The ITO, Ward-2(4), Surat V. M/s. Venus Fabrics, Surat

ITA 2172/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9126 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGARWAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Gift; Question of law; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 260A; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ITO, WARD 2(4), VS M/S VENUS FABRICS, SURAT SURAT, PAN NO. AACFV1070D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH RAJEEV AGARWAL, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER T.K.SHARMA, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER DT.13.10.2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS)-II, SURAT FOR THE AY 2005-06 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED : - ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 5,59,226/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP. I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L EARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CONSUMPTION / PROD UCTION. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL, CIT DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUG H THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THIS APPEAL TAX E FFECT INVOLVED IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THEREFORE, AS PER MONETARY LIMIT, THIS IS 2 COVERED BY THE LATEST INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE C. B.D.T .INSTRUCTION NO 5/2008 DATED 15.5.2008 AND ALSO BOARD'S INSTRUCTIO NS NO 1979 DATED 27.3.2000, NO.1985 DATED 29.6.2000, NO.6 OF 2003 DA TED 17.7.2003, NO.19 OF 2003 DATED 23.12.2003, NO.5/2004 DATED 27.5.2004, N O.2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005 AND NO.5/2007 DATED 16.7.2007 WHEREIN MO NETARY LIMIT FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN INCOME-TAX MATTER AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. ALL THESE INSTRUCTIONS WERE SUPERCEDED AND FRESH MONETA RY LIMITS WERE FIXED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THESE LIMITS CONTAINED IN INSTRUCTIO N NO 5/2008 DATED 15.5.2008. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT PART OF IN STRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN PARAS 3, 4 & 5 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- '3. APPEALS WILL HENCEFORTH BE FILED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER:- SL. NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2,00,000/- 2. APPEAL U/S. 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 4,00,000/- 3. APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT 10,00,000/- 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, 'TAX EFFECT' MEANS THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY TH E AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'DISPUTED ISSUES'). HOWEVER, THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON. SIMILARLY, IN LOSS CASES NOTIONAL TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN THE CA SES OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEALED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EF FECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED IS SUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, TH E DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHAL L BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH T HE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR 3 YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONE TARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS WILL B E FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EFFECT' IS LE SS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S), I F IT IS DECIDED TO FILE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH 'TAX EFFE CT' EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.' 4. EARLIER THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN JUGAL K ISHORE ARORA VS. DY C.I.T., [2004] 269 I.T.R. 133 (ALL.) HELD THAT I NSTRUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE INTERNAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE CAN NOT OBJECT TO THE FILING OF APPEAL DESPITE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. IN THIS REGARD, WE REPRODUCE FROM THE JUDGEMENT AS UNDER:- 'AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 27, 2000, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REGARDING FILING OF A PPEALS ARE ONLY INTERNAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND THE ASSESSE E CANNOT OBJECT TO FILING OF AN APPEAL DESPITE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION.' 5. HOWEVER, OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT V IEW AND THEY HAVE HELD THAT INSTRUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE BINDING ON THE OFFICERS AND THAT MONETARY LIMITS FIXED BY THE C.B.D.T. FOR FILING A PPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. ON THAT BASIS, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE WERE DISMISSED. IN THIS REGARD, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO REPRODUCE REL EVANT PART FROM THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS. A. IN THE CASE OF JOINT C.I.T. VS. PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LTD., [2006] 287 I.T.R. (AT) 153 (SB), THE SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T. A.T., CALCUTTA OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THAT SINCE 1987 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAD NOT ONLY BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT APPROACH OF INSTRUCTING IT S OFFICERS NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW TH E MONETARY LIMIT, BUT SUCH MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO REVISED UPWA RDS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION WAS ONE LAKH OF RUPEES. THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BOARD P RESCRIBING MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS FOR UMS ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 4 B. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO., [2002] 254 I.T.R. 565, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDE R:- 'CIRCULAR F. NO. 279/126/98-ITJ, DATED MARCH 27, 20 00, REFLECTED THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF D IRECT TAXES NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE EFFECT IS L ESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGAT IONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. AN APPEAL OR REFERENCE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY TH E COURTS.' C. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PITHWA ENGG. WORKS, [2005 ] 276 I.T.R. 519, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDE R:- 'THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BY ITS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000, HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE R EFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. TH E DEPARTMENT CANNOT CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ONLY WI TH RESPECT TO THE NEW CASES AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE OLD REFER RED CASES EVEN IF THE TAX IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE SAME P OLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT.' D. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH, [2007] 29 2 I.T.R. 314, THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT RAISED A PRELIMINARY OB JECTION ABOUT THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDING TO HI M THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN EVERY APPEAL IS AROUND RS. 2,000. HE INVITED THE ATTENTIO N OF HIS COURT TO NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT APPEAL COULD BE PREFERRED TO TH E HIGH COURT IN CASES WHERE A DEBT OF WEALTH-TAX DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 25,000. HE INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO T HE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA [2006] 284 ITR 379 ; [2005] 199 CTR 656 WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED MARCH 27, 2000, DIRECTING THE DEPAR TMENT NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL WHICH W AS FILED HAVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 7,000 WAS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING TH AT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ARE BINDING ON THE D EPARTMENT. 5 THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON BY HIM IS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CAMCO COLOURCO. [2002] 254 ITR 565 ; [2002] 173 CTR 255 I N WHICH THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS REPRODUCED THE CIRCULAR I SSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DATED MARCH 27, 2000, IN WH ICH IT IS DIRECTED THAT APPEALS UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT WITH TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE PREFERRED. IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IT IS MENTIONED TH AT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE TO WEALTH-TAX, GIFT-TAX, EST ATE DUTY, ETC. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. A NU MBER OF OTHER JUDGMENTS WERE RELIED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FOR SUPPORTING HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE SAID QUESTION, INCLUDING CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1, WHICH IS A FULL BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT, UCO BANK V. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599 AND CIT V. PITH WA ENGINEERING WORKS [2005] 276 ITR 519 (BOM). IN ALL THESE CASES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS IS VERY LOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.5,000 PER YEAR HENCE THE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, TO COMPLETE THE JUDGMENT WE PROCEED TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS.' E. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA, [2006] 284 I.T.R. 379, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDE R:- 'THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX ES DATED MARCH 27, 2000, REFLECTS THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE BOARD NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS WITH A VIEW T O REDUCE LITIGATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME C OURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE.' F. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I .T. VS. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LTD. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 300, HELD THAT THOUGH NO APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WHERE TAX EFFECT IS L ESS THAN LIMIT PRESCRIBED, BUT THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR REJECT REFERENCE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF HEAD NOT ES ARE AS UNDER:- 'HELD _ ALSO, THAT IF, IN SPITE OF ADMINISTRATIVE I NSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES TO TH E EFFECT THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED WHEN THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT M ORE THAN RS.50,000, THE DEPARTMENT PREFERS TO FILE AN APPEAL OR TAKE A 6 REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT, ON SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR R EJECT THE REFERENCE. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN DISPOSING OF TH E APPEAL OR REFERENCE ON THE MERITS.' 6. BUT NOW IN THE LATEST JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE TAX LIABILITY IS LESS THAN RS.5 LAK HS, SUCH MATTER NEED NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER PARAS 2, 3, 4 & 5 FROM THAT JUDGEMENT AS UNDE R:- '2. THE APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW:- 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED I.T.A.T. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.90,000/- CLAIMED AS GIFTS RECEIVED FROM 8 PARTIE S EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE AFO RESAID GIFTS ?' 3. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS STATED TO BE A COLONIZE R IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87, HE RETURNED THE INCOME OF RS.29,890. HE FURTHER SHOWED THE CASH CREDIT OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF R S.90,000 BEING SHOWN AS GIFTS. THEY WERE THE AMOUNTS SUPPOSED TO BE DONATED BY SOME EIGHT PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFO RE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.90,000 AND CONSEQUENT TAX LIABILITY INCREASED WOULD BE RS.53,312. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE DONORS HAD NOT SHOWN THESE AMOUNT IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS AT LEAST SE EN IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE DONORS AND THE PERSONS CONCERNED WERE NO T PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AS AGAINST THAT, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT THE MEMORANDUM FOR GIFT WERE FILED IN EACH OF THESE CAS ES AND GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE SAME WARD WHERE THE ASSE SSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFICULTY FOR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO KNOW FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THESE PERSONS WERE EXISTING OR NOT. BESIDES THAT A FFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FILED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL INTERFER ED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SET ASIDE HIS ORD ER AS WELL THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IT IS A CASE WHERE PERHAPS TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIB LE AND IT IS NOTED ABOVE THAT THE TAX LIABILITY IS RS.53,312. THE CEN TRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS COME OUT WITH A CIRCULAR THAT WHERE THE T AX LIABILITY IS LESS THAN RS.5,00,000 SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL. 7 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS COURT SHOULD INTERFERE. OTHERWISE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THI S IS A CASE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH OUGHT TO BE ENTER TAINED.' 7. SINCE IN THE LATEST DECISION, THE HON'BLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT APPEAL INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT AS PER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. NEED NOT BE PURSUED, THIS JUDGMENET OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABD HIGH COURT BEING LATEST IN TIME WOULD BE BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE APPEALS IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT . 8 . IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE C .B.D.T. ARE BINDING ON SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS REGARD, WE REF ER TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN ELLERMAN LINES LT D. VS. C.I.T. [1971] 82 I.T.R. 913 (S.C); UCO BANK VS. C.I.T. [1999] 237 I. T.R. 889 (S.C); C.I.T. VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [ 2002] 256 I.T.R. 1 (FULL BENCH DELHI); C.I.T. VS. SOUNDARARAJA FINANCE LTD. [2006] 283 I.T.R. 559 (MA D.); BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. C.I.T. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 140 (RAJ.); C.I.T. VS. BLAZE ADVERTISING (DELHI) PVT. LTD., [2002] 255 I.T.R. 46 (DELHI) AND HARSHE NDU UPENDRE KAKA VS. I.T.O. AND OTHERS [2001] 249 I.T.R. 612 (BOM.). 9. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, DEPARTMENT OUGHT NO T TO HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL. AS THIS APPEAL SO FILED IS AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE IN STRUCTIONS WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT, WE DISMISS ALL THESE APPEALS IN LIMINE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.9.2009. SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (T.K.SHARMA) ACCOUNTNT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH SEPT 2009 RKK 8 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A). 4. THE CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD.