The ITO, Ward-9(1), Surat V. M/s. Farmsons Fibers, Surat

ITA 1759/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0355 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CK MISHRADR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :27/08/09 DRAFTED ON: 27/08/0 9 ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE ITO WARD-9(1) SURAT VS. M/S.FARMSONS FIBERS U-4, BOMBAY MARKET (CORPORATION BUILDING) UMARWADA, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AABFF 1984 H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S.FARMSONS FIBERS VS. THE ITO, WA RD-9(1) SURAT SURAT (CROSS OBJECTOR ) ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI C.K. MISHRA,D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJESH M.UPADHYAY, A.R. O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJEC TION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS)-V, SURAT IN APPEAL NO.CAS-V/243/2008-09 DATED 18/03/2009. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO WARD-9(1), SURAT U/S.143(3) OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961 ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -2 - (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2008. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCE D BY THE PARTNERS. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,71,934/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRO DUCED BY THE PARTNERS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , NOTICED THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE INTRODUCED FRESH CAPITAL AS PER THE B ALANCE-SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES; BY THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF PARTNERS FOR PART PERIOD ONLY WITH CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN T HE BANK. THE PARTNERS EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITA L IS BY GETTING LOANS FROM OTHER PERSONS AND THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM SEVEN PERSONS CLAIMING THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE OBTAINED LOANS FROM THESE PERSONS AND THESE LOANS WERE INTRODUCED AS THE CAPITAL IN THE FIRM. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THERE IS ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -3 - CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN CASH BY THE PARTNERS AMOUNT ING TO RS.19.50 LACS. ON ENQUIRY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS INTRODUCED OUT OF LOANS TO SMT. SHARMISHTHABEN R.BHINGRADIYA AND SHRI NEVIL R.BHINGRADIYA. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,71,931/- AS AMOUNT INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS AS FRESH CAPITAL. THE B REAK-UP OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS SHRI NEVIL R.BHI NGRADIYA AND SMT. SHARMISHTHABEN R.BHINGRADIYA ARE AS UNDER:- SHRI NEVIL R.BHINGRADIYA DATE MODE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT 04/04/2005 CASH 50000 10/04/2005 CASH 100000 29/04/2005 CASH 150000 04/05/2005 CASH 200000 04/06/2005 CASH 200000 25/08/2005 BANK 300000 20/09/2005 BANK 500000 19/01/2006 BANK 591934 02/02/2006 BANK 480000 TOTAL 2571934 SMT. SHARMISHTHABEN R. BHINGRADIYA DATE MODE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT 27/04/2005 CASH 150000 30/04/2005 CASH 150000 07/05/2005 CASH 100000 04/06/2005 CASH 200000 02/07/2005 CASH 100000 04/07/2005 CASH 150000 06/07/2005 CASH 200000 07/07/2005 CASH 200000 28/09/2005 BANK 500000 ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -4 - 18/01/2006 BANK 390000 18/02/2006 BANK 100000 24/03/2006 BANK 290000 25/03/2006 BANK 200000 28/03/2006 BANK 170000 TOTAL 2900000 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY STATING TH E REASON THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF PARTNERS CAPITAL IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND BOTH THE PARTNERS HAVE INTRODUCED THE CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.54,71,93 1/- AND BOTH ARE ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE SAME RANGE/WARD AND THIS CAPITAL INVE STMENT IS REFLECTED IN THEIR PERSONAL BALANCE-SHEET ATTACHED WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME OF BOTH THE PARTNERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE IDENTITY, SOURCE AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTNERS IS PROVED IN THE CASE OF FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION BY FURTHER STA TING AS UNDER:- IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IF THERE BE ANY BUT IT WOULD NOT BE APT TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WHERE PARTNERS HAVING CONF IRMED THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THEM. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO ME NTION HERE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ME IN THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 2005-06. THE FACTS WERE ALMOST SIMILAR AND I HAD GIVEN FINDING IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THUS , FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MU RLIDHAR LAHORIMAL (SUPRA) ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -5 - 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND GOING THROUGH T HE CASE RECORDS, WE NOTICE THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERS INTRODUCED CAPIT AL, ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEY HAVE DISCLOSED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THEIR PER SONAL BALANCE-SHEET ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. MOREOVER, THE SE PARTNERS ARE ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE/WARD WHERE THE FIRM IS BEING ASSE SSED. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TH AT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE R EVENUE BY THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANKAJ DYE STUFF IT APPEAL NO.241 OF 1993. EVEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.222/AHD/2009 VIDE O RDER DATED 03/04/2009 HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW AS UNDER:- 8. COMING TO THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEA L, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE NOTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9,41,700/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CAP ITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS AS THEIR CAPITAL U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN ITR 241 OF 1993 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANKAJ DYE S TUFF IN WHICH CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 6-7-20 01 HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER F THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL BY HOLDING THAT ONCE THE PARTNERS HAVE SHOWN THAT THE MONEY DE POSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS ARE THEIR OWN MONEY, THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R IS ENTITLED TO AND MAY PROCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AND ASSESS THE SAME IN THEIR HANDS IF THEIR EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTOR Y. BUT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER F THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM BUT GIVE THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CO NSIDER THE SAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -6 - SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS OF CASH CREDITS IN THE ACCOU NTS OF THE PARTNERS. THUS, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION, WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF PANKAJ DYE STUFF, THE ADDITION IS DELETED, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE IS, THEREFORE , DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,41,837/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF ABOVE UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS. W E FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES A PPEAL. AS THE GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUE NTLY THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.124/AHD/2009 10. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION IS AS REG ARDS TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO M/S.VARUN INDUSTRIAL AMOUNTING TO RS.3,77,874/- BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THIS CROSS OBJ ECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS:- ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -7 - 1. LR.AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO INVOKE P ROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE T O M/S.VARUN INDUSTRIES FOR RS.3,77,874/- IN RESPECT OF MANUFACT URING OF GRAY CLOTH IGNORING THE FACT THAT SUCH PAYMENT DOES NOT ATTRACT TDS PROVISIONS. LR. CIT(A)-V, SURAT HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING SUCH ADDITION. LR. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO INVOKE PRO VISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE T O MANUFACTURERS AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT ACCEPTANCE OF TDS PAYMEN T WITH INTEREST BY THE DEPARTMENT PUT THE APPELLANT AT PAR WITH OTH ERS AND ALSO AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF REQUIREMENT OF L AW. FURTHER, SUCH DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. LR. AO HAS ALSO ERRED IN MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE AS SUCH MANUFACTU RING CHARGES IS FULLY PAID IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ITSELF. LR. CIT(A)-V, SURAT HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING SUCH ADDITION WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY REASON AND DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN HIS BODY OF ORDER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISS UE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , NOTICED THAT THE TDS PAYMENT OF JOB WORK EXPENSES FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUA RY-2006 WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE AND AS SUCH, THE JOB WORK CHARGES WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENSES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 12. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING:- ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -8 - I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS. WHILE I DO NOT AGREE ON ONE HAND, THAT THESE TRANSACTION DID NOT ATTRACT THE AP PLICABILITY OF TDS, ON THE OTHER SINCE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE3 IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE APPELLANT BE RIGHTLY GIVEN THE CREDIT IN T HE NEXT YEAR. AS FAR THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, I T IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF REV AND APPELLANTS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 13. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE T HAT THE TDS PAYMENT ON JOB WORK EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PERIOD JANUARY & FEBRUARY-2006 ARE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT IN THE SIMILAR MATTER, THE ITAT AHMEDABAD D BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S.SWATI CO NSTRUCTION VS. ITO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, VIDE ORDER DATED 23/01 /2009 HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ALO NG WITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIN D THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4- 2005 I.E. WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2005-06 BY WHICH THE WORDS HAS NOT BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, OR IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEAR BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200 HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY THE FOLLOWING WORDS: CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, [HAS NOT BEEN PAID, - (A) IN A CASE WHERE THE TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AND WAS SO DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139; OR ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -9 - (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR;] [PROVIDED THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SUM, TA X HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, OR HAS BEEN DEDUCTED (A) DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE SAID DUE DATE; OR (B) DURING ANY OTHER MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE END OF THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR, SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTI NG THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX H AS BEEN PAID.] IN VIEW OF THESE PROVISIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE WHERE THE TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AND WAS DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF T HE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUC TION OF THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HA S CREDITED A SUM OF RS.27,14,218/- IN THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. IN MARCH, 2005, AND ACCORDINGLY DEDUCTED THE TDS, TDS SO DEDUCTED WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02-05-2005 AND 20-05-2005, I.E., PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPI NION, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION OF RS.27,14,218/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.34,57,556/- WILL GET REDUCED TO RS.7,43,338/-. W E ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.27,14,218/-. THUS, THIS ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF RS.34,5 7,556/- IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION OF RS.7,43,338/- IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR O R NOT, DOES NOT RELATE TO THE AY 2005-06 AND, THEREFORE, W E CANNOT ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.1759/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.124/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. FARMSONS FIBERS ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 -10 - 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND IN THE PRESENT CA SE ALSO THERE IS DELAY IN PAYMENT OF TDS ON JOB-WORK EXPENSES RELATING TO JANUARY & FEBRUARY- 2006, THE DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT WAS 07/02/2006 AND 0 7/03/2006, WHEREAS THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE TDS AMOUNTING TO R S.3,77,874/- WAS MADE ONLY ON 30/05/2006. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSE D. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/10/2009 SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09 / 10 /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)-V, SUR AT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH.6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD