Smt. Lilaben S.Shah, Bharuch V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Bharuch

ITA 2387/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1817 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C PANDIT
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Section: 147; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N. S. SAINI, AM ) ITA NOS.2387/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2001-02 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH, B-1122, LALLUBHAI CHAKLA, BHARUCH, PA NO. AHXPS 2987 A VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, BHARUCH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 A.Y.: 2001-02 AND 2004-05 SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH, 106, PRITAM SOCIETY NO.2, BHARUCH, PA NO. AIHPS 2645 G VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, BHARUCH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. C. PANDIT, DR DATE OF ORDER RESERVED O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA DATED 05-06-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 A ND 2004-05. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS DID NOT PRES THE UPHOLDING OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. ALL ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 2 THESE GROUNDS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY DI SMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDI NG UPHOLDING OF RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DISA LLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PARTIES MAINLY ARGUED IN ITA NO.2387/AHD/2 009 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ISSUE IS SAME; THEREFOR E, THE ORDER IN THIS CASE WOULD BE FOLLOWED IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO. ITA NO. 2387/A/2009 AY: 2001-02 4. ON GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.22,57,500/- AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON GROU ND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 2 4 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT O N VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.16,84,333/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER C LAIMING DEDUCTION @25% OF RS.5,63,160/- U/S 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS COMPRISES RENT OF RS.16,84,333/- AFTER PAYING RENT OF RS. 3,9 3,750/- FROM THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT CENTRE POINT, S. V. ROAD, MUMB AI AND RENT OF RS.3,90,341/- FROM OTHER PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, ON VE RIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT CENTRE POINT, S. V. ROAD, MUMBAI AS THE SAME IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THE PROPERTY AT CE NTRE POINT, S. V. ROAD, MUMBAI CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM THE PROPERT Y. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE REN T RECEIVED ON THIS ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 3 PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES RATHER THAN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED B EFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND TH AT THE ASSETS HAD NOT BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, R ENTAL INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO R EJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THROUGH WHICH IT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO HAVE T HE OWNERSHIP FOR TAKING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY. ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED U/S 24 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), SAME CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEEMED OWNER SHIP OF THE PROPERTY8 U/S 269 UA (F) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED C IT(A) NOTED THAT SINCE THE TENANCY COULD BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE SECTION AND , THEREFORE, INCOME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS DEEMED OWNER OF TH E PROPERTY. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEAVE AND LICENSE EXECUTED ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER 1998 AND SUBMITTED THAT THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT THE PERIOD OF THE PROPERTY I N QUESTION FOR LICENSE WAS OF 12 YEARS AND AS SUCH AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER DEEMED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY PRESCRIBED U/S 27 (III B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE HAS ALSO R EFERRED TO SECTION 269 UA (F) (I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE LE ASE WAS FOR 12 YEARS, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT LESS THAN 12 YEARS AND AS SUC H THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY I N QUESTION AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO REASON TO MENTION THE OWNERSHIP O F THE PROPERTY IN ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 4 THE BALANCE SHEET AS NOTED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MUMBAI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF PREMAVATI ESTATES & INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. VS ACIT (2 006) 8 SOT 441 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE PROPERTY AS TENA NT ON LEASE FOR MORE THAN 9 YEARS AND WAS CONTINUING POSSESSION. THE TRI BUNAL HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUB-LETTING OF THE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS DEEMED OWNER OF THE TENANTED PREMISES US/ 27 (III B) OF THE ACT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS O F THE ABOVE SECTIONS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEEMED OWNER OF T HE PROPERTY; THEREFORE, INCOME WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER S UBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GONE BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF L AW WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDE S AS UNDER: THE ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER, OTHER THAN SUCH PORTIONS OF SUCH PROPERTY AS HE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM THE PROFITS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX, SHAL L BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SECTION 27(IIIB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 5 (IIIB) A PERSON WHO ACQUIRES ANY RIGHTS (EXCLUDING ANY RIGHTS BY WAY OF A LEASE FROM MONTH TO MONTH OR FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR) IN OR WITH RES PECT TO ANY BUILDING OR PART THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF ANY S UCH TRANSACTION AS IS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (F) OF SECT ION 269UA , SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING OR PART THEREOF; SECTION 269 UA(F) (I) OF THE INCOME TAX PROVIDES AS UNDER: (F) TRANSFER, (I) IN RELATION TO ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY REFERRE D TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (D), MEANS TRANSFER OF SUCH PROPERTY BY WAY OF SALE OR EXCHANGE OR LEASE F OR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN TWELVE YEARS, AND INCLUDES ALLOWING THE POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO BE TAKE N OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF TH E NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER O F PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 1882). EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE, A LEASE WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE TERM THEREOF BY A FURTHER TERM OR TERMS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A LEASE FOR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN TWELVE YEARS , IF THE AGGREGATE OF THE TERM FOR WHICH SUCH LEASE IS T O BE GRANTED AND THE FURTHER TERM OR TERMS FOR WHICH IT CAN BE SO EXTENDED IS NOT LESS THAN TWELVE YEARS; 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR TH AT ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDING OR LANDS AP PURTENANT THERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OTHER THAN SUCH POR TION OF SUCH PROPERTY AS HE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS OF PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM, BY PROFIT OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO INC OME TAX, SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROPERTY. SECTION 27 (IIIB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES DEEMED OWN ERSHIP OF THE BUILDING WHEN SUCH PERSON ACQUIRES ANY RIGHT EXCLUDING ANY R IGHT BY WAY OF LEASE ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 6 FROM MONTH TO MONTH OR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING ONE Y EAR. THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY BUILDING OR PART THEREOF BY VIRTUE O F ANY SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS IS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (F) OF SECTION 269 UA S HALL BE DEEMED TO BE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING OR PART THEREOF. SECTION 269 UA (F) (I) OF THE INCOME TAX PROVIDES DEFINITION OF TRANSFER IN RELATION T O ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MEANS TRANSFER OF SUCH PROPERTY BY WAY OF SALE OR EXCHANGE OR LEASE FOR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN 12 YEARS AND INCLUDES PART PERFORMANCE U/S 53 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. IN SECTION 27- AND 269 UA AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE WORD LEASE OF PROPERTY IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFERRING RIGHT UPON THE PERSON WHO QUALIFY TO BEC OME DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IF THE P ROPERTY IN QUESTION IS TAKEN ON LEASE FOR A TERM NOT LES THAN 12 YEARS. SE CTION 105 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DEFINES LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MEANS TRANSFER OF RIGHT TO ENJOY SUCH PROPERTY, MADE FOR A CERTAIN PE RIOD OF TIME, EXPRESS OR IMPLIES OR IN PERPETUITY, IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRI CE PAID OR PROMISE OR MONEY, OR SHARE OF CROPS, SERVICE OR ANY OTHER THIN G OF VALUE, TO BE RENDERED PERIODICALLY OR OF SPECIFIED OCCASIONS TO THE TRANSFEROR BY THE TRANSFEREE, WHO ACCEPTS THE TRANSFER ON SUCH TERMS. THE TRANSFEROR IS CALLED THE LESSER AND THE TRANSFEREE IS CALLED THE LESSEE, THE PRICE IS CALLED PREMIUM AND THE MONEY, SHARE, SERVICE OR OTHER THIN G TO BE SO RENDERED IS CALLED RENT. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT IN RELA TION TO LEASE OF THE PROPERTY THERE SHOULD BE CREATION OR TRANSFER OF A RIGHT TO ENJOY SUCH PROPERTY. CREATION OF THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY THE L ESSER TO THE LESSEE IS NECESSARY. THE TERM LICENSE IS DEFINED UNDER THE IN DIAN EASEMENT ACT AS A RIGHT TO DO OR CONTINUE TO DO IN OR UPON IMMOVABL E PROPERTY OF THE GUARANTOR SOMETHING WHICH WOULD BE IN THE ABSENCE O F SUCH RIGHT BE UNLAWFUL AND SUCH RIGHT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN EASEM ENT OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LICENCE AND L EASE IS MARKED IN THE ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 7 WAY THAT FOR LICENCE DOES NOT CREATE ANY ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO WHICH IT RELATES AND THAT LICENSEE IS NOT ENTITL ED TO NOTICE TO QUIT BEFORE EVICTION. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE O F LEASE THERE IS A CREATION OF RIGHT TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY BUT LICENCE IS NOT A SSIGNABLE AND NO INTEREST IS CREATED IN THE PROPERTY. SECTION 107 OF THE TRAN SFER OF PROPERTY ACT PROVIDES THAT A LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FROM YE AR TO YEAR, OR FOR ANY TERM ACCEPTING ONE YEAR OF RESERVING YEARLY RENT CA N BE MADE ONLY BY REGISTERED INSTRUMENT. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUC ED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEAVE AND LICENCE DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 1998 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AS BECOME DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IT IS UN-REGISTE RED DOCUMENT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS NOT REGISTERED DOCUMENT. IN THIS CASE, THE TRANSACTION IS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN LICENSER AND THE LICENSEE AND THAT THE PAYM ENT IS MADE OF LICENSE FEES FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE LICENSED PREMISES IN QUESTION. THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT IS EFFECTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF 12 YEARS. IN CASE OF BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF LICE NSE AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT WOULD STAND TERMINATED. WE FIND THAT IN E ACH AND EVERY CLAUSE THE WORDS LICENCER, LICENSE, LICENSEE, LICEN SE FEES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF LEAVE AND LICENSE. THE ABOVE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT IN QUEST ION, THUS CLEARLY PROVE THAT NO LEASE IS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE TRANSFE ROR AND THE TRANSFEREE I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 27(III B) AND SECTION 269UA (F) (I) OF THE ACE ARE THUS, NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THE ABOVE PROVISIONS THE WORD LEASEIS USED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF QUALIFYING THE ASSESSEE TO BECOME THE DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT ARE NOT USED IN THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ON WHICH LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 8 UPON, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO QUALIFY HIM TO BECOME DEEM ED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PREMAVATI ESTATES & INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PREMISES ON LEASE FROM BASANTKUMAR SOMANI MEMORIAL TRUST ON LEASE RENT PER MONTH. IN THIS PREMISES THE TRIBUNAL CONFI RMED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEEMED OWNER OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION AS PER SECTION 22 READ WITH SECTION 27 (IIIB) AND 269 UA (F) (I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE T HEREFORE, DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ASSES SEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BECOME DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE INCOME IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DEDU CTION WAS ALSO RIGHTLY DISALLOWED. 11. AS A RESULT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 . A.Y.: 2001-02 AND 2004-05 12. THE FACTS OF THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AS CON SIDERED IN ITA NO.2387/A/2009. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS B OTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. AS A RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2387, 2388 AND 2389/AHD/2009 SMT. LILABEN S. SHAH AND SMT. PURVIBEN P. SHAH 9 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH DEC, 2009 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 18-12-2009 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 D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD