Shri Hiteshkumar Ramanlal Desai, Dist.Valsad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

ITA 305/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1932 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R M UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 139(1); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A-BENCH, AHMEDABAD. BEFORE: SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.306/AHD/2007 & 305/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 SHRI NARENDRA R. DESAI AT.PALSANA POST.UDWADA, DIST.VALSAD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, CHALA, VAPI. (APPELLANT) VERSUS (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABHPD0186C ITA NO.305/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 SHRI HITESHKUMAR RAMANLAL DESAI AT.PALSANA POST.UDWADA, DIST.VALSAD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, CHALA, VAPI. (APPELLANT) VERSUS (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABHPD0186C FOR THE APPELLANT: R.M.UPADHYAY FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI. GOVIND SINGHAL, SR.DR ORDER PER T K SHARMA (JUDICIAL MEMBER): THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE WHO ARE BROTHERS, HEARD ON THE SAME DAY AR GUED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES, THEREFORE, THESE ARE DE CIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENT. ITA NO.306/AHD/2007: NARENDRABHAI R. DESAI 2. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.11.2006 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 1. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS TO CONFIRM A GRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,92,732/- AS AGAINST RS.9,00,650/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS ROI FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT LR. CIT(A) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING ESTIMATE D ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. LR.A.O. HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON FACTS TO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.84,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES L R.CIT(A) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON FACTS TO ASSESS AGRICULTURAL INCOME & DAIRY FARMING INCOME IN APPELLANTS INDIVI DUAL STATUS INSTEAD OF HUF STATUS IF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALLOW ED TO BE RAISED. REQUEST TO ALLOW TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD. PRAYER IS HEREBY MADE TO HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD TO ALLOW US TO RAISE TO GROUND NO.3 AS THE SAME IS AN ADDITIONAL G ROUND AND WAS NOT RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DUE TO ADVERTE NCE, WE REQUEST TO YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY ADMIT GROUND NO.3 HAS IT I S AN IMPORTANT GROUND SO FAR AS THE DISPUTE IS CONCERNED AND IT DO ES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF FACTS. ASSETS ACQUIRED ON PARTITIO N OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IS LEGALLY TO BE HELD NOT SELF ACQUIRED BUT HUF PRO PERTY. ITA NO.305/AHD/2007: HITESHKUMAR R. DESAI 3. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.11.2006 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS TO CONFIRM A GRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,98,921/- AS AGAINST RS.10,52,345/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS ROI FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT LR. CIT(A) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING ESTIMATE D ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. LR.A.O. HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON FACTS TO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.84,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES L R.CIT(A) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. LR. A.O. HAS ERRED N LAW AND ON FACTS TO ASSESS AGRICULTURAL INCOME & DAIRY FARMING INCOME IN APPELLANTS INDIVI DUAL STATUS INSTEAD OF HUF STATUS IF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALLOW ED TO BE RAISED. REQUEST TO ALLOW TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD. PRAYER IS HEREBY MADE TO HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD TO ALLOW US TO RAISE TO GROUND NO.3 AS THE SAME IS AN ADDITIONAL G ROUND AND WAS NOT RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE L EARNED 3 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DUE TO ADVERTE NCE, WE REQUEST TO YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY ADMIT GROUND NO.3 HAS IT I S AN IMPORTANT GROUND SO FAR AS THE DISPUTE IS CONCERNED AND IT DO ES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF FACTS. ASSETS ACQUIRED ON PARTITIO N OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IS LEGALLY TO BE HELD NOT SELF ACQUIRED BUT HUF PRO PERTY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE AS SESSEES WHO ARE BROTHERS, SHRI R.M.UPADHYAY APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT GROUND NO.3 BEING ADDITION GROUND, WHICH IS NOW RAISED, WAS NOT RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DUE TO INADVERTENCE. THE DISPUTE INVO LVED IN THE SAID GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRED INVESTIGATION OF FACTS BEC AUSE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON PARTITION ARE NOT SELF ACQUIRED BUT ANCESTRAL PR OPERTY, ACQUIRED BY HUF. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT D BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAREN DRABHAI DESAI DATED 27.02.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT INCOME OF AGRICULTURE AND MILK INCOME SHOULD BE ASS ESSED IN THE STATUS OF HUF WHO IS A REAL OWNER. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION , COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, IT MAY BE HELD THAT INCOME OF AGRICULTURE AND MILK INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN T HE STATUS OF HUF WHO IS A REAL OWNER. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AL SO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE O F PAN DRUGS LTD. [2009] 316 ITR (AT) 72, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HAS ADMITT ED ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT IT IS PURE LEGAL ISSUE. THE COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THE CASES, ALSO ADDITIONAL G ROUND RAISED IS PURE LEGAL ISSUE AND ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED TH E AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DECLARED AGRICULTURAL AND MILK INCOME AS 4 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. NEI THER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE RAISED ANY OBJECTION WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARENDRABHAI R. SHAH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, A SPECIFIC PLEA WAS TAKEN THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND, CATTLE BELON GING TO HUF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURE AND INCOME FROM SALE OF MILK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF HUF AND NOT TH AT OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER APPEAL, THIS PLEA CAN ONLY BE RAISED IN REVISION PETITION U NDER SECTION 264. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT WHETHER PARTITION HAS TAKEN PLACE, WHETHER CATTLE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WERE ALSO RECEIVED ON PARTITION, NEEDS INVESTIGATION OF FACTS . IT IS ALSO NOT KNOWN WHETHER THERE IS ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 171 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT ALSO REQUIRED INVESTIGATION OF FACTS WHETH ER PARTITION WAS PARTIAL OR COMPLETE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION AL GROUND NO.3 NOW RAISED, IS NOT ARISING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE IT FOR THE FI RST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUT HORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS DECISION OF THE ITAT, DATED 27.02.2009 IN T HE CASE OF NARENDRA R. DESAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARENDARA R . DESAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ASSESSING OFFICER VAPI-WAR D-2, VAPI ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 TO NARENDRA RAMANLAL DES AI (HUF) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSES SEE RAISED PLEA 5 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 THAT AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE INCOME BELONG TO THE HU F. AS A MATTER OF FACT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME T HEMSELVES DECLARED AGRICULTURAL AND CATTLE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INC OME IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IS FURNISHED BEF ORE US INDICATING THAT IN THE PAST, THERE WAS ANY INCOME FROM AGRICUL TURAL OR CATTLE WAS DECLARED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF HUF. THUS, THIS CANNOT BE AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER APPEAL. NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HUF IF A NY HAD ANY PROPERTY EITHER IN FORM OF LAND OR IN THE FORM OF CATTLE. IN CASE OF NARENDRA R. DESAI BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 ITSELF, ASSESSEE RAISED SPECIFIC PLEA THA T AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE INCOME BELONG TO THE HUF. THIS WAS NOT ACCEP TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE VIDE ORDE R DATED 27.02.2009, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 ACCEPTED PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE. IN THE YEAR 2004-2005, TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE BEFORE THEM COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HUF HAD NUCLEUS, N O SUCH MATERIAL IS PLACED BEFORE US WHILE DISPOSING APPEAL FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003- 2004. EVEN ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF PARTITION IS NOT PRO DUCED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT PLEA NOW RAISED I N THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REQUIRES INVESTIGATION OF FACTS I.E. WHETHER PARTITION WAS PARCEL OR COMPLETE WHEN IT TOOK PLACE, WHETHER HUF WAS ASSESS ED TO INCOME OR WEALTH TAX. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER ANY LAR GER HUF ACTUALLY EXISTED IN 1998 OR BEFORE, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PA RTITION, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY PERTAINING TO SUCH LARGER HUF, HOW IT WAS DIVIDED AMONG DIFFERENT MEMBERS, WHETHER ANY INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF ASSETS IN THE LARGER HUF OR ABOUT INCOME EARNED FROM SUCH ASSETS, WHAT IS THE 6 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 SOURCE OF ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS WHETHE R IT WAS ACQUIRED ONLY ON PARTITION OR IT WAS ACQUIRED FROM INDIVIDUA L EFFORTS, WHETHER ANY INTIMATION TO ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY WAS GIVEN ABOUT EXISTENCE OF HUF OR ANY PROPERTY IN ITS NAME, ETC. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY INVE STIGATION IN DECIDING AFRESH AS TO THE STATUS OF LAND AND CATTLE IN QUEST ION. WE MAY ADD THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FOR HIM TO FURNIS H ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 7. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMING AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AT RS.1,92,732/- IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE BROTHERS AS A GAINST INCOME OF RS.9,00,650/- SHOWING IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN SPITE OF THE REPEATING REQUEST BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED LOSE SHEETS, SELF PREPARED VOUCHERS. EVEN THE CROPS CLAIMED TO HAVE BELONGING BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REVENUE RECORD PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS FACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUSTIFIED IN CALL FOR THE DATA FROM THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, NAVSARI AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE AGRICULTURE, GUJARA T AND ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE BROTHERS . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT BOTH THE BROTHERS ARE SHOWING MILK INCOME AS A GRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS, ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN U PHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDE, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IN SPITE OF REPEATE D REQUEST, BOTH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED LOSE SHEETS AND SELF PREPARE D VOUCHERS. THE 7 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 REQUIRED EVIDENCE SUCH AS BILLS, VOUCHERS, ETC. WER E NEVER PRODUCED. EVEN THE CROPS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GROWN IS NOT RE FLECTED IN THE REVENUE RECORD PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO CALL TECHNICAL DATA FROM AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, NAVSARI AND DIRECTOR, AGRIC ULTURAL GUJARAT. ON THIS BASIS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,92,732/- WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS FAIR AND REASONA BLE. WE THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUND NO.1 OF BOTH THE APPEA L IS REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.84,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF BOTH THE B ROTHERS. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE LOOKING TO THE SALARY OF TH E FAMILY, WITHDRAWAL OF RS.60,000/- BY EACH OF THE BROTHERS IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE ESTIMATE OF RS.1,44,000/- IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS AVAILABLE FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SA VED NOTHING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.84 ,000/- MADE IN THE HANDS OF EACH BROTHERS TO BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APP EARED FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE BOTH THE BROTHERS ARE MA INTAINING THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, EACH OF THEM HAVE SHOWN HOUSE HELD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.60,000/-, WHICH I NCLUDE SHOP RENT, TUITION FEE AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AGGREGATING RS .64,800/- IN THE CASE OF HIS BROTHER HITESHKUMAR R. DESAI. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, ESTIMATE OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE HAD RS.1,44,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS WERE CONSIDERED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), T HE ASSESSEE RAISED IOTA OF OBJECTION BEFORE ANY OF THE DEPARTME NT AUTHORITIES BELOW INDICATING THAT AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS ALSO USED FO R HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, BEFORE ASSESSING OFF ICER BOTH THE 8 ITA NO.305 & 306/AHD/2007 BROTHERS IS STATED THAT EACH HAS WITHDRAWN RS.60,00 0/- FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE WHICH INCLUDE PAYMENT MADE FOR SHOP RENT, T UITION FEE AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AS STATED ABOVE. LOOKING TO TH E PECULIAR FACTS, ESTIMATE OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE SINCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BE FORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN MORE T HAN WHAT IS STATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS LEGALLY, FACTUALLY AND CORRECT IN THE COURSE OF THE HANDS OF EACH OF THE BROTHERS. WE THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTE RFERE. GROUND NO.2 OF THE BOTH THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, BOTH T HE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED: 31/12/2009 PARAS# COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD.