Jupiter Engineering Co., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 2719/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 271920514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. L. GEHL OT, AM) ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2005-06 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO., PLOT NO.510, PHASE- IV, GIDC ESTATE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD 382 445 VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD PA NO AABFJ 6572 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. K. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14-10-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XV I, AHMEDABAD DATED 23-06-2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CONFI RMING REJECTION OF REJECTION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 31-10-20 05 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.50,80,076/- ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNT S AND AUDIT REPORT. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143( 1) OF THE IT ACT ON 22-07-2006. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND AFTER STATUTORY NOTICES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE REGULAR ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 17-12-2007 DE TERMINING TOTAL ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 2 INCOME AT RS.53,84,554/- WHEREIN SOME ROUTINE ADDIT IONS OF EXPENSES WERE MADE. AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON 29-01-2008. SUBSEQUENT LY, THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE NET PROFIT WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AT RS.27,66,815/- INSTEAD OF RS.6,42, 396/- AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, A RECTIFICATION APPLIC ATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO REQUESTING HIM TO ADOPT THE NET PROFI T FIGURE AT RS.6,42,396/- AS AGAINST RS.27,66,815/-. THE SAID A PPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT WAS REJECTED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DAT ED 27-07-2009. THE AO IN THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT NOTED THA T SUCH RECTIFICATION CANNOT BE DONE U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFO RE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 (1A) OF THE IT ACT, THE A O IS PRECLUDED FROM PASSING ORDER U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. THE APPLICATIO N WAS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) THAT MISTAKE WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY AFT ER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND APPEAL WAS ALSO FILED AGAINST THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. SAME CONTENTIONS WERE REITERATED WHICH WERE MADE BE FORE THE AO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE MISTAKE WAS NOTIC ED AFTER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED; THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FI LE REVISED RETURN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN R EJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 5 AND 6 ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IF THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 3 ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RECTIFYIN G THE SAME U/S. 154 OF THE I T ACT. IF THERE WAS SOME MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IN FILING HIS RETURN O F INCOME, THEN IT WAS HIS DUTY TO RECTIFY THE SAME BY FILING A REVISED RETURN U/S. 139(5) OF THE ACT. FOR THE MISTAKE OF T HE ASSESSEE, IF ANY, THE AO CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT PASSING ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE I T ACT. FURTHER THE AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO FIG URES OF PROFIT ONE AS PER HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND ANOTHER AFTER SOME ADJUSTMENT MADE IN THE AUDITORS REPORT. IN MY VIEW IT IS NOT AN APPARENT MISTAKE FROM THE RECORDS . FURTHER, IF THERE WAS ANY OMISSION ON THE PART OF T HE APPELLANT, THEN THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN AS HELD BY THE S C IN THE CASE OF GO ETZ INDIA LIMITED 284 ITR 323 (SC). I THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE AO THAT THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE AP PELLANT FILED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 6. APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT COMPARATIVE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PER RETURNED I NCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME WAS FILED COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 2 OF THE APPLICATION TO SHOW THAT BY MISTAKE THE NET PROFIT OF RS.6,42,396/- WAS MENTIONED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT RS.27,66, 815/-. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A MISTAKE ON RECORD WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LE ARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMIT TED THAT WHATEVER INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCE PTED BY THE AO IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AFTER SCRUTINY ASSESSM ENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE AO. I F IT WAS A MISTAKE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 4 TO FILE REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE IT ACT WHI CH COURSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADOPTED. THEREFORE, ON DEBATABLE P OINT THE APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT WAS RIGHTLY REJEC TED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE 154. [(1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY REFERRED T O IN SECTION 116 MAY, ( A ) AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ; [( B ) AMEND ANY INTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143 .]] [(1A) WHERE ANY MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN ANY PROCEEDING BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REVIS ION RELATING TO AN ORDER REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) , THE AUTHORITY PASSING SUCH ORDER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, AMEND THE ORDER UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY MATTER OTHER THAN THE MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN SO CONSIDERED AND DECIDED.] (2) SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION , THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED ( A ) MAY MAKE AN AMENDMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF ITS OWN MOTION, AND ( B ) SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT FOR RECTIFYING ANY SUCH MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WHERE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS THE [***] ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 5 [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICE R ALSO. [* * *] (3) AN AMENDMENT, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING AN ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OTHERWISE INCREA SING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE MADE UN DER THIS SECTION UNLESS THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED HAS GIVEN NO TICE TO THE ASSESSEE OF ITS INTENTION SO TO DO AND HAS ALLO WED THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. (4) WHERE AN AMENDMENT IS MADE UNDER THIS SECTION, AN ORDER SHALL BE PASSED IN WRITING BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY CONCERNED. (5) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 241 , WHERE ANY SUCH AMENDMENT HAS THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE ASSESSMENT, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER SHALL MAKE ANY REFUND WHICH MAY BE DUE TO SUCH ASSESSEE. (6) WHERE ANY SUCH AMENDMENT HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND ALREA DY MADE, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER SHALL SERVE ON THE AS SESSEE A NOTICE OF DEMAND IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM SPECIFYIN G THE SUM PAYABLE, AND SUCH NOTICE OF DEMAND SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. (7) SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 155 OR SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 186 NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY FOUR YEARS [ FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED.] [(8) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TION (7), WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTI ON IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUN E, ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 6 2001 TO AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1), THE AUTHORITY SHALL PASS AN ORDER, WITHIN A PE RIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLI CATION IS RECEIVED BY IT, ( A ) MAKING THE AMENDMENT; OR ( B ) REFUSING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM.] 4.1 SECTION 139 (5) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : RETURN OF INCOME (5) IF ANY PERSON, HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB- SECTION (1), OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UND ER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 , DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED R ETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE YEAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.] 4.2 IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RET URN OF INCOME AT RS.50,80,076/-. THE COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME I S ALSO FILED ON RECORD IN WHICH ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GRO SS TOTAL INCOME AT RS.50,83,077/-. AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT THE TOTA L NET INCOME IS SHOWN AT RS.50,80,076/-. ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THERE ARE TWO FIGURES OF PROFIT ONE AS PER P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER AFTER SOME ADJUSTMENT M ADE IN THE AUDITORS REPORT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 7 CIT(A) WHEN TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIBLE FROM THE ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER BECAME DEBATABLE OR SUBJECTED TO FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION. THIS POINT IS NOT CLA RIFIED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUM ENT. THUS, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD BE RELEVANT AG AINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WHATEVER INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT RS.50,80,076/-, THE AO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ACCEPTED THE SAME. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECOURSE TO FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN AS PER SECTION 139(5) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF TH E APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT FILED COMPARATI VE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PER RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME A ND TRIED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE AO IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEED INGS THAT NET PROFIT IS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.6,42,396/- AS AGAINST RS.27,66,81 5/-. SUCH A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS NOT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS RECORD OF THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) THE MISTAKE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS NOTICE D AFTER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. WHAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DONE ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(5) OF THE IT ACT FOR FILIN G REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. WHEN SPECIFIC PROVISION IS PROVI DED UNDER THE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF SUCH TYPE OF MISTAKE COMMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS, SUCH OMISSION OR MISTAKE OR WRONG S TATEMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME COULD BE CORRECTED ON FILING THE R EVISED RETURN WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO S O. THE HONBLE ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 8 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS VOLKART BROTHER S AND OTHERS, 82 ITR 50 HELD AS UNDER: A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4.3 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D.S. SRINIVAS VS ITO AND ANOTHER, 262 ITR 209 HELD AS UNDER: A MISTAKE FOUND ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR VEHICLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61. IT WAS ACCEPTED. EVEN IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AFT ER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, STATEMENTS AN D OTHER PARTICULARS FILED BY THE PETITIONER, THE CLAI M WAS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 17, 1995. THEREAFTER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 WAS ISSUED TO WITHDRAW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING HIRER WAS NOT LIABLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. ON A WRIT PETITION TO QUASH THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION: HELD, THAT IN THE GUISE OF A MISTAKE THE RESPONDENT S WERE TRYING TO SET ASIDE ONE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. SECTION 154 WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ORDE R OF RECTIFICATION WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 9 4.4 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE INCOME WAS ASSE SSED BY THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.5 0,80,076/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT A FTER VERIFYING THE RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED T O GET THE ASSESSED INCOME REVISED OR LOWER DOWN IN THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT BY MENTIONING THAT THE COMPARATIVE COMPU TATION OF INCOME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED FOR REDUCING THE RETURNED INCOME . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSE SSMENT OF INCOME BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, SECTIO N 154 (1A) OF THE IT ACT WOULD APPLY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS SUC H THE SAME MATTER CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO RECTIFICATION. CONSID ERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE AO. IF ANY OMISSION OR MISTAKE IS COM MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNT OR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY FILING WRONG STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FILED REVISED RE TURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHE VER IS EARLIER AS PER SECTION 139 (5) OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE ASSESS EE DID NOT TAKE RECOURSE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW, THEREFOR E, SUCH SIMILAR RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.2719/AHD/2010 M/S. JUPITER ENGINEERING CO. VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, AHMEDABAD 10 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 14/10/2011 SD/- SD/- (A. L. GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER 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