The ITO, Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. B.R. Joshi Roadlines, Ahmedabad

ITA 2856/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6222 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S SOURYAWANSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Period of limitation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 40A(3); 133(6); 68; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : AHMEDABAD ( BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.N.PAHUJA, A.M.) I.T.A.NO. 2856/AHD./2007 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 I.T.O., WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD VS- M/ S.B.R.JOSHI ROADLINES, AHMEDABAD (PAN : AACFB 1054D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S.SOURYAWANSHI, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR O R D E R PER SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.04.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE A SSESSEE TOOK LOAN OF RS.45,000/- FROM SMT. LATABEN R. JOSHI. THIS LOAN AMOUNT WAS RE CEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR IN WRITING HAVING GIVE N THE SAID LOAN WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT S MT. LATABEN R. JOSHI IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND SAID CASH OF RS.45,000/- WAS DE POSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 04.11.2003 AND ON THE SAME DAY SHE HAS TRANSFERRED THE SAID SUM TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABL ISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.45,000/-. 3. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITION FOR THE DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN PARA 1.3, WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER: 13. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THIS REGARD, THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 45,000/- CANNOT BE HELD TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT 2 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 IS CONCERNED, THE LOAN HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND THE CREDITOR HAS CONFIRMED IT IN WRITING HAVING GIVEN T HE SAID LOAN. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF LOAN MONEY. KEEPING INTO VIEW THE SMALLNE SS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED AS ANYBODY FOR THAT MATTER CAN SPARE THIS MUCH OF M ONEY OUT OF HER OR HIS PAST SAVINGS, THE LOAN AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION CAN RE ASONABLY BE ACCEPTED TO BE A PART OF THE STRIDHAN OF SMT. LATABEN R. JOSHI. IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY THAT THE CREDITOR SHOULD BE ASSESSED TO TAX BEFORE GIVIN G ANY SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE IN SMALL AMOUNT AND IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO TREAT THE SAME AMOUNT TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,000/- IS DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, SHRI G.S.SOURY AWANSHI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND POINTED OUT THAT JUST IMMEDIATELY B EFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE OF RS.45,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE CREDITOR, NAM ELY, SMT. LATABEN JOSHI DEPOSITED A CASH OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF RS.45,000/- ON THE SAM E DAY. THEREFORE, HER CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED AND AO RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). T HE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SMT. LATABEN R. JOSHI IS WIFE OF A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. SHE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT SAVINGS AND STRIDHAN TO ADVANCE L OAN OF RS.45,000/- WHICH SHE WAS KEEPING IN CASH. HE ACCORDINGLY POINTED OUT THAT LO OKING TO THE SMALL AMOUNT, LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.45,000/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUT HORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS PROVED. LOOKING TO THE SMALL AMOUNT AND ITS DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR, NAMELY, SMT. LATA BEN R. JOSHI, BEFORE ISSUING A CHEQUE OF RS.45,000/- THOUGH RAISED DOUBTS, BUT LOO KING TO THE STATUS AND SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT, IN OUR OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE L D. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 3 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 8. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST DELETING ADDITION OF RS.2 1,18,174/- ON ACCOUNT OF CESSION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. THE FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES HAS SHOWN RS.84,46,107/- , OUT OF WHICH THE LIABILITIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.21,18,174/- WERE FOUND TO BE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THIS LIABILITY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATORY LETTER WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF TR ANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THIS LIABILITY HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE. THE AO ALSO ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS LIABILITY MAY NOT BE TREATED TO HAVE CEASED UN DER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT BECAUSE LETTER ADDRESSED TO ALL THESE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK ADDRESSES NOT FOUN D. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY. AFTER CONS IDERING THE SAID REPLY, THE AO PROCEEDED TO HOLD THE CESSATION OF LIABILITIES OF R S.21,18,174/- IN TERMS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED THE PA NUMBERS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THA T ALL THESE LIABILITIES BEING MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD, HAVE BECOME BARRED BY LIMITAT ION AS PER THE LIMITATION ACT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT MAKE PAYMENT OF THESE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS, THAT MEANS T HESE OUTSTANDING DUES ARE TREATED TO BE NO MORE PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,18,174/- CAN BE TREATED TO BE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF T.V.SUNDERAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. REPORTED IN 222 ITR 344 WAS CITED SO AS TO ARGUE THAT IF DUE TO INFLUX OF TIME THE LIABILITY CEASES TO BE OPERATIVE, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. 9. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 2.3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: AFTER HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ARGU MENTS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT APPLICATION OF SECTION 41(1) IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CONNECTED TO THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED HIMSELF TO HE CARRIED AWAY BY THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITIES UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BECOM E BARRED BY LIMITATION BEING MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD. NO SUCH STIPULATION HOWEVER, IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 41(1) WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NEITHER ANY CESSATION NOR ANY REMISSION OF THESE LIABILITIES WHICH MAY INVITE THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 41(1). THERE IS NO UNILA TERAL WRITTEN OFF OF THE SAID LIABILITIES BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T ALSO. THE APPELLANT IS RATHER ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF THESE LIABILITIES BY MAKING PAYMENTS TO ITS CREDITORS FROM TIME TO LIME AND THE FACT THAT CONSI DERABLE AMOUNT OUT OF THESE LIABILITIES ALREADY STOOD DISCHARGED AS ON 31 /3/20 06, HAS COMPLETELY BEEN IGNORED BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A FACT THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THESE LIABILITIES AS ON 31/3/2006 REMAINED AT RS. 7 .51,841 /- ONLY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT TH E TIME OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AT A MUCH LATER DATE I.E. ON 18/12/2006. IN ORDER TO APPLY SECTION 41(1), IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO BRING RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LIABILITIE S UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. SINCE NO SUCH MATERIAL OR FINDINGS ARE RECORDED IN THIS RESPECT, THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 41(1) IS DEVOID OF ANY M ERIT. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE THAT THE LIABILITIES PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02 COULD NOT BE EXAMINED AFRESH BY THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO COR RECT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 WAS ALSO CO MPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY IN WHICH THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT AD VERSELY REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN THE LOANS/ADVANCES. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS EXTENDED ALL POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO PROVE THE EXISTENC E OF THESE LIABILITIES. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'C' BENCH IN TH E CASE OF NEW COMMERCIAL MILLS CO. LTD. VS. DC1T - ( 73 TTJ (AHD) 893) (SUPRA) AS IS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS SQUARE LY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CITED CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN REFUSED TO GIVE THE POSTAL ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITO RS AND THE LIABILITIES WERE AS OLD AS 10 TO 15 YEARS. STILL, THE HON'BLE MEMBERS O F THE ITAT BY HOLDING THAT SECTION 41(1) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN SUCH CIRCUM STANCES, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: ' .... IN SHORT THE CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT APPE AL IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED POSTAL ADDRESSES OF ALL SUNDRY CRE DITORS SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THESE WERE OLD' LIABILITIES AND SAME WIL L NOT BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ON FAILURE TO GIVE POSTAL ADDRESSES, ASSE SSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE EXISTENCE OF THESE LIA BILITIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 41( 1) OF I.T. ACT. TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE FOR CONSIDERATION, FIRS TLY WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TREATING CESSAT ION OF LIABILITIES IS CORRECT AND SECONDLY WHETHER THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IS CORRECT YEAR OF CESSATION OF LIABILITIES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS ADMITTED THE FACT (HAT THESE LIABILITIES WERE CARRIED FORWARD FR OM LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS, THEN WHY THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CHOS EN TO LAX THESE LIABILITIES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY COGENT REASON AND M ATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THAT THESE LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN CEASED IN THE YEAR UNDER 5 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 CONSIDERATION IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES. WITH THIS FACT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO AGREE WITH THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES TO TAX SUCH LIABILITIES UNDER SECTION 41(1) IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION.' IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED BY THE ID. AS SESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE LIABILITIES HAVING BECOME BARRED BY L IMITATION BEING THREE YEARS OLD, THE DECISION OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF 1TO VS. R,B. SETH MOOLCHAND NEMICHAND PVT. LTD. (1986) 24 TAXMAN 26 ( JP) (MAG.) WILL BE VERY, RELEVANT. IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE MEMBERS H AVE HELD THAT JUST BECAUSE A LIABILITY HAS BECOME TIME BARRED, IT CANNOT AUTOMA TICALLY BE TREATED AS INCOME U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE F ACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION CITED (SUPRA), THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO ADD THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES OF RS. 21,18,174/- BY INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,18,174/- IS DELETED. 10. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R., RELYING ON THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IN PARA 4.2, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATORY LETTER ALONG WITH PAN, AS CALLED VIDE THIS OFFICE L ETTER DATED 13.11.2006, TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT LIABILITY EXISTED IN THE ACCOUNT YEAR UN DER REVIEW. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- T. V.SUNDERAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. REPORTED IN 222 ITR 344 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED TO BE OPERATIVE DUE TO INFLUX OF TIME AND THE SAME IS REQ UIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO ABOVE CRED ITORS FROM TIME TO TIME AND AS ON 31.03.2006, THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE WAS ONLY RS .7,51,841/-. THIS FACTUALLY PROVES THAT PROCESS OF PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS CONT INUED AND LIABILITY WAS RECOGNISED WHEN THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. THE COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES AS ON 31.03.2006 W ERE DISCHARGED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, A CHART WAS ALSO FILED EXPLAINI NG THE YEAR-WISE POSITION IN DISCHARGING THE SAME. ON THE BASIS OF THIS CHART, C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS ONLY RS.80/-. COUNSEL 6 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CONTRO VERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE ITAT, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH KUMUNDLAL SHAH VS- ITO IN ITA NO.424/AHD/2006. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGH TLY MADE. 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH MUKUNDLAL SHAH ( SUPRA ), RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E TRIBUNAL, IN THIS DECISION, HELD AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. THE PROVISIONS OF S EC. 41(1)(A) STIPULATE THAT WHERE AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IN TH E ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILIT Y INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINS WHETHER IN CASH OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, ANY AMOUNT IN RESPE CT OF SUCH LOSS OR EXPENDITURE OR SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRAD ING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF, THE AMOUNT OBTAINED OR THE VALUE OF BENEFIT ACCRUING TO HIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFITS AND G AINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND ACCORDINGLY CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, WHETHER THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IS IN EXISTENC E IN THAT YEAR OR NOT. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT EVEN ADVERTING TO THE DECISIONS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY BENE FIT NOR THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THUS, TH E AMOUNT DID NOT BECOME THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS CO NCLUDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BHARAT IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES(SUPRA), THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41(1)(A) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 9.1 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SILVER COTTON MILLS CO. LTD., 254 ITR 728(GUJ) HELD THAT SIMPLY B ECAUSE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAD COME TO AN END FOR THE PURPOSE OF FI LING A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE SAID AMOUNT OR FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE L IABILITY STILL REMAINS, THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE AT LAW ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRO VISIONS OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION. RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P.) LTD. [1999] 236 ITR 518 .SC), HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FURTHER HEL D THAT UNLESS THERE IS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY OR TH ERE IS A REMISSION OF LIABILITY BY THE CREDITOR, THE LIABILITY SUBSISTS AND, THEREFORE , EVEN IF THE ENTRIES ARE MADE TO WRITE BACK THE EXPENDITURE, THE AMOUNT SO WRITTEN B ACK CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 41(1) OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 9.2 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ANOTHER CASE OF CI T VS. CHASE BRIGHT STEEL LTD.,177 ITR 128(BOMBAY) WHILE RELYING UPON THEIR J UDGMENT IN J. K. CHEMICALS LTD. VS. CIT, [1966] 62 ITR 34 HELD THAT T HE LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT CEASE MERELY BECAUSE THE LIABILITY HAS BEC OME BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LIABILITY CEASES WHEN IT HAS BECOME BARRED BY L IMITATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPRESSED ITS INTENTION NOT TO HO NOUR THE LIABILITY EVEN WHEN DEMANDED. 9.3 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY DY EING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. STATE OF BOMBAY, AIR 1958 SC 328, IN PA RA 23 OF THEIR DECISION OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : ' 23. IT HAS BEEN ALREADY MENTIONED THAT WHEN A DEB T BECOMES TIME BARRED, IT DOES NOT BECOME EXTINGUISHED BUT ONLY UN ENFORCEABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. ' 9.4 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUGA ULI SUGAR WORKS (P.) LTD. [1999] 236 ITR 518 HELD THAT UNLESS THERE IS A CESS ATION OF LIABILITY, INCOME CANNOT BE ADDED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41 (1) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C HETAN CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 267 ITR 770 (GUJ) HELD THAT: ON A READING OF THE PROVISIONS, IT IS APPARENT THA T BEFORE THE SECTION CAN BE INVOKED, IT IS NECESSARY THAT AN ALL OWANCE OR A DEDUCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FO R ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING WHICH IS IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSES SEE OBTAINS, WHETHER IN CASH OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER, ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION OF SUCH LIABILITY. IN THAT CASE, EITHER THE AMOUNT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE OR THE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT OCCURRING TO THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DEEMED TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH AMOUNT OR BENEFIT IS OB TAINED. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE ASPE CT AS TO WHETHER THE LIABILITY TO REPAY THE LOANS WOULD BE A TRADING LIA BILITY OR NOT, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION IN ANY OF THE PRECEDING YEARS AND, HENCE, THERE IS NO QUES TION OF APPLYING THE PROVISION AS SUCH. SECTION 28 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND CLAUSE (IV) THEREOF SAYS THAT THE VA LUE OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE, WHETHER CONVERTIBLE INTO MONEY OR NOT, ARISING FROM BUSINESS OR THE EXERCISE OF A PROFESSION SHALL BE CHARGEABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY WAS CARRYING 8 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 ON BUSINESS OF OBTAINING LOANS AND THAT THE REMISSI ON OF SUCH LOANS BY THE CREDITORS OF THE COMPANY WAS A BENEFIT ARISING FROM SUCH BUSINESS. 9.5 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, IT IS APPARE NT THAT UNLESS THERE IS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY OR THERE IS A REMISSION OF L IABILITY BY THE CREDITOR, THE LIABILITY SUBSISTS AND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE ENTR IES ARE MADE TO WRITE BACK THE EXPENDITURE, THE AMOUNT SO WRITTEN BACK CANNOT BE A DDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS O BTAINED ANY BENEFIT EITHER BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION OF ANY LIABILITY WHIL E THE AFORESAID LIABILITIES ARE CONTINUALLY ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BALAN CE SHEET . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED WHILE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISS ED. 13.1 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AS PER YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE OUTSTANDING CREDITORS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NONE OF THE CREDITORS IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2008 IS NIL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, D BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH MUKUNDLAL SHAH ( SUPRA ), WE INCLINE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,18,174/-. RESULTANTL Y, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 14. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,84,855/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CON TROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND IS THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT MAJOR PART OF THE EXP ENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAB LE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE MUKADAMS THROUGH WHOM SUCH PAY MENTS ARE BEING MADE TO THE LABOURERS. HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.2,84,855/- B EING 20% OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.14,24,277/-. 15. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,84,855/- MADE BY THE AO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PA RA 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4.3 AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, I TEND TO AGREE WITH HI M THAT ADHOC DISALLOWANCE 9 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 OF RS. 2.84,855/- BEING 20% OF LOADING AND UNLOADIN G CHARGES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT IS ADMITTEDLY DOING TRANSP ORT BUSINESS WHERE LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES ARE BOUND TO BE PAID. IT IS A LSO AN ACCEPTED FACT THAT THE LABOURERS DOING LOADING/ UNLOADING ARE GENERALLY PO OR AND ILLITERATE PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUN TS ETC. SINCE THE LABOURERS ARE HIRED IN A GROUP AND ARE KEPT UNDER THE CONTROL OF A MUKADAM, THE APPELLANT LIAS NO OTHER ALTERNATE EXCEPT TO MAKE TH E CASH PAYMENTS TO THESE LABOURERS THROUGH THEIR GROUP LEADER. THIS PRACTICE OF MAKING THE PAYMENT TO THE MUKADAM IS BEING FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBJECTED. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY VIO LATION OF SECTION 40A(3) ALSO IN SO FAR AS THESE CASH PAYMENTS ARE CONCERNED . IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,84,855 /- CANNOT BE UPHELD AND IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 16. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE LD. D.R. CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,855/- MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE R ESTORED. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT AS THE ASSES SEE FIRM IS WORKING IN THE REMOTE TRIBAL AREAS AND ALL THE LABOURERS ARE HIRED UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE MUKADAMS, IT IS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSE TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISE THE LABOURERS ENGAGED AT VARIOUS SITE. THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO MUKADAMS ONLY WHO, IN TURN, MAKES THE LABOUR PAYMENT AND PREPARES THE LABOUR PAYMENT REGISTERS, VOUCHERS, ETC. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO STATED THAT MAJORITY OF THE TRIBAL LABOURERS B EING ILLITERATE, PUT THEIR THUMB IMPRESSIONS ON THE VOUCHERS AND SUCH A PRACTICE IS BEING FOLLOWED RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. MOREOVER, ALL THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN SMALL AMOUNTS AND NONE OF THE PAYMENTS ATTRACT ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3 ). HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH MUKADAM, WHO ACTUALLY CONTROLS THE ILLITERA TE LABOURERS HIRED IN A GROUP, ARE OF SMALL AMOUNTS AND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED REGARD ING ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION 10 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 40A(3) SO FAR AS THESE CASH PAYMENTS ARE CONCERNED. MOREOVER, THE LABOURERS, BEING POOR AND ILLITERATE, DO NOT MAINTAIN THE BANK ACCOU NTS AND IT CAN NOT BE EXPECTED FROM THEM ALSO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,855/- AND IT NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REJE CTED. 20. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,02,637/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK REPAIRING EXPENSES. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDIT URE OF RS.5,13,185/- IN CASH IN ITS GWALIOR AND INDORE BRANCH FOR TRUCK REPAIRING AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FURNISHED THE SUMMARY OF CASH EXPENDITURE OF BOTH THE BRANCHES BU T HAS NOT PRODUCED/FURNISHED THE INDIVIDUAL CASH VOUCHERS. HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.1,02,637/- BEING 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE. 21. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.1,02,637/- MADE BY THE AO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 5.3 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 5.3 AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH HIM THA T ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,02,6377- BEING 20% OF RS. 5,13,1857- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK REPAIRS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS BEING T RANSPORT, THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS TRUCK REPAIR EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT FIRSTLY BECAUSE THE TRUCK DRIVERS WHILE MOVING ON LONG TRIPS, HAS TO MA KE CASH PAYMENTS IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS. SECONDLY, THE WORKSHOP OWNER S AT TIMES ALSO INSIST FOR CASH PAYMENTS. THE CASH PAYMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN SMALL AMOUNTS AS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 40 A(3) HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. IN THE BA CKGROUND OF THESE FACTS, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,02,637/- NEEDS TO BE DE LETED. 22. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 23. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT J USTIFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED/FURNISHED THE INDIVIDUAL CASH VOUCHERS. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PRODUCED THE SUMMARY OF CASH VOUCHERS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 11 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AS SESSEE, BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT, HAS TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS TO THE DRIVERS FOR LONG TRIPS, IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND THE WORKSHOP OWNERS SOMETIME ALSO INSIST FOR CASH PAYMENTS. MOREOVER, THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED AT ANY POINT OF TIME THAT THESE CASH PAYMENTS HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THE REFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 25. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CARE FULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF SMALL AMOUNT AND THESE PAYMENTS DO NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING IN THE BUSINESS O F TRANSPORT, HAS TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS TO THE DRIVERS FOR LONG TRIPS, IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND THE WORKSHOP OWNERS SOMETIME ALSO INSIST FOR CASH PAYME NTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,02,637/- AND HENCE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 26. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.2,88,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK REPAIRING EXPENSES. BRIEF FACTS RE LATING TO THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE BILLS/V OUCHERS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE PARTLY BECAUSE THESE ARE PREPARED ON TH E COMPUTER WITH THE SAME FONT AND PARTLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY SALES-TAX NO. OR C.S.T. NO. ETC ON THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.2,8 8,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK REPAIRING EXPENSES. 27. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.2,88,960/- FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 6.3 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THIS REGARD, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,88,960/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED MERELY BECAUSE THE BILLS/VOUCHERS HAVE BE EN PREPARED ON THE COMPUTER WITH THE SAME FONT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. 12 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MAJORITY OF THE PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES, THE FACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THA T SALES-TAX NO. IS NOT MENTIONED ON THE BILLS BECAUSE THE SALES-TAX IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE LABOUR CHARGES, IS ALSO FOUND TO BE LOGICALLY CORRECT. UND ER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,88,960/- IS DELETED. 28. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 29. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 30. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,88,960/- MADE BY THE AO IS NO T JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE MAJOR PART OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAI D THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT WHY THE SALES-TAX NO . IS NOT MENTIONED ON THESE BILLS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE PAYMENTS A RE MAINLY LABOUR ORIENTED AND SINCE SALES-TAX IS NOT APPLICABLE ON LABOUR CHARGES, THER EFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HAVING ANY SALES-TAX NO. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,88,960/-. 31. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT MAJ OR PART OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND SINCE PAYMEN TS ARE MAINLY LABOUR ORIENTED, THEREFORE SALES-TAX IS NOT APPLICABLE ON LABOUR CHA RGES AND HENCE NO QUESTION OF HAVING SALES-TAX NO. ARISES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 88,960/- MADE BY THE AO AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. HENCE, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 32. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.06.2011 SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (T.K.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30/06/2011 13 ITA NO.2856/AHD./2007 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) CIT CONCERNED 5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.