS I WAS IN REGARD TO THE ASP ECTS OF THE BUSINESS OF SHRI DILIP G.SHAH RELATING TO MUMBA I AND OTHER CENTRES IN MAHARASHTRA WITH WHICH THE BUSINESS OF SHRI DILIP SHAH IS CONNECTED. LETTER O F APPOINTMENT IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON RECORD FOR VERIFICATION. FOR THE PURPOSE, MY STATION OF WORK IS MUMBAI AS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAVEL TO OTHER PLACES A S AND WHEN THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCE IS SO DEEM. 24. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, SHRI RAJU SAVLA HAS PROVI DED EXHIBIT 1, 2 AND 5 BEING PART OF THE STATEMENT AND REPORTED ON P AGE NOS.72 TO 80 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES DETAILS OF THE CLIENTS WITH WHICH SHRI SAVLA IS WORKING, HIS AREA OF RESPO NSIBILITIES, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND SERVICES ALONGWITH NECE SSARY EXHIBITS, E- MAIL AND INVITATION EXHIBITS, LISTING OF CLIENTS, CO-ORDINATION WITH MEMBERS, SHIPPING DOCUMENTS, CO-ORDINATION WITH C&F AGENT IN ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 20 - BOMBAY, SAMPLE CLEARANCE FOR DIFFERENT CLIENTS, PAY MENTS FOLLOW-UP, DOCUMENTATION REGARDING LETTER OF CREDIT, COLLECTIO N FOLLOW UP INFORMATION ON OVERSEAS CLIENTS, DISCUSSION AND ARB ITRATION, VARIOUS REPORTS ON THE CLIENTS AND PRODUCTS IN WHICH THE CL IENTS ARE DEALING, ETC. 25. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE EVIDENCE WHICH ARE NOT CO NTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S), IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THEIR FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AGENTS. TO OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE FOCUSING ONLY ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FORM THE CLIENTS AS TO WHAT SE RVICES AGENTS HAVE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS CANNOT BE THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD VARY FROM CASE TO CASE AND ALSO WO ULD DEPEND UPON TYPE OF JOB ENTRUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AGENTS . ONE HAS ALSO TO GIVE SOME DISCOUNT TO PASSAGE OF TIME FOR PROCURING AND SUBMITTING EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING OVER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, INC LUDING THE PASSAGE ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 21 - OF TIME AND THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJU SAVLA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS THAT LAY ON HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT CONTROVERTED T HE ABOVE EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, SUCH EVIDENCE HAS TO BE AC CEPTED. THE ISSUE WHETHER PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM IS COM MENSURATE WITH THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM CANNOT BE AGITATED NO W AS IT IS NOT RAISED AT HIS LEVEL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD ABOUT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AGENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 26. REGARDING CLAIM U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE O NUS AND, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON T HIS ISSUE. 27. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.1513/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 22 - ITA NO.1514/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 28. IN THIS CASE TWO ISSUES ARE INVOLVED; ONE IS TH E PAYMENT OF RS.1,63,100/- TO RAJ INTERNATIONAL AND OTHER IS DIS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.20,430/-. 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED BY US IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 -97(SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT SHRI RAJU SAVLA OF M/S.RAJ INTERNATION AL HAS RENDERED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, FOR THE REASONS DI SCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RELATI NG TO COMMISSION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS WE DI SMISS THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. 30. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO. 1514/AHD/2008 - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1515 & 1516/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 001-02 & 2002-03 ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 23 - 31. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED B Y WAY OF GROUND NO.1 CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE(S) OF RS.6,05,774/- [FOR AY 2001- 02] AND OF RS.9,26,844/- [FOR AY 2002-03] ON ACCOU NT OF COMMISSION(S) PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- SL.NO(S) NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT (RS) FOR AY 2001-02 AMOUNT (RS) FOR AY 2002-03 1. RIKON INCORPORATION 4,62,459 3,81,458 2. RAJ INTERNATIONAL TOTAL 1,43,315 6,05,774 5,45,386 9,26,844 32. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE TWO CONCENRS ARE OWNED BY SHRI RAJU SAVLA. AS PER OUR DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, RELATING TO HIS STATEM ENT, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO WHAT SERVICES SHRI RAJU SAVLA HAS RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. 33. AS A RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA N OS.1513 & 1514/AHD/2008 FOR AYS 1996-97 & 1997-98 RESPECTIVEL Y) ARE ITA NOS.1513 TO 1516/AHD/2008 DILIP J.SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97, 97-98, 2001-02 & 02-03 - 24 - PARTLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE (IT A NOS.1515 & 1516/AHD/2008 FOR AYS 2001-02 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVEL Y) ARE ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18/09/2009. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) ( D.C.AGRAWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED / /2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED.4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, B ARODA 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BY US ON 18/09/200 9 SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER