The ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad V. Multico Exports Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1520/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1837 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bonafide belief; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, V.P. & HON BLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M.) I.T.A. NO. 1520/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005 I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AHMEDABAD -VS- MULTICO EXPORT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD (PAN : AABCM 9058Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA , D .R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27.01.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD CANCELLING THE PENALTY OF RS.2,52,154/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.4,60,586/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 21.12.2006 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,50,868/- AND ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEE DING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF NON- ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC AMOUNTIN G TO RS.4,60,586/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,42,282/ -. 2.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED AS UNDER: THAT WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S . 271 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 WHERE YOUR GOODSELF HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271 (1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. OUR REPLY IN THIS REGARD ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 2 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009 1) THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE PENALTY PROCE EDING WAS INITIATED ON THE TWO GROUNDS VIZ. A) REJECTION OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.8OHHC OF RS .460586/- AND B) ADDITION OF RS.242282/- ON DISALLOWANCE OF FOR EIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. 2) THAT A DEDUCTION OF RS.460586/- WAS CLAIMED U/ S.80HHC IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND A CERTIFICATE FROM A C AS 1OCCAC WAS FURNISHED FOR CALCULATION OF 8OHHC WORKING WITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE REJECTION OF CLAIM BASE D ON THIRD PARTY (MISSION PHARMA LOGISTIC (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) SURVEY AND REJECTION O F CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.L0A OF THE SAID PARTY BY I T DEPTT AND LOSS ON TRADING EXPORT AS CITED IN ASSTT ORDER. THE REJECTION OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED WAS MADE ON PURELY TECHNICAL REA SON AS DEDUCTION CLAIMED REJECTED BASED ON 10A CLAIM REJECTION OF THIRD PAR TY BASED ON THIRD PARTY SURVEY BY I T AND THEIR CASE IS ALSO PENDING WITH DEPTT. AS TH US, THERE WAS NO FAULT ON ASSESSES SIDE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION, AS AT THE TIME OF CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION, HE WAS IN GOOD FAITH TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION, AS HE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM A ND BECAUSE DEPTT HAD TAKEN PLEA THAT MISSION PHARMA CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY I.T. DEPTT HE NCE THE ASSESSEE BECOME INELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3) THAT THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS NO T CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS THERE IS NO ADDITION IN INCOME AND ONLY DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY A SSESSEE IS REJECTED BY DEPTT AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED DOES NOT AMOUNT INCREASE OF INCO ME MEANS DOES NOT ALTER INCOME/PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AND INCOME REMAIN SA ME ONLY AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED REJECTED BY DEPTT, HENCE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME DOE S NOT ARISE. 4) THAT REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.2 , 42 , 282/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES, THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS INCURRED FOR THE BUSIN ESS TRIP OF MOZAMBIQUE/MALLAWI/ZAMBIA/SOUTH AFRICA BY DIRECTOR AND OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,33 , 492/-, RS.2,42,282/- WAS DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT. THE BUSINESS TRIP WAS STARTED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH , 04 AND CONTINUE TILL APRIL, 04 AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND BY FURNISHING DETAILS BY OUR SIDE YOUR GOOD SELF HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS .2,42,282/- AS THE SAME BELONG TO 3 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009 APRIL, 04 AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTED TO YOU. AS THE EXPENSES WAS RELATED TO ONE SINGLE TRIP THE SAME WAS ACCOUNTED IN ONE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND THAT IS PURELY ACCOUNTING MISTAKE FOR TREATMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND NOT WITH BONAFIDE INTENTION AND ACCORDINGLY THE WHOLE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED BY US BY COMING FORWAR D BY US AND NOT AFTER DETECTION OF DEPTT. 4) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, REGARDING PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS, WE PREY TO YOUR GOODSELF THAT THE REJECTION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AND CLAIM OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF US AND THA T MERELY TECHNICAL AND VENIAL IN NATURE AND FLOW FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF AND THUS APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE I T ACT,1961 , IMPLYING PENAL PROVISION AND QUASI CRIMINAL IN NATU RE DOES NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME HAS BEEN DECIDED IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENT OF THE COURTS CITED BELOW, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY TECHNICAL AND VENIAL BREACH AND B REACH FLOW FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF DOES NOT AMOUNT TO LIABLE FOR PENALTY. 5) THAT IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ASSESSEE PRAYS TO YOUR GOODSELF TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 2.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE AFORES AID ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.2,52,154/-. 3. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CANCELLED THE PENALTY FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVE N IN PARAGRAPHS 4.5 TO 4.13, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 4.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.A.R. CAREFULLY. THE LD. A.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE O F SOFTWARE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,000/- CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT MATTER OF LEV Y OF PENALTY AS THE A 0. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAD NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SPECIFICALLY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A. R. IS NOT TENABLE IN THE SENSE THAT AFTER THE INSERTION OF SUB SEC.(1B) IN THE SECTION 271 B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE A.O. TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEED INGS SEPARATELY ON EACH OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN TH E ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE ACT FROM 1.4.1989. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CONTENTION RAISED B Y THE LD A R. IS HEREBY REJECTED. 4 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009 4.6 AS REGARDS THE MERIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE DISALLOWANCES WHICH WERE MADE BY THE A O WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT BY WAY OF DEBIT IN THE P/L ACCOUNT WAS BREFT OF BONAFIDES. 4.7 THE APPELLANT CLAIMED RS.3,70,000/- UNDER TH E HEAD SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, HOWEVER, THE A.O. ALLOWED ONLY 60% THEREOF KEEPING THE PROVISIONS OF I.T.RULES GOVERNING THE DEPRECIATION ON SOFTWARE. 4.8 AS REGARDS, DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIME D U/S.80HHC, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DEDUCTION IGNORING THE LOSS INCU RRED IN TRADING OF EXPORT GOODS THE A.O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD VS. CIT 266 ITR 521. FURTHER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC ON THE EXPORT AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,24,596/- EFFECTED THROUGH M/S MISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WAS MAD E IN CONSEQUENCE TO REJECTION OF CLAIM OF THAT PARTY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE A CT BY THE CONCERNED A.O. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A IN THE CASE OF M/S MISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y.2003-04 PASSED ON 20.3.2006. THE APPELLANT M ADE THE CLAIM FOR SUCH DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. M ISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WHILE FILING THE RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT PERI OD ON 28.10.2004. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT THE APPELLAN T FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. 4.9 SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELING EX PENSES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPELLANT ITS ELF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY UNDERTOOK THE FOREIGN TRAVELLING DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN T HE MONTH OF MARCH, 2004 AND SAME OVERLAPPED TO THE FIRST MONTH OF NEXT FINANCIAL YE AR I.E. APRIL, 2004 (F Y.2004-05) HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT BOOKED THE EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE BILL IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT SA ME AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN BOTH THE FINANCIAL YEARS. 4.10. THE AFORESAID WOULD SHOW THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT UNDER EXPLANATION 1 OF SEC.271 (1 )(C) OF THE ACT SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE IN ITS INCOME IN THE RETURNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES UNDER REFERENCE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THESE AMOUNTS. HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV LAL TAK VS. CIT REPORTED IN 251 ITR 373 HAS HELD THAT: ' THE STATUTE HAS CLEARLY DRAWN A DISTINCTION BET WEEN A DELIBERATE FALSE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSES AND AN EXPL ANATION, WHICH MAY NOT BE FALSE BUT IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSES WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. WHILE THERE IS NO RELAXATION IN THE RIGOUR OF THE EXPLA NATION IN RAISING A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORMER CASE, IN THE L ATTER CLASS OF CASES, THE STATUTE ITSELF RELAXES ITS RIGOUR BY DIRECTING THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY AMOUNT, ADDED OR 5 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009 DISALLOWED AND ANY EXPLANATION IS OFFERED BY SUCH PERSON WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE SAME, BUT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THE EXPLANATION SHALL NOT APPLY'. 4.11 THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT H AS AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER SIMILAR TYPE OF SITUATION IN THE CASE OF GIT VS MEHTA ENGI NEERS LTD. 300 ITR 308, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HELD ''DISMISSING THE APPEALS, THAT UNDISPUT EDLY, IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON T HE EDUCATION OF V ON THE BASIS OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, ACCORDING TO WHICH, HE WAS TO S ERVE THE ASSESSEE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS AFTER FINISHING HIS STUDIES ABROAD. IT WAS NEITHER THE CASE OF THE REVENUE NOR WAS THERE ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD THAT TH E SAID AGREEMENT WAS A FALSE AND FABRICATED DOCUMENT. MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO SUCH F INDING RECORDED BY ANY ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY. PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNDER SECT ION 271 (1)(C).' 4.12 THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT WH ILE DELIVERING THE JUDGEMENT PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA 288 ITR 585 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT HELD THAT 'MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING AN EXPENDITURE, IT CANNOT IPSO FACTO B E SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTENTION TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF A CREDIBLE MATERIAL AND ALSO FURNISHED NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REASONING ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY AND THUS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEITHER FOUND TO BE FALSE AND NOR IS THERE ANY FIN DING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR EVEN DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF DETAILS OF THE EXPEN DITURE WHENEVER CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACT POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HENCE, WE HEREBY AFFI RM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT' 4.13 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALT Y LEVIED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER REFERENCE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A 0. IS HEREBY DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, SHRI R.K.DHANE STA, D.R. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND RELYING ON THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER, CONTENDED THAT THE PENAL TY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN CANCELLING THE SAME. 6 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) TOOK THE VIEW THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) FOR NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS NOT LEVIABLE BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE MADE SUCH CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. MISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TOOK THE VIEW THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELING EXPENSES BECAUSE ONE OF T HE DIRECTORS TRAVELLED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2004 AND SAME OVERLAPPED TO THE FIRST MONTH OF NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. APRIL, 2004 (FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05). THE ASSESSEE BOOKED THE EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE BILL IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN BOTH THE FINANCIAL YEARS. IT IS WELL-SETTLED LAW THAT MERELY NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEDUC TION/EXPENDITURE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF TH E VIEW THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. THEREFORE , WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.03.20 11. SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17/03/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A.) CONCERNED, 4) CIT CONCERNED, 5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGI STRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD TALUKDAR/SR.P.S. 7 ITA NO. 1520-AHD-2009