M/s. Skyland Corporation, Mehsana V. The ACIT.,Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 2644/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7757 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR JAYANT JHAVERI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; Liquidation
• Section: 40(b); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AH MEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,JM AND SHRI A.N.PAHUJA,AM ITA NO.2644/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S SKYLAND CORPORATION 2 ND FLOOR, DHARTI MANAN PLAZA JAIL ROAD, MEHSANA. [PAN:AAYFS7467D] VS ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3600/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S SKYLAND CORPORATION 2 ND FLOOR, DHARTI MANAN PLAZA JAIL ROAD, MEHSANA. VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MEHSANA WARD-2 MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA, A.R. REVENUE BY : DR. JAYANT JHAVERI, D.R. ( )/ ORDER A.N.PAHUJA: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPAR ATE ORDERS DATED 30.5.2008 FOR THE AY 2005-06 AND 12.8.2008 FO R THE AY 2006-07 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.2644/AHD/2008: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 30.5.2008 FOR A. Y. 200 5-06 BY CIT(A), GNR UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AGGREGATIN G TO RS.3,50,000/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. L.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING SALARY AGGREGATING TO RS.3,50,000/- PAID TO FIVE IN DIVIDUALS. 2.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. C1T(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF RS.3,5 0,000/-. 3,1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.CLT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN CASE THE SAID INDIVIDUALS WERE NOT PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND THE TWO PVT. LTD. COMPANIES WERE PARTNERS OF TH E APPELLANT FIRM SALARY PAID TO THE SAID INDIVIDUALS WAS NOT COVERED U/S.40(B) RATHER THE SAME WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE U/S,37(L) OF THE ACT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SALARY TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE FIRM. ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 2 ITA NO.3600/AHD/2008: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 OF THE ACT ON 12.08 .2008 FOR A.Y.2006-07 BY CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY MADE BY AO OF RS.2,50,O0O/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND/OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE SALARY OF RS.2,50,000/- U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT O R IN ALTERNATIVE U/S 37(1 ) OF THE ACT. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY U/S.40(B) OR IN ALTERNATIVE 37 OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ENTERTAINING THE ISSUE OF MASTER-SERVAN T RELATIONSHIP AND THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED WAS DEDUCTION U/S 40(B). 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND AND BUILDING DEVEL OPERS, COMPRISED THE FOLLOWING TWO PARTNERS: (I) DHARTI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 40% (II) ANKIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 60% IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 1.4.20 04, THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM IS TO PURCHASE, PLOT, DEVELOP ,BUILD COMMERCIAL CENTRE, S ELL RESIDENTIAL PLOTS ON THE LAND ALLOTTED IN THE TENDER OF M/S ANKIT INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD..THIS LAND ADMEASURED 1,12,850 SQ. METRES BELONGED TO A COMPANY M/S NAVJY OT MILLS LTD., UNDER LIQUIDATION. THE PARTNERSHIP WOULD COMPULSORILY DISSOLVE ON COMP LETION OF THE BUSINESS. CLAUSE (9) OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED MENTIONS THE PAYMENTS OF REMUNERATION TO THE FOLLOWING WORKING PARTNERS IN THE FIRM: %AGE OF TOTA L REMUNERATION 1. PATEL RATILAL PRABHUDAS :3 0 2. PATEL VISHNUBHAI KHODABHAI :20 3. PATEL BHAVINKUMAR RAMANLAL :10 4. CHAUDHARY SHARADKUMAR P. :25 ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 3 5. SAVLA ASHOKKUMAR R. :15 FIRST THREE INDIVIDUALS ARE DIRECTORS OF M/S DHART I BUILDCON PVT. LTD.AND THE REMAINING TWO ARE DIRECTORS OF M/S ANKIT INFRASTRUC TURE PVT. LTD..SINCE THE AFORESAID INDIVIDUALS DID NOT INTRODUCE ANY CAPITAL IN THE FI RM, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THESE PERSONS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS PARTNERS, ESPECIAL LY WHEN THE ENTIRE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED BY THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES. TO A QUE RY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAD PAID REMUNERATION TO THE AF ORESAID INDIVIDUALS , WHO ARE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES, WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESC RIBED U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE AFORESAI D TWO COMPANIES ALONE WERE PARTNERS WHILE REMUNERATION HAD BEEN PAID TO THE F IVE INDIVIDUALS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (9) OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, WHO ARE NOT PAR TNERS. SINCE JURIDICAL PERSONS COULD NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE AS WORKING PARTNER TO THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, THE AO DISALLOWED REMUNERATION OF RS.3,50,000/- IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 AND RS.2,50,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE FIRM CONSISTED OF TWO PARTNERS VIZ. M/S DHARTI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AND M/S ANKIT INFRAST RUCTURE PVT. LTD. AS PER THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP EXECUTED ON 1.4.2004 AND THREE DIRECTOR S OF THE DHARTI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AND TWO DIRECTORS OF M/S ANKIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HAVE JOINED IN THIS FIRM. IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THE AFORESAID INDIVIDUALS ARE WOR KING PARTNERS OF THE FIRM, THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THESE INDIVIDUALS IS ALLOWABL E U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS HAVE JOINED THE APPELLANT FIRM IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS DIRECTORS OF THE RESPECTIVE PRIVATE COMPANIES AND THAT NOW IT IS WELL SETTLED I N LAW THAT SO FAR AS PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE SAID DIRECTORS WHO ARE PART NERS BUT QUA THE CONCERNED COMPANY, EACH OF THEM IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SA ID COMPANY. WHILE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF RASIKALA & CO., 229 ITR 458(SC), M/S GANDHI BABULAL BHOGILAL VS. ITO, ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ITAN0.2380/A/1995,SMRUTI TRADING CO. VS ITO, 70 TTJ 114. (MUM) ,ITO VS. NATI ONAL AUTOMOBILES, 93 TTJ 641 ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 4 (JD.)AND BHARAT ENTERPRISES, 101 ITD 353 (PUNE.), I T WAS CONTENDED THAT THE REMUNERATION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT (A) CONCLUDED IN HIS ORDER FOR THE AY 2005-06 AS UNDER: 5. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY A ND I AM AFRAID I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT. ALL THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT PERTAIN TO THE SITUATION WHERE HUF WAS A PARTNER. THE LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED T HERE WAS THAT HUF BEING NOT A JURISTIC PERSON, KARTA BECAME THE PARTNER ON BEHALF OF THE HUF. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT, INCLUDING THAT OF M/S R ASIKLAL CO. (SUPRA) CLEARLY LAY DOWN THAT AS FAR AS THE PARTNERSHIP ACT IS CONCERNE D IT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE HUF. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNALS HAVE HE LD THAT SINCE KARTA IS IN THE PARTNERSHIP AS AN INDIVIDUAL (HIS BEING IN REPRESEN TATIVE CAPACITY IS A MATTER OF HUF), HE CAN BE TREATED TO BE A WORKING PARTNER AS PER EX PLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B). 5.1 HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMIT TED POSITION BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE TWO PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES ARE THE PARTNERS. COMPANY IS A DISTINCT JURISTIC PERSON UNLIKE AN HUF. BOTH THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 193 2 AS ALSO THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 DO NOT PROHIBIT COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE IN A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. SECTION 5 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PARTNER SHIP IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT AND NOT STATUS. THEREFORE, IF AN ENTITY IS IN A POSITION TO BECOME A PARTNER, IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE THE DIRECTORS CAN BE STATED TO BE PARTNERS IN THE R EPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY IN THE SAME FIRM. THE DUAL AND PARALLEL SET OF PARTNERS CREATED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WOULD PATENTLY GO AGAINST VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE PARTNERS HIP_ACT LIKE WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES CITED IN THE PARTNERSHIP ACT . 5.2 IT IS ALSO INTERESTING THAT .THE APPELLANT HA S MADE ALL THE DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY WHICH GOES AGAINST THE VERY CONCEPT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE WHI CH HAS TO BE SINGULAR.AS PER THE EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B), THE WORD USED THERE IS 'AN INDIVIDUAL'. THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY TRIED TO CREATE A FACADE OF REPRESENTAT IVE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DIVERT THE PROFITS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN TO THE INDIVID UAL HANDS TO AVOID DUE PAYMENT OF TAX. THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES ARE NEITHER PAR TNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY NOR IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY TO CLAIM TO BE FALLING WITHIN EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B). THEY MAY BE WORKING FOR RUNNING THE FIRM, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES BUT THE REMUNERATION FOR SUCH EFFORT DO NOT GET COV ERED U/S 40(B) AND ARE NOT CORRELATED TO THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. THAT WILL BE MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP TO BE DEALT SEPARATELY. 5.3 THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, I UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF, RS.3,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. 5. SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER FOR THE AY 2006-07. ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 5 6. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFOR ESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD..CIT(A). BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REMUNERATION TO THE AFORESAID PERSONS IS CLAIMED U/ S 37 OF THE ACT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE RATHER THAN REMUNERATION TO PARTNER U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS IN THE IM PUGNED ORDERS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE.UNDISPUTEDLY, M/S DHARTI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AN D ANKIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ARE THE TWO PARTNERS IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 01.4.2004 WHILE THE REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID TO FIVE INDIVIDUALS, WHO HAVE NEITHER CONTRIBUTED ANY CAPITAL NOR THEIR PROFIT S HARING RATIO IS EVIDENT FROM THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TWO COMPANIES CONSTITUTED A VALID PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT. IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, PARTNERSHIP IS A VOLUNTARY COLLABORATIVE AGREE MENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES IN WHICH ALL PARTICIPANTS AGREE TO WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE A COMMON PURPOSE OR UNDERTAKE A SPECIFIC TASK AND TO SHARE RISKS, RESPO NSIBILITIES, RESOURCES, COMPETENCIES AND BENEFITS. SYNERGY IS THE POWER BEH IND BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS. IN A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP, TWO PARTIES LEVERAGE THEIR AS SETS (RESOURCES, CAPABILITIES , EXPERTISE, CLIENT BASE ETC.) FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH. SINCE THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES ALONE HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED TO SHARE THE P ROFITS/LOSS OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THESE TWO ENTITIES , APPARENTLY, THE DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES CAN NOT IPSO FACTO BECOME PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. THERE I S NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE TWO COMPANIES. EV EN OTHERWISE , REMUNERATION IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 40(B) OF THE ACT IS ADMISSIBLE TO A WORKING PARTNER. THE DIRECTORS OF THE AFORESAID TWO COMPANIES ARE NOT EVEN PARTNERS MUCH LESS WORKING PARTNERS IN THE FIRM IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY SO AS TO FAL L WITHIN THE EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT THESE DIRECTORS HAD AGREED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM AND SHARE ITS PRO FITS AND LOSSES OR HAD BROUGHT IN CAPITAL. UNDISPUTEDLY, THESE DIRECTORS ARE NOT PAR TNERS IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID PARTNERSHIP DEED. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL CONTROVERTING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A) THAT THE DIRECTORS ARE NEITHER ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 6 PARTNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY NOR IN THE RE PRESENTATIVE CAPACITY SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE EXPLANATION 4 TO SEC. 40(B) OF THE ACT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 10.11.2008 CONCEDED THAT REMUNERA TION TO THE AFORESAID PERSONS IS CLAIMED U/S 37 OF THE ACT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E RATHER THAN REMUNERATION TO PARTNER U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, REMUNERATI ON PAID TO THE AFORESAID FIVE INDIVIDUALS, HAVING NOT BEEN PAID TO THE WORKING PA RTNERS OF THE FIRM, CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID GROUND NOS. 1.1,1.2 & 2.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE AY 2005-06 & GROUND NOS.1.1,2.1,2.2 & 3.1 IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2006-07 IN RELATION TO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT ,ARE DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE AY 2005- 06. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE LD. CIT(A ) CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE EXISTED A MASTER-SE RVANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AFORESAID FIVE INDIVIDUALS AND THE FIRM. THE LD. CI T(A) FURTHER HELD THAT NEITHER THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN PROVED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EITHER OF THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS CONCERNED NOR BE FORE HIM IN EITHER OF THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADMITTI NG, ENTERTAINING AND ADJUDICATING ON THE ISSUE OF MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL CONTROVERTING T HESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) NOR THERE IS ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE FIRM EMPLOYED THE AFORESAID PERSONS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OR THE MASTER-SERV ANT RELATIONSHIP EXISTED. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT EXPENDITURE ON REMUNERATION TO THE AFORESAID FIVE INDIVIDUALS HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLU SIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE FIRM SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT, DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED EITHER BY THE AO OR THE LD. C IT(A) NOR THE RELEVANT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE I MPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR AD JUDICATING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPENDITURE ON REMUNERATION PAID TO AFORESAID FIVE PERSONS FALLS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND OF COURSE AFTER ITA NO.2644&3600/ AHD/2008 7 ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES . WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUNDS RELATING TO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE A CT ARE DISPOSED OF. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE PARTLY AL LOWED, BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.7. 2009. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED:24.7.2009 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MEHSANA WARD-2,MEHSANA AND ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE. (3) THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR (4) THE CIT, CONCERNED, (5) THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD, (6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR / D EPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD.