Babubhai H.parikh,HUF, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 280/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6348 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Document seized; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2001-02 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH, 3, KALYAN NAGAR, KARELIBAUG, BARODA VS THE A. C. I. T., CENTRAL. CIR-1, BARODA PA NO. ACAPP 9279 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI J. P. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. K. LAL, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, AH MEDABAD DATED 29-08-2007, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 04-03-2005 COVERING T HE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF KABHAI CHAUHAN GROUP OF CASES. FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION CERTAIN DOCU MENTS (ANNEXURE A-4 PAGE 369 -379, 339 347) WERE SEIZED WHICH PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER RECORDING THE SATI SFACTION NOTE, NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED ON 08-11-2 005. NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE. SHOW CAUSE N OTICE WAS ISSUED, IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T ORIGINAL RETURN FILED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 31-07- 2001 AT AN INCOME ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 2 OF RS.1,51,615/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FILED RETURN ON 06-01-2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.78,70,700/- IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C O F THE IT ACT. THE AO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF C HEQUES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE CONFIRMING P ARTIES FOR SALE OF LAND TO M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION. FOR RELINQUISHI NG HIS RIGHTS ON THE SAID EARTH LAND, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,17,30,000/- AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 29-06 - 2000 (ANNEXURE-A - 4, PAGE 369 379 SEIZED FROM M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATI ON). AS PER THIS AGREEMENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.73,80,000/- AND FURT HER AMOUNT OF RS.43,50,000/- WAS PAID TO HIM FOR ROAD/PATHWAY THR OUGH POST-DATED CHEQUES. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO RECEIPT OF RS.86,37,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THIS LAND WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT FOR TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR BALANCE RS.29,00,000/-, THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT SAME IS STILL RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. OM SHIVAM C ORPORATION AS THE SAME HAS NOT YET BEEN RECEIVED FROM BARODA MUNICIPA L CORPORATION BY THE FIRM. THE AO HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EV IDENCE FOR THE SAME. FURTHER, IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TWO CHEQUES WORTH RS.16,43,000/- AND RS.14,50,000/- WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION WHICH WERE IN THE NAME O F THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN REGARDING THESE CHEQUES, THE AO NOTED THAT THE SAME PROVES TH AT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SETTLED IN CASH BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASER AND THE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN RETURNED. THE AO NOTED TH AT THE AMOUNT OF THESE TWO POST-DATED CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS.30, 93,000/- AND IF ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 3 THE SAME IS ADDED TO RS.86,37,000/- ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL WOULD BE EXACTLY RS.1,17,30,000/- WHICH IS ME NTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE AO, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED CASH IN LIEU OF RETURN OF THE CHEQUES. ADDITION OF RS.30,93,000/- WAS MADE. 2.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT NO SEARCH/SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE AND NO DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO TO SHOW THAT ANY CASH HAD CHANGED HANDS IN THE MATTER. ONLY CHEQUES WERE FOUN D IN THE SEARCH BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THA T M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION HAD PAID ANY AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR RETURN OF THE POST-DATED CHEQUES. IT WAS MERELY PRESUMPTIO N THAT CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK ON RETURN OF THE CHEQUES. IT WAS , THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION OF RS.30,93,000/- IS CLEARL Y UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 AND 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS O F LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS . SINCE TWO POST DATED CHEQUES WHICH WERE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT, WORTH RS.16,43,000/- AND RS.14,50,00 0/- WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED, THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THIS SECTIO N GIVES THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERS ONS WHOSE PREMISES WERE NOT SEARCHED BUT SOME EVIDENCE IS FOUND PERTAINING TO HIM. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE I S NO ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 4 INFIRMITY IN MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C I N SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. 2.2 ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE CONFIRMIN G PARTIES FOR SALE OF LAND TO M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORAT ION. FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF HIS RIGHT ON THE SAID EARTH L AND, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,17,30,000/- A S PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.06.2000 (ANNEXURE A-4 PAGES 369-379 SEIZED FROM PREMISES OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION). AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.73.8 LACS WAS PAID TO THE APPELLANT SHRI BABULAL H. PARIKH ON ACCOUNT OF RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF LAN D AND A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.43.5 LACS WAS PAID TO HIM FOR ROAD/PATHWAY THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. 2.3 THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATIO N REGARDING CHEQUES EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT STAGE OR DURING PRESENT APPELLATE STAGE. THEREFORE, IT CAN B E SAFELY INFERRED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO CHEQUES IN CASH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ONLY CHEQUES WERE RETURNED BACK. IT IS FURTHER SUBSTANTI ATED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN TOTAL AMOUNT OF TWO CHEQUES IS A DDED TO THE DISCLOSED INCOME BY THE APPELLANT I.E. RS.30 .93 (RS.26.43 + 14.5 LACS) IS ADDED TO RS.86.37 LACS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT, THE GRANT TOTAL COMES T O RS.1,17,30,000/- WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT W AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT OF ANNEXURE A-4 PAGES 369 379. HENCE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD ACCEPTED CASH IN LIEU OF CHEQUES EARLIER ISSUED TO HIM BY THE FIRM M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ADDITION OF RS.30,93 LACS IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. HENC E, ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 5 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.30,93 ,000/- ON GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS MERELY MADE ON PRESUMPTION WHICH CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT/AGREE MENT DATED 29-06-2000 COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN 4 PARTIES SHOWING THE ASSESSEE AS PARTY NO.3 AND M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATI ON AS PARTY NO.4. HE HAS SUBMITTED THE FIRST AND SECOND PARTIES WERE THE LAND OWNERS/POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WHO HAS EXECUTED DE VELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT LATER ON IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE LAND WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPO RATION (FOURTH PARTY), THEREFORE, THE AGREEMENT DATED 29-06-2000 W AS EXECUTED. AS PER THE AGREEMENT RS.73,80,000/- WAS PAID TO THE AS SESSEE AS SECURITY AND FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.43,50,000/- WAS T O BE PAID. THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR RELINQUISHING THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY AND FURTHER THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID SUBJ ECT TO REALIZATION OF COMPENSATION FROM BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE POST-DATED CHEQUES WERE NEVER EN CASHED AND THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE GIVEN IN THE AGREEMENT IN Q UESTION. THE POST- DATED CHEQUE OF RS.16,43,000/- PERTAINED TO DATED 3 1-12-2000 AND ANOTHER POST-DATED CHEQUE OF RS.14,50,000/- PERTAIN ED TO DATED 31-12-2001. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CHEQUES WERE NOT FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALIDITY P ERIOD OF THE CHEQUES HAVE EXPIRED, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 6 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNE D DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE NO EXPLANATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE RECOVERY OF THE CHEQUES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AU THORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION WHICH WAS SEIZED FROM M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE SAID AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOME DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE LAND OWNERS AND SUCH DEVE LOPMENT RIGHTS WERE ULTIMATELY PURCHASED BY M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORA TION SUBJECT TO PAYMENT. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUG H THIS AGREEMENT AND SHOWN IN THE REVISED RETURN IS NOT IN DISPUTE SURRENDERING HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE DISPUTE IS LEFT WITH THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,93,000/- WHICH RELATES TO THE RECOV ERY OF TWO POST- DATED CHEQUES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WER E IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED FROM THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION THAT BOTH THE TWO PO ST-DATED CHEQUES REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINED TO DA TED 31-12-2000 AND 31-12-2001. THE SAME WERE FOUND IN THE POSSESSI ON OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CARRIED OU T ON 04-03-2005. THUS, TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH BOTH THE POST-DATED C HEQUES WERE NOT ENCASHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY TO LAW DEALIN G WITH NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, THE VALIDITY OF BOTH THE CH EQUES WOULD HAVE EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 7 BEEN ENCASHED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN FUTURE. SINCE THE DATES OF THE CHEQUES SHOWS THESE WERE NOT VALID ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH IN 2005, THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CHEQ UES UNDER THE LAW WHICH COULD BE ENFORCED FOR PAYMENTS. THE AO MERELY PRESUMED ON THE BASIS OF RECOVERY OF THESE POST-DATED CHEQUES T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH IN LIEU OF RETURN OF THESE POST-DATED CHEQUES TO M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT BROU GHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS PRESUMPTION. PRES UMPTION CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF LEGAL PROOF. FURTHER THE BALANCE AMOU NT WAS TO BE PAID SUBJECT TO REALIZATION OF COMPENSATION FROM MUNICIP AL CORPORATION. THE AGREEMENT ALSO STATES THAT CHEQUES IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT. UNLESS THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES, THE SA ME CHEQUES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENCASHED. NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD IF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLIED W ITH OR ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVI DENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH FOR RETURN OF THE C HEQUES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED ANY STATEMENT OF CONCERNED PE RSON OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION THAT THE SAID FIRM HAS PAID THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO THE ASSESSEE. NO STATEMENT EITHER OF TH E ASSESSEE OR OF M/S. OM SHIVAM CORPORATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION IS MADE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION OR SUSPICION EXPRESSED BY THE AO REGARDING SOME FACTS WHICH ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE. THE LAW IS S ETTLED THAT SUSPICION HOWSOEVER MAY BE GRAVE BUT IT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF LEGAL PROOF. FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, THE AO SHALL ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 8 HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OR THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGE NT OR RELIABLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD REGARDING ALLEGED RECE IPT OF CASH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT JUSTIFY T HE ADDITION. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,93,000/-. IN THE RESULT, GROU NDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED GROUND NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THE C. I. T. (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T SEC. 153C ORDER ON THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW AS ALSO O N FACTS BECAUSE THE SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS SEARCHED AND THAT THE SATISFACTION IF RECORDED WAS NOT VALID TO TAKE 153C PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBM ITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THIS GROUND IS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN NATURE. THE LEARNED DR PRODUCED THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 08-11-2005 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CORRECTLY PROCEEDED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON RECOVERY OF THE INCRIMINATI NG DOCUMENTS WHICH PROVE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ABOVE ITA NO.280/AHD/2008 SHRI BABUBHAI H. PARIKH VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, BARODA 9 GROUND. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL WAS NOT RAISED BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN O N THE SAME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT IT I S AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN NATURE FOR WHICH NO PROPER REQUEST IS MAD E FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT ONLY ADDITION IS MADE BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.30,93 ,000/- WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED ON GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF TH E APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND HAS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATUR E. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-07-2011 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 01-07-2011 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 DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD