The DCIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad V. Shri Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 1982/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6512 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH JAIN SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR SRAR
• Keywords: Business income; Non compliance
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PHAUJA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DATE OF HEARING:6.4.11 DRAFTED:15.4.11 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12, ROOM NO.104, NARAYAN CHAMBER, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD V/S. SHRI NITEN HASMUKHBHAI SHAH, PROP. OF M/S. JAINAM TRADING COMPANY, VASAN SHERI, SARASPUR, AHMEDABAD NEW ADDRESS; 5-H, TRADE CENTRE, NR. SARDAR PATEL STADIUM, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AADHS8372 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI RAJESH JAIN, SR-DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, SR-AR O R D E R PER D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO CIT( A)-XX/118/08- 09 DATED 17-03-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.89,68,871/- MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 2 1.2 IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONTINUOU S CONTRACT, ORAL OR WRITTEN, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. RUPAL ROA DWAYS, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1.3 IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C( 3)(I) SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 WITH EF FECT FROM 01.10.2004, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT THE PRACTICE OF SPLITTING OF COMPOSITE CONTRACT SO AS TO ESCAPE THE PROVISIONS R ELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 1.4 IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SINCE THE LRS FOR TRANSPORTATION WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/S. RUPA L ROADWAYS, THIS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF NO T CARRIED OUT THE WORK OF TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING OF LIGNITE DIRE CTLY THROUGH THE VARIOUS TRUCK OWNER/DRIVERS, BUT THE SAID WORK WAS ENTRUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. RUPAL ROADWAYS AND SINCE THE AGGRE GATE OF PAYMENTS TO M/S. RUPAL ROADWAYS WAS MUCH IN EXCESS OF RS.50,000/-, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TA X AT SOURCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(3) OF THE I.T. A CT. 1.5 IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF SHREE CHAUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. REPORTED IN 119 TTJ ( JD) 3, WHICH IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CA SE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S PAID FREIGHT AND OCTROI AMOUNTING TO RS.89,68,871/- TO VARIOUS TRUCK -OWNERS/DRIVERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL FOR TRANSPORTING LIGNITE TO I TS AHMEDABAD BASED CUSTOMERS FROM THE MINES OWNED BY GUJARAT MINERAL D EVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GMDC FOR SHORT) SITUATED AT PANDHRO. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF T HE FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES AND BASIC VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AO ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE AS TO WHY THE SUM OF RS.87,68,871/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RE SPONSE TO THE SAID SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. IT WAS CONTENDED IN THAT REPLY T HAT NONE OF THE ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 3 PAYMENT IS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- AND NONE OF THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT TO A SINGLE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER IS IN EXCESS OF RS.5 0,000/-. HENCE, PAYMENTS ARE NOT HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 19 4C(3) OF THE ACT CONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SH ALL ALSO NOT APPLY. HOWEVER, AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION AND HEL D THAT AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) THE AMOUNT OF RS.87, 68,871/- IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT & GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. ACCORDINGLY, DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.87,68,871/- WAS MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE ISSUE EMERGING ON ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND ON EXAMINATION O F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE DISCUSSED AS UNDER:- 3.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.21,36,052/- ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.5,44,29,107/- W HICH WORKS OUT TO 3.92% AS AGAINST G.P. OF 3.95% DISCLOS ED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GP AT 7.17 %. AS REGARDS DOWNFALL IN THE RATE OF GP AS COMPARED TO A ST. YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEES MAIN BUSINESS WAS DEALING I N DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACIDS AND CHEMICALS WHEREAS TRAD ING OF LIGNITE WAS VERY NOMINAL. HOWEVER, FROM THE YEAR RE LEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS SWITCHED OVER TO BUSINESS OF LIGNITE. IN THIS YEAR, THE TRADING IN A CIDS AND CHEMICALS WAS VERY NOMINAL. THEREAFTER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXCLUSIVELY CARRIED OUT TRADING BUSINESS OF LIGNITE ONLY. IT IS ALSO EXPLAI NED THAT THE PRICE OF LIGNITE IS PUBLICLY OPEN. LIGNITE IS SOLD BY GMDC AT THE DISCLOSED PRICE. SO THE MARGIN IS VERY LOW IN C OMPARISON OF ACIDS AND CHEMICALS. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND FACTUAL POSITION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE SALES HAVE INCREASED FROM RS.1.63 CRORES IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2 005-06 TO RS.5.44 CRORES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BOOK RESULTS ARE THEREFORE ACCEPTED. 3.2 ON PERUSAL OF TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FREIGHT AND OCTROI EX PENSES AT RS.89,68,871/-. IN THIS REGARD, A DETAILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES WAS CALLED FOR WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION D ATED 5.12.2008 FURNISHED ON 10.12.2008. ON PERUSAL OF TH E SAID ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 4 ACCOUNT, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAK ING PAYMENT OF FREIGHT IN CASH ON DAILY BASIS AND ALMOS T ALL THE ENTRIES FOR PAYMENT ARE FOUND TO BE IN THE RANGE OF RS.9,000/- TO RS.9,500- I.E. BELOW RS.10,000/-. THI S ACCOUNT WAS EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED. ON EXAMINATION OF THE VOUCHE RS AND BILLS PRODUCED, IT IS FOUND THAT EACH VOUCHER I N RESPECT OF EACH ENTRY DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNT IS SUPPORTED B Y A L.R. ISSUED BY ROOPAL ROADWAYS, A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR A ND LIGNITE CLEARING AGENT, STATION ROAD, BHUJ. SINCE I T WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING WORK GOT CARRIED OUT THROUGH ROOPAL ROADWAYS, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DA TED 18.12.2008 AND VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO.DCIT(OSD) /R- 12/NHS/2008-09 DATED 18.12.2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S.4 0A(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF FR EIGHT PAYMENT OF RS.89,68,871/-. THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTIN G IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- NO. DCIT(OSD)R-12/NHS/2008-09 DATE:18-1 2-2008 TO SHRI NITEN HASMUKHBHAI SHAH PROP OF M/S. JAIANM TRADING COMPANY A5-H, TRADE CENTRE, STADIUM NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD SIR, SUB: ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y.2006-07 P.A. NO.ADHS8372J PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. 2. YOU HAVE FILED YOUR RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 ON 30.12.2006 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,28,804/- . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, ACCORDIN GLY NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED 7.11.2007 AND SERVED UPON YOU ON 17.11.2007 BY DCIT, CIR.12, AHMEDABAD. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO TH E UNDERSIGNED. THEREFORE, A FORMAL NOTICE U/S.143(2) AND NOTICED U/S.142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIR E WERE ISSUED ON 5.6.2008. IN RESPONSE THERETO, YOU HAVE F ILED YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND INFORMATION FROM TIME TO TIM E. ON PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND ON EXAMINATIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE NOTICED: I) ON PERUSAL OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES ACCOUN T, IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE PAID FREIGHT OF RS.89,68,871/ - IN ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 5 CASH ON VARIOUS DATES. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS, IT IS NOTICED THAT IN MAJORITY OF THE CAS ES, THE LRS ARE FROM ROOPAL ROADWAYS AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE FREIGHT PAID IS IN RESPECT OF LIGNITE TRANSPORTED FROM GMDC TO AHMEDABAD FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH. BUT FOR SUCH PAYMENTS, NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE. YOU HAVE NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENTS. PLEASE SHOW CASE AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT PAYMENT OF RS.89,68,871/- II) 3. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND TO MY OFFICE ON 22.1 2.2008 AT 2.30 P.M. AND FURNISH YOUR EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE S RAISED HEREINABOVE. PLEASE TREAT THIS LETTER AS NOTICE U/S .142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE, IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVING NOT HING TO EXPLAIN IN THE MATTER AND THE ISSUES RAISED HEREINA BOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE FINALIZED IN THE MANNER INDICATED AS ABOVE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, (S E A L) (LALIT P JAIN) DY. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD)-RA NGE-12, AHMEDABAD. 3.2.1 IN RESPONSE TO THERETO, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 22.12.2008 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, YOUR HONO UR HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES OF 89,68,871/- WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSEE MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:- 1. THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT AND OC TROI EXPENSES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2006-0 7 AS APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BOOKS IS ATTACHED HEREWITH . 2. THE CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE SAID ACCOUNT REVEALS T HE FOLLOWING FACTS: (I) ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH (II) NONE OF THE PAYMENT IS EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- (III) NONE OF THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT IS IN EXCESS OF RS.50,000/-/ THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE PAYMENTS MADE ARE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. THE ASSESSEE MOST RESPECTFULLY INVITES YOUR KIND AT TENTION TO SECTION 194C(3)(I) AND ITS FIRST PROVISO: ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 6 (QUOTE) (3) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OR SUB- SECTION (2) FROM (I) THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, TH E CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES. PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SUMS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID D URING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE PERSON RESP ONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (10 OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT IN COME-TAX (UNDER THIS SECTION:]. (UNQUOTE) NOW REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ANALYSI S OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACC OUNT OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES ARE BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS.20,000/- QUA EACH PAYMENT AND RS.50,000/- QUA AGGREGATE PAYMENT TO ONE INDIVIDUAL I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR AND ARE NOT HIT BY THE RIGOUR OF SECTION 194C(3). AS THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT HIT BY SECTION 194C(3), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SHALL NOT APPLY. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT LAW, THE ASSESSEE MOST HUMBLY REQUESTS YOUR HONOUR TO DROP THE PROPOS AL OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS.89,68,871/- 3.3.2 THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY THE SAME IS NOT FOUND CONVINCING. ON EXAMINATION OF THE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT, IT IS FOUND THAT EACH ENTRY F OR PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI IS SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHER PREP ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LR OF ROOPAL ROADWAYS. FURTHER, THE AS SESSEE WITH ITS REPLY HAS AGAIN GIVEN THE EXTRACT OF FREIGHT AN D OCTROI EXPENSES ACCOUNT FROM THE LEDGER MAINTAINED BY IT. IN THE DE TAILED EXTRACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LR NUMBER OF THE TRANSPORTER AS ALSO THE TRUCK NUMBER AGAINST EACH ENTRY. ON EXAMINATIONS OF THE VOUCHER FILES, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT ALMOST IN ALL CASES T HE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE LR OF ROOPAL ROADWAYS. ON PER USAL OF THE VOUCHERS AND LRS, IT IS SEEN THAT PAYMENT OF FREIGH T HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH ON PER METRIC TON RATE BASIS. THE ACTU AL AMOUNT PAID THEREFORE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE W EIGHT OF LIGNITE TRANSPORTED AT THE PREVAILING RATE OF FREIGHT. THES E FACTS CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTRUSTED THE WORK OF TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING AND FORWARDING OF LIGNITE TO ROOPAL RO ADWAYS WHO IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR AND LIGNITE CLEARING AGENT RIG HT FROM APRIL 20005 TO MARCH 2006 I.E. FOR THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL Y EAR. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHILE EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS, PHOTO COPIES OF VOUCHERS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 7 LRS OF ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, ON SAMPL E BASIS FOR ALL THE 12 MONTHS. OUT OF THE PHOTO COPES SO OBTAIN ED, FOLLOWING VOUCHERS AND LRS ARE MADE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. NO. OF VOUCHER DT. OF VOUCHER NAME OF TRANSPORTER LR NO. DATE OF LR WEIGHT RATE OF FREIGHT (RS) 33 30.04.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 20573 29.04.05 10,308 926 92 14.05.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 20651 13.05.05 10,325 926 155 01.06.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 20791 31.05.05 10,490 926 313 15.07.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 21248 14.07.05 10,450 956 464 31.08.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 21791 29.08.05 10,225 956 498 10.09.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 21854 09.09.05 10,500 956 535 01.10.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 21951 30.09.05 10,430 996 14.11.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 22341 13.11.05 10,350 996 01.12.05 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 22487 30.11.05 10,235 996 30.01.06 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 23070 29.01.06 10,370 996 10.02.06 ROOPAL ROADWAYS 23180 09.02.06 10,340 996 3.2.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT NONE OF THE PAYM ENT IS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- AS ALSO NONE OF THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT IS IN EXCESS OF RS.50,000/-. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT HIT BY SECTION 1`94C(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TRUCK-WISE PAYMENT ON PARTICULAR DATE. THEREFO RE, THE AMOUNT PAID ARE BELOW RS.20,00/-. HOWEVER, ITS ARGU MENTS THAT THE PAYMENT DO NOT EXCEED RS.50,000/- IN THE AGGREG ATE IS NOT CORRECT AS IN THE CASE OF ALMOST ALL THE PAYMENTS T HERE ARE LRS OF ROOPAL ROADWAYS WHICH CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ENTRUSTED THE WORK TO ROOPAL ROADWAYS WHO CARRIED O UT THE WORK IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THO UGH THE ASSESSEE DENIES TO HAVE ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR TH E WORK ASSIGNED/ENTRUSTED TO ROOPAL ROADWAYS, BUT IT IS SE EN THAT ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAS CARRIED OUT THE WORK DURING THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEARLY PROVED THAT THERE WA S AN OPEN AND CONTINUOUS CONTRACT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND CLEA RING WORK OF LIGNITE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ROOPAL ROADWAYS. A S HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE NEED NOT TO BE ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR THE WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT. AN ORAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR THE WORK TO B E CARRIED OUT IS ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 8 ALSO SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194C OF THE I.T. ACT. HERE, IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT DENIED BY THE AS SESSEE THAT NO WORK WAS ENTRUSTED TO ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THE MAIN ARG UMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT EACH PAYMENT FALLS BELOW RS.20,000/-. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF VOUCHERS AND LRS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN AN OPEN AND CONTINUOUS CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING OF THE LIGNITE FROM PAN NDRO TO AHMEDABAD TO ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THE PAYMENT FOR EACH TRUCK MADE AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY IN CASH TO THE TRUCK D RIVER IS SIMPLY A MODE OF PAYMENT. IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, EITHER P AYMENT IS MADE TO THE TRANSPORTER ON ACCOUNT BASIS S AND WHEN BILL S ARE RECEIVED OR ON TO PAY BASIS. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE PAYME NTS ARE IMMEDIATELY MADE TO THE TRANSPORTER AS SOON AS DELI VERY OF GOODS IS MADE AT THE DESTINATIONS. THEREFORE, THE MODE OF PAYMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURE OF CONTRACT WHEREBY THE WORK WAS ENTRUSTED TO M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THE PAYMENTS SO RECEIVED BY T HE TRUCK DRIVER IN THIS CASE MAY BE AN INTERNAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TRUCK DRIVERS AND M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE IS LEAST CONCERNED. BUT THE FACT IS NOT DENIABLE THAT M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAD CARRIED OUT THE TRANSPORTATION AND CLE ARING OF LIGNITE WORK IN PURSUANCE OF THE WORK ENTRUSTED TO IT BY TH E ASSESSEE. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT EACH VOUCHER AND CHAL LAN IS SUPPORTED BY THE LR OF ROOPAL ROADWAYS. HAD THERE BEEN NO INV OLVEMENT OF M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY LR OF IT. THUS, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT, IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTRUSTED THE WORK RELATING TRANSP ORTATION AND CLEARING OF LIGNITE TO M/S ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THEREFO RE THOUGH THE PAYMENT MADE FOR EACH TRUCK IS BELOW RS.20,00/-. TH E AGGREGATE PAYMENT MADE AGAINST THE LRS OF THE CONTRACTOR M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS EXCEEDS RS.50,000/-. THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MA DE TO M/.S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS IS RS.89,68,871/- 3.2.4 NOTWITHSTANDING TO THE ABOVE, DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENTRUSTED THE WORK RELATING TO TRANSPORTAT ION AND CLEARING OF LIGNITE FROM PANANDHRO TO VARIOUS DESTINATIONS O THER THAN AHMEDABAD IN GUJARAT. FOR SUCH WORK, THERE IS ALSO NO WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S ROOPAL ROADWA YS. M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONTRACT WORK T O THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,75,959/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENT TO M/S. ROOPAL ROAD WAYS. THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS SIN RESPEC T OF TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING OF LIGNITE FOR DESTINAT IONS OTHER THAN AHMEDABAD AND FOR DESTINATION AT AHMEDABAD IS SIMIL AR IN ALL RESPECTS. ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE DESTINATION AND TH E MODE OF ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 9 PAYMENT. FOR THE GOODS DELIVERED FOR THE DESTINATIO NS OTHER THAN AHMEDABAD, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT BASIS THROUGH CHEQUES WHEREAS FOR THE WORK CARRIED OUT FO R AHMEDABAD DESTINATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT IN CASH FOR EACH TRUCK. IN BOTH THE CASES, THE NATURE OF WORK CARRIE D OUT REMAINS SAME. ALSO IN BOTH THE CASES, THERE ARE NO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS. FURTHER, M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAS ISSUED ITS LRS FO R TRANSPORTATION OF LIGNITE FROM PANNANDHRO TO THE DE STINATIONS OTHER THAN AHMEDABAD AS WELL AS IN RESPECT OF DESTINATION S AT AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO DIFFERENTIATE BOTH THE WORK BY ARGUING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR AHMEDABAD DEST INATIONS IS BELOW RS.20,000/- IN EACH CASE. HOWEVER, AS MENTION ED HEREINABOVE, M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS HAS CARRIED OUT T HE ENTIRE CONTRACT ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE AS. EVEN IF EACH PAY MENT IS BELOW RS.20,000/-, BUT ALL PAYMENTS ARE MADE AGAINST THE LRS OF M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THEREFORE, THE AGGREGATE OF THE PA YMENTS EXCEEDS MUCH HIGHER THAN RS.50,000/- WHICH IS RS.89 ,68,871/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS DESIGNED THE MODE OF PAYMENT IN SU CH A WAY THAT EACH PAYMENT IS SHOWN SEPARATELY SO THAT APPAR ENTLY IT DOESNT EXCEED THE LIMIT OF RS.20,000/- AT A TIME. ALSO BY MENTIONING SEPARATE TRUCK NUMBER, IT HAS WRONGLY TR IED TO CLAIM THAT THE PAYMENT IN EACH CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE TO A S EPARATE CONTRACTOR/TRUCK DRIVER. THEREFORE, THE AGGREGATE A MOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR DOESNT EXCEED RS.50,000/-. BUT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION IS REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT ITSELF HAD CARRIED OUT TRANSPORTATION AND CLEARING OF LIGNITE OR ENGAG ED THE TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF LIGNITE FROM PANANDHRO (GMDC) TO AHMEDABAD ON ITS OWN. IN FACT, IT HAD ENTRUSTED THIS WORK TO M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT RECEIVED BY THE EA CH TRICK DRIVER INDIVIDUALLY HAS IN FACT, BEEN RECEIVED BY T HEM ON BEHALF OF M/S/.ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THUS, EACH TRUCK DRIVER HAD A CCEPTED SUCH PAYMENTS AS AN AGENT OF M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THIS IS AS PER THE PREVAILING PRACTICE THAT ON TO PAY BASIS FREIGHT THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY THE TUCK DRIVERS ON BEHALF O F THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE IS LEAST CONCERNED FOR AND ABOUT THE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRUC K DRIVERS AND M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT MADE T HEREFORE IS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO M/S. ROOPAL ROADWAYS AN D THE SAME EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OF RS.50,000/-. AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C OF THE I.T. ACT, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF SUC H PAYMENT. BUT IT HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND THE PAYME NTS WERE MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE I.T ACT. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I A), THE AMOUNT OF RS.89,68,871/- IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE I NCOME ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 10 CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS AND PROFESSION. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,68, 871/- IS MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER ASS ESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE SUMMARIZED BY LD. CI T(A) AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT WAS TO LIFT THE LIGNITE, AS PER THE ORDERS FROM THE CUSTOMERS ON HAND, FROM THE MINES SITUATED AT PANDH RO AND OWNED BY GUJARAT MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. THE APPELLANT IS BASED AT AHMEDABAD. THE APPELLANT IS SUPPLYING LIGNITE TO ITS CUSTOMERS SITUATED IN AND AROUND AHM EDABAD AND ALSO TO THE CUSTOMERS SITUATED AT VAPI AS PER THE O RDERS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS. THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED TO AHMEDABAD BASE CUSTOMERS AND VAPI BASED CUSTOMERS A S UNDER:- (A) SUPPLY OF LIGNITE CUSTOMERS SITUATED IN OR AROU ND AHMEDABAD. M/S. RUPAL ROADWAYS ARRANGED THE TRUCKS FOR THE APP ELLANT TO PICK UP THE LIGNITE FROM THE MINES AND DELIVER IT TO THE CUSTOMERS OF APPELLANT SITUATED IN AND AROUND AHMEDABAD AS PER T HE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. UNDER THIS ARRANGEME NT THE APPELLANT WAS TO PAY FREIGHT TO THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS DIRE CTLY. NO FREIGHT WAS EVER PAID TO M/S. RUPAL ROADWAYS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM T HE PAYMENTS MADE TO TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS DIRECTLY AS THE PAYMEN T DID NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/- AT ONCE OR RS.50,000/- IN A YEAR TO A SINGLE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER. THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE AS THE APPELLANT IS BASED AT AHMEDABAD AND IS HAVING ITS OFFICE IN AHMEDABAD AND CAN ARRANGE FOR THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT DIRECTLY TO THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS WITHOUT INTERVENTION OF THE THIRD PA RTY. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CUT DOWN THE MARGIN OF THE THIRD PARTY AND THEREBY RETURNED A HIGHER INCOME. (B) SUPPLY OF LIGNITE TO CUSTOMERS SITUATED AT VAPI THE APPELLANT IS ALSO SUPPLYING LIGNITE TO ITS CUST OMERS SITUATED AT VAPI. FOR TIMELY PAYMENT TO TRUCK DRIVERS/OWNERS TH E APPELLANT HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ASK M/S RUPAL ROADWAYS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND BILL THE SAME TO THE APPELLA NT. THE APPELLANT HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT THE APPROPR IATE RATE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. RUPAL ROADWAYS. ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 11 THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS DONE TO CUT DOWN THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND ASSURE THE CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF LIGNITE TO THE CUSTOMERS SITUATED AT VAPI. THE BILLS RAISED BY RUP AL ROADWAYS FOR THE SUPPLY OF LIGNITE TO CUSTOMERS SITUATED AT VAPI HAVE BEEN FILED AS PAPER BOOK PAGES 1 TO 7. THE BASIS VOUCHER S FOR THE SUPPLY OF LIGNITE TO AHMEDABAD CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PAGES 12 TO 33. THE COP OF FREIGHT & OCTROI EXPENSES OF RS.89,68,87 1/- HAS BEEN ONCE AGAIN PLACED ON RECORD VIDE PAPER BOOK PA GE: 8 TO 75. THE TRUCK-WISE/TRIP-WISE ANALYSIS OF THE FREIGHT & OCTROI EXPENSES HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD VIDE PAPER BOOK PAGES: 76 TO 108 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EACH PAYMENT I S BELOW RS.20,000/- ADDITION AGGREGATE PAYMENT TO A SINGLE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER IN A YEAR IS BELOW RS.50,000/- THE APPELLANT HEAVILY RELIED ON CIRCULAR 715 DT.8-8 -1995 ISSUED BY CBDT MORE PARTICULARLY ANSWER TO Q.6 AND Q.9 AND STATED THAT EACH GR IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CONTRACT WRITTEN OR ORAL WI TH RUPAL ROADWAYS AS REGARDS QUANTITY PERIOD ADDITION RATE. ALSO, THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE COMPLETE MODUS O PERANDI OF ITS BUSINESS AS UNDER:- (I) RECEIPT OF ORDER FOR LIGNITE BY THE APPELLANT F ROM ITS AHMEDABAD BASED CUSTOMER. (II) THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE TO TAKE OUT DEMAND DRA FT IN FAVOUR OF GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION F OR THE REQUIRED QUANTITY OF LIGNITE. (III) M/S RUPAL ROADWAYS WILL ARRANGE FOR THE TRUCK SO THAT THE LIGNITE CAN BE TRANSPORTED TO THE CUSTOMER OF THE APPELLANT SITUATED IN AND AROUND AHMEDABAD. (IV) THE APPELLANT MADE THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI DIRECTLY TO THE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER AFTER ARRIVAL OF LIGNITE AT THE GODOWN OF THE CUSTOMER. (V) THERE IS NO AGREEMENT EITHER ORAL OR WRITTEN BE TWEEN THE APPELLANT AND RUPAL ROADWAYS. (VI) THE FREIGHT PAID BY THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY TO THE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER WAS AS PER THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. (VII) THE PAYMENT TO TRUCK DRIVER/OWNER QUA EACH TR IP WAS LESS THAN RS.20,000/- AND ALSO LES THAN RS.50,000/- QUA AGGREGATE PAYMENT TO ONE INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OWNER/DRI VER IN A FINANCIAL YEAR. (VIII) EACH GR, THUS, IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT AS ENV ISAGED IN ANSWER TO Q.9 OF CIRCULAR 715 DT 8-8-1995 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 12 THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RUPAL ROADWAYS IS PLACED ON RECORD AS PAPER BOOK PAGE 109 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF RUPAL ROADWAYS DID NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM THE APPELLANT TOWARDS FREIGHT. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT R UPAL ROADWAYS ONLY ARRANGED THE TRUCKS FOR THE APPELLANT SO THAT LIGNITE CAN BE TRANSPORTED TO THE AHMEDABAD BASED CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1) CIT V. UNITED RICE LAND LTD. 217 CTR 332 ( P & H) 2) ITO V. BHORUKA ROAD LINES LTD. 115 TTJ 383 (MUM ) 3) CITY TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. ITO 13 SOT 479 (M UM) 5. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION O F ASSESSEE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY HIM LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADD ITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE CIRCULAR NO.715 DT 8-8-1995 ISSUED BY THE CBDT ALSO STATES THAT THE AT SOURCE HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYM ENTS MADE TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENTS FOR CARRIAGE OF GOOD S IF THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE UNDER CONTRACT (ANS. TO Q6). THE SAID CIRCULAR ALSO CLARIFIES THAT EACH GR CAN BE SAID TO BE A SEP ARATE CONTRACT, IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED AT ONE TIME. IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED CONTINUOUSLY PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OR QUANTITY, EACH GR WILL NOT BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT A ND ALL GRS RELATING TO THAT PERIOD OR QUANTITY WILL BE AGGREGA TED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TDS (ANS. TO Q9). IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO CONTINUOUS CONTRACT, ORAL OR WRITTEN BETWEEN THE AP PELLANT AND RUPAL ROADWAYS AS REGARDS QUANTITY PERIOD AND RATE. HENCE EACH GR IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT. AS CLARIFIED BY THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT, THE PAYMENT FOR EA CH TRIP IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/- AND THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT IN A YEA R TO A SINGLE TRUCK OWNER/DRIVER IS LESS THAN RS.50,000/-. HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SECTION 40(A)(IA) WILL ALSO NOT COME INTO PLAY. THE PRESUMPTION OF THE AO THAT THERE IS AN OPEN AND CONTINUOUS CONT RACT BETWEEN HE APPELLANT AND RUPAL ROADWAYS IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.89,68, 871/- AS ITA NO.1982/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-12, ABD V. SH. NITEN H SHAH PAGE 13 FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE S AME IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. SINCE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS N O ORAL OR WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ROOPAL ROADWAYS WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE CLARIFICATORY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ROOPAL R OADWAYS, WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFO RE US, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 194C(3) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN TH IS CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE . THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS THEREFORE HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GRO UND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/05/2011 SD/- SD/- (A.N.PHAUJA) (D.K. TYAGI) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 27/05/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD