The ITO, Ward-5(3), Baroda V. Smt. Bhanuben R.Shah, Baroda

ITA 1801/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9106 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 271D; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 DATE OF HEARING:31.8.09 DRAFTED:7.9.09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390 007 V/S . SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH, PROP. PADMAVATI TRADING CO.,7-SACHIN APARTMENT, GOVINDBHAVAN, DANDIA BAZAR, BARODA [PAN:AFYPS0974] (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :- SHRI C.K. MISHRA, DR ASSESSEE BY:- MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 04-03- 2009 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-V, BARODA, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELLING THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.7,47, 408/- U/S.271D HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268SS OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2005-06, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED FOLLOWING AMOUN T OF LOANS IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]:- SR. NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS) AMOUNT (RS.) 1. R.D. SHAH (HUF) 20,000 10,000 ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 2 19,000 15,000 2. R.D.SHAH (IND.) 70,000 25,000 33,000 CHQ. NO.822719, SBI, DANDIABAZAR FOR SALES TAX DT. 2/12/2004 3,900 CHQ. NO.822722 SBI, DANDIABAZAR FOR SALES TAX DT.2/2/2005 3,508 1,35,408 3. SHASHIKANT D SHAH 90,000 1,55,000 1,00,000 30,000 74,000 4,59,000 4. SURESH D SHAH 10,000 9,000 60,000 79,000 5. JAYABEN S SHAH 10,000 10,000 TOTAL (RS.) 7,47,408 ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE-V, BARODA INITI ATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271D OF THE ACT ON 29-01-2008. IN RESPONSE, TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED VIDE LETTER DATED 12-06-2008 THAT SHRI R.D.SHAH, HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE IS MANAGING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS WHI LE SHRI SHASHIKANT D SHAH AND SHRI SURESH D SHAH WERE HER BROTHERS-IN-LAW AND SM T. JAYABEN S SHAH IS WIFE OF SHRI SHRI SURESH D SHAH. ALL THESE PERSONS WERE AGR ICULTURISTS AND PROOF OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THEIR LAND IS SITUATE IN VILLAGE AMROL, WHERE B ANKING FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND THERFORE, SHE HAD TO DEAL IN CASH. SINCE THE T RANSACTIONS WITH THE AFORESAID RELATIONS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND WERE BONA FIDE AS ALSO GENUINE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS WERE NOT A TTRACTED IN HER CASE, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED. INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS. ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 3 HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL CIT REJECTED THESE CONTENTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH LOANS WERE ACCEPTED FROM VARIO US RELATIVES IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , THERE BEING NO REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 273B OF THE ACT, THE ADDL CIT IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.7,47,408 U/S.271D OF THE AC T . 3. ON APPEAL, WHILE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS B EFORE THE ADDL. CIT AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF KALAKRITHI V. ITO (2002) 253 ITR 754 (MAD.), ADI(INVESTIGATION) VS. KUM. A.B.SHANTI, DY. CIT V. VIGNESH FLAT HOUSING PROMOTERS (2007) 105 ITD 359 (CHENNAI); SHREENATH BUILDERS V. DY. CIT (2000) 111 TAXMAN 142 (MAG.); ASSTT. CIT V. ALFA HYDROMEC (P) LTD. ( 2006) 99 TTJ (JODH.) 405; CIT V. NATVARALAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH (2008) 219 CTR 509 (GUJ) AND CIT V. LOKHPAT FILM EXCHANGE (CINEMA), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING THE MONEY FROM FAMILY MEMBERS A ND THESE BEING NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR DEPOSIT, PENALTY U/S.271D OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE LEVIED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.4 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND ALSO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. IT IS TRUE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONCERNED ARE RELATIVES ONLY WH O ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND THE PROOF OF HAVING AGRI. LAND AND SALE OF AGRI. PR ODUCTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO THE AO WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LAND IS SIT UATED AWAY FROM VADODARA WHERE BANKING FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE . ALSO THE FUND IS BROUGHT IN VARIOUS NAMES WHO ARE CONSTITUENTS OF FAMILY AND HENCE IT CAN NOT BE TERMED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT. THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPT ED LOANS / DEPOSITS OF RS.7,47,408/- ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS DEPENDING UPON THE URGENCY OF TRANSACTIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPIES O F ACCOUNT REFLECTING THE SAID ENTRIES. IN THE GIVEN MATRIX, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESA ID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ADD. CIT AND THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOE L,315 ITR 163 (P & H), CIT VS. MAHESHWARI NIRMAN UDHYOG,302 ITR 201 (RAJ),HINDUSTA N STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA, 83 ITR 26 (SC) ADDL. CIT VS. I.M.PATEL & CO .,107 ITR 214(GUJ) (GUJ),VIR SALES CORPORATION VS.ACIT, 50 TTJ 130[AHMEDABAD]. ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. BEFORE PROCEEDING F URTHER, WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS OF THE ACT, WHI CH READ AS UNDER: ' NO PERSON SHALL, AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984 , TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DEPOSITOR), ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU E OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF,- (A) THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGRE GATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT; OR (B) ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FR OM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REPAYMENT HAS FALLEN DUE OR NOT), THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID; OR (C) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT RE FERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), IS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE: .. EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, (III) 'LOAN OR DEPOSIT' MEANS LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MO NEY.' 5.1 THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS SAY T HAT IF THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS OTHERWISE THAN BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR A CCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN THE CASE UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM HER RELATIVES BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS AND DEPOSITS . THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE ATTACHED WITH CERTAIN CONDI TIONS OR STIPULATION AS TO PERIOD OF REPAYMENT, RATE OF INTEREST, MANNER OF REPAYMENT, E TC. SO AS TO TREAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT. REVENUE HAVE NOT P LACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, REBUTTING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE IS NOTHING ON ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 5 RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, APPARENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE MEANING OF 'DEPOSIT ' AND ' LOAN ' HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ON PAGE 8454 OF THE CHATURVEDI AND PITHISARIA'S INCOME-TAX LAW. FIFTH EDITION, VOLUME 5, AS UNDER: ' 'DEPOSIT' AND 'LOAN'- THESE TWO ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN MEANING. - IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH IN THE CASE OF A LOAN AND IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT THE RE IS A RELATIONSHIP OF A DEBTOR AND A CREDITOR BETWEEN THE PARTY GIVING MONEY AND THE P ARTY RECEIVING MONEY. BUT IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT, THE DELIVERY OF MONEY IS USUALLY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GIVER AND IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON WHO DEPOSITS THE M ONEY - THE BENEFIT NORMALLY BEING EARNING OF INTEREST FROM A PARTY WHO CUSTOMARILY AC CEPTS DEPOSITS. DEPOSITS COULD ALSO BE FOR SAFE-KEEPING OR AS A SECURITY FOR THE P ERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEVER, IT IS THE BORROWER AT WHOSE INSTANCE AND FOR WHOSE NEEDS THE MONEY IS ADV ANCED. THE BORROWING IS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BORROWER ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO LENDS THE MONEY MAY ALSO STAND TO GAIN THEREBY BY EARNING INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT LENT. ORDINARILY, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT, IT IS THE DEPOSITOR WHO IS THE PRIME MOVER WHILE IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, IT IS THE BORROW ER WHO IS THE PRIME MOVER. THE OTHER AND MORE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED. IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT WHICH IS PAYABLE ON DEMAND, THE DEPOSIT WOULD BECOME PAYABLE WHEN A DEMAND IS MADE. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEVER, THE OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE AMOUNT ARISES IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THE LOAN. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN CASE OF DEPOSITS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERIOD OR LOANS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERIOD, THE POINT OF REPAYMENT MAY ARISE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. BUT BY AND LARGE, THE TRANSACTION OF A LOAN AND THE TRANSA CTION OF MAKING A DEPOSIT ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL. ' IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISTINCTION BETWEEN LO AN AND DEPOSIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THE AFORESAID TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. 5.2 THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER. IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY CONDUCTORS & ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. DCIT,56 TTJ 580(AHD.), THE TRI BUNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT INFRACTION OF THE P ROVISIONS WAS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OR IN DEFIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS. IT HAS FURTHER BE EN HELD THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED I N ANY TAX PLANNING OR TAX EVASION AND THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE RATHER IF IT IS A VIOLATION, IT IS MERE VENIAL OR TECHNICAL. THIS DECISION OF THE ITAT HAS BEEN UPHEL D BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOMBAY CONDUCTORS & E LECTRICALS LTD, 301 ITR 328(GUJ). IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO, THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD, ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 6 SUGGESTING ANY TAX PLANNING OR INFRACTION OF RELEVA NT PROVISIONS WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION.THE HONBLE APEX COURT, INTERPRETING THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT IN ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION) V. KUM. A.B. SHANTHI [2002] 255 ITR 258 HELD THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET A LOAN O R DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASON, T HE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETION NOT TO LEV Y PENALTY . 5.3 MOREOVER, THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' IN TH E CASE OF VIR SALES CORPORATION V. ACIT (1994) 50 TTJ 130(AHD), HAVE HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS INTER SE BETWEEN THE SISTER CONCERNS MADE WITH A VIEW TO MEE T THE BUSINESS NEEDS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF AND WITH REASONABLE CAUSE, NO PEN ALTY IS IMPOSABLE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADM ITTEDLY TRANSACTIONS ARE BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR GOEL(SUPRA) WHILE RELYING UPON THEIR DECISION IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS.SAINI MEDICAL STORE,277 ITR 420(P&H) CONCLUDED THAT BONAFIDE BELI EF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASON ABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 273B OF THE ACT IT WAS HELD THAT A FAMILY TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUAL NESS, SPECIALLY WHEN DISCLOSURE IS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOUNTS WOULD ESTAB LISH REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 273B OF THE ACT. COM ING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICE THAT NO LOSS OF REVENUE HA S OCCURRED IN THIS CASE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED . THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1972] 83 ITR 26 HAD LONG AGO SETTLED THE LAW THAT PENALTY IS NOT TO BE ORDINARILY IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW AND WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUM ACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. PENALTY WIL L ALSO NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOU LD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCR ETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVA NT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED I N REFUSING TO DO SO, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ITA NO.1801/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 ITO WD-5(3) BARODA V. SMT. BHANUBEN R SHAH PAGE 7 TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN IF, THERE WAS ANY IGNORAN CE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INFRACTION OF LAW, THE DEFAULT IS TECHNICAL OR VENI AL WHICH DID NOT PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR TAX EVASION WAS INVOLVED. THEREFORE, BONA FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE HAVE NO HESITATI ON IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THERE FORE, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 1 1TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 . SD/- SD /- (H.L.KARWA) (A.N.PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 . *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA-390 007. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- V, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD