The ITO, Ward-8(3), Surat V. Shri Ghanshyambhai Popatbhai Patel, Surat

ITA 1600/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50516 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND SHRI BHAVNESH SA INI, JM) ITA NO.1600/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -8(3), ROOM NO.417, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL, 20,NITYANAND SOCIETY, LAXMIKANT ASHRAM ROAD, KATARGAM, SURAT PA NO. AGBPP 9570 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NO.143/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.1600/AHD/2009: Y.: 2006-07) SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL, 20,NITYANAND SOCIETY, LAXMIKANT ASHRAM ROAD, KATARGAM, SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -8(3), ROOM NO.417, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT PA NO. AGBBP 9570 F (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI RAJ MEHRA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 11-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-08-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 2 THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 17 TH MARCH, 2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS FILED ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. C. I. T. (A) IS RIGHT TO HOLD THAT TH E A. O. CAN NOT REJECT THE BOOK RESULT U/S. 145 OF THE I. T. AC T, 1961? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. C. I. T. (A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING RS. 19,54,939/- ADDED BY THE A. O. UNDER THE HEAD NET PROFIT ? 3. THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS FILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,50,000 /- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF FACTORY EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,082/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SARAN EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,331/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED PO ST IS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. A/D CARD DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, PROCEEDE D EX-PARTE. BOTH THE MATTERS ARE DECIDED ISSUE WISE AS UNDER. ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 3 5. THE FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE CROSS OB JECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CUTTING AND POLISHING OF ROUGH DIAMONDS ON JOB WORK I.E. HE WAS RECEIVING THE ROUGH DIAMOND S FROM THE CONTRACTEES AND POLISHING THE SAME THROUGH EMPLOYIN G THE WORKERS AND RETURNING THE CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS TO THE CONTRACTEES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO OBSERVED AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS AS PER PARA 5 ON PAGE 3 TO 6 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DETAILS/EVIDENCES /SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT S UCH EXPENSE ARE ACTUALLY INCURRED. AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PIECE WISE RECORDS OF DIAMONDS. THE AO F OUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES AND IT COULD BE EASILY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED THE LABOUR EXPENSES. OTHERWISE, HE WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE CLAIM BY PRODUCING THE LABORERS AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES AS CALLED FOR. IN SUCH SITUATION OF INCOMPLETE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE'S BOOK RESULTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AN D THE SAME WERE REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) AND MAINLY CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. IT WAS SUB MITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE RELEV ANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ISSUED SUMMO NS AS WELL AS ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 4 NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY RS.24,66,529/- (20% OF RS. 1,23,32,649/-) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME NOTICE WAS COMPLIED WITH AND THE DETA ILS WERE SUBMITTED AND IN CASE THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM HE COU LD HAVE ISSUED FURTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE WORKING AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE WORKERS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT IN CASE EXPENSES ARE DISALLOWED AT 20% WOULD MEAN RIDICULOU S HIGH PROFIT RATE OF 19.6% WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF T HE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE LUMP SUM ADDITION TO RS.2,50,000/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE A DDITION OUT OF RS.22,04,939/-. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION VERY CAREFU LLY. THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE SEEM TO BE IN THE BACKGROU ND THAT POSSIBILITY OF INFLATION OF EXPENSES CAN NOT B E RULED OUT AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN AND PRO DUCE THE PROCESS WISE AND PIECEWISE PRODUCTION REGISTER AND NOT PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING THE GOODS F OR MANUFACTURE AND FOR NOT MAINTAINING THE REGISTER OF EMPLOYEES TO WHOM THE ROUGH DIAMONDS WERE GIVEN FOR PROCESSING AND POLISHING. AS THE APPELLANT IS GETTI NG THE MANUFACTURING DONE INTERNALLY FROM ITS EMPLOYEES AN D PAYING SALARY AND WAGES. THE FORMER IS FIXED AND LA TTER RELATABLE TO ACTUAL JOB DONE. THERE IS NO DENYING T HE FACT THAT ROUGH WAS GOT FOR JOB WORK AND SENT BACK POLIS HED AND PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE SAME HAVE BEEN SUBJEC TED TO TDS. ACTUALITY OF JOB WORK IS NOT DISPUTED. ONLY THE ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 5 POTENTIAL INFLATION OF EXPENSES HAS CAUGHT THE ATTE NTION OF THE AO. THE ESTIMATION DISALLOWABLE EXPENSE IS ONLY WAY HEAD. THE APPELLANTS GRIEVANCE IS ALSO RELATED TO THAT. THE AO AS MENTIONED EARLIER HAS ESTIMATED IT TO BE AROUND 20% WHILE THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD MEAN THRUSTING AN NP RATE OF 19.64 %. IN MY V IEW A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS OF 2,50,000/- WILL MEET T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS THE ADDITION WOULD JACK UP T HE NET PROFIT TO AROUND 3% WHICH WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN BY AHMEDABAD ITAT IN CASE OF ATU L M JHAVERI (HUF) VS ITO (ITA NO 2128/AHD/2003).THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE GETS DELETED AS THE CONFIRMATI ON IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,50,000/-. 7.1 THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE AGGRIEV ED AGAINST THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE REVENUE H AS RAISED GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 ABOVE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ASSE SSEE RAISED GROUND NO.1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED A ND ARGUED BY HIM IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAGJIBHAI GHUSABHAI PATEL IN I TA NO.1598/AHD/2009 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2009 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER FOR THAT CASE MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL ALSO. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNE D DR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJ ECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECID ED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAGJIBHAI GHUSABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) IN WHICH VIDE ORDER DATED 12-08-2009 THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO 3% I.E. ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 6 RS.3,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS.2,00,000/-. THE FINDIN GS ON THIS ISSUE IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR . IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES BEFORE HIM AND EVEN OTHERWISE REPRESENTATI VES OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND TH E STATUTORY NOTICES REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS, THE AO NOTED LARGE NUM BER OF REASONS IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT DISPUTE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT POSSIBILITY OF INFLATION OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO MAINTAIN AND PRODUCE THE PROCESS WISE AND JOB WI SE PRODUCTION REGISTER AND DID NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENC ES OF RECEIVING THE GOODS FOR MANUFACTURING ETC. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT ESTIMATION OF THE DISALLOWAB LE EXPENSES IS THE ONLY WAY TO COMPUTE THE INCOME. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN POLISHING ETC. OF ROUGH DIAMONDS ON JOB WORK, THEREFORE, WAGES AND SALARY VOUCHERS AND REGISTERS WERE THE IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD THROW LIGHT ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIM DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENSES, ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AND SUPPORT THE EXPENSES THROUGH COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL REGISTER OF WAGES AND SALARY BEFORE THE AO. THEREFO RE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOTED SEVERAL REASONS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE COMPLETE DETAILS AND THE EVIDENCES FOR CLAIM OF SALARY AND WAGES. EVEN, THE DAY TO DAY PRODUCTION REGISTER WAS NOT PRODUCED. THEREFORE , TO THAT EXTENT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAI NTAINING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,37, 514/- TO ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 7 RS.2,00,000/- ONLY ON THIS ISSUE. NO BASIS OF SUBST ANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE ADDITION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) F ORGOT TO NOTE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES BEFORE THE AO AND NO REQUIRED DET AILS WERE PRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY 20% OF THE EXPENSES OF KARIGAR MAZ DOORI EXPENSES, FACTORY EXPENSES AND SARAN MANJAI EXPENSE S BE NOT DISALLOWED. THE AO CONSIDERED ALL THE THREE ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION BY DISALLOWI NG THESE EXPENSES @ 20% IN THE ABSENCE OF CO-OPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY DISALL OWED 20% OF THESE THREE EXPENSES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE REMAINING TWO ADDITIONS, I.E. FACTORY EXPENSES AND SARAN MANJAI EXPENSES CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE @10% IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE SIMILARITY OF THE FACTS THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,37,514/- ON THIS ISSUE TO RS.2,00,000/- ONLY. THUS, THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES NOTED ABOVE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO DISALLOW APPROXIMATELY 3% OF THE EXPENSES ON THIS ISSUE AND AS SUCH ADDITION WOULD B E MAINTAINED IN A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.2,00,000/- MAINTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT IS MODIF IED AND WE DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00 0/- ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 OF TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.1 O F THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAGJIB HAI GHUSABHAI PATEL (SUPRA), WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- ON THIS IS SUE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 8 AND THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR O F THE REVENUE. 11. ON ISSUE NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISA LLOWANCE OUT OF FACTORY EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,082/- BE ING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AND ON GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF SARAN EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS.6,331 /- BEING 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SAME AS IS CONS IDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAGJIBHAI GHUSABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) IN WHICH IN PARA 10, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 3% OF THE TO TAL EXPENSES. THE FINDINGS IN PARA 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AR E REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 10. ON ISSUE NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF FACTORY EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,146/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON G ROUND NO.2 AND FURTHER CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF SARAN EXPENSES OF RS.11,757/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPE NSES ON GROUND NO.3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. AS NOTED ABO VE, THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THESE EXPENSES AS WERE DISALLOWED ON KARIGAR MAZDOORI EXPENSES. THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HOWEVER, REDUCED THE ADDITIONS TO 10% OUT OF THESE EXPENSES. NOTHING IS STATED IN THE CROSS OBJE CTION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT NO VOUCHERS REGARDING THESE EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED AND THE REQUIRED DETAI LS WERE NOT PRODUCED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROFIT RATE, 10% OUT OF THESE EXPENSES WERE RESTRICTED TO BE DISALLOWED. SI NCE, THE AO CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ISSUES TOGETHER WITH KA RIGAR MAZDOORI EXPENSES ON WHICH WE HAVE CONFIRMED 3% DISALLOWANCE; THEREFORE, ON THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO DISALLOW 3% EXPENSES ON THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THAT EXTENT ARE MODIFIED AND A DDITIONS ARE MAINTAINED BY RESTRICTING TO 3% DISALLOWANCE ON BOTH ITA NO. 1600/AHD/2009 AND CO NO.143/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL 9 THESE EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, WE MODIFY THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ADDITIONS ARE RESTRICTED TO 3% OF THE DISALLOWANCES ON BOTH THE EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE A RE PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. 13. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WEL L AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-08-2011 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD