WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT.LTD., Baroda V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, Baroda

ITA 3092/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5861 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2003
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAAURAV BATHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption; Revised return
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 [ASSTT.YEAR: 2001-02] WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. -VS- INCOME TAX OFFICER NR. DGSS GAS STATION, GAVASAD, WARD-4(4), AAYAKAR PADRA, JAMBUSAR ROAD, BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, TAL. PADRA, DIST. VADODARA VADODARA PAN NO.AAACW1720G ITA NO.1024/AHD/2006 [ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03] WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. -VS- ACIT, CIRCL E-4 NR. DGSS GAS STATION, GAVASAD, VADDODARA, AAYAKAR PADRA, JAMBUSAR ROAD, BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, TAL. PADRA, DIST. VADODARA VADODARA PAN NO.AAACW1720G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI GAAURAV BATHAN, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.K. PATE L, AR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, BARODA IN APPEAL NOS.CAB/III/179 & 60/02-03/05-06 BY DIFFERENT DATE 06-05-2003 AND 17- 02-2006. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ITO WARD-4(4) & ACIT CIRCLE-4, BAROD A U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VI DE THEIR ORDERS DATED 03-01-2003 AND 14-03-2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 & 1024/AHD/2006 A.YS.01-02 & 02-03 WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. V ITO WD-4(4) & ACI T CIR-4 BDR PAGE 2 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AS REGARDS TO SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BACKWARD AREAS, WHETHER THE SAME IS CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY OR REVENUE SUBSIDY. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOT H THE YEARS ARE EXACTLY SAME, HENCE, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02:- 01.01 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUBSIDY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKWARD AREAS OF THE STATE AND TO CREATE LARGE SCALE EMPLOYMENT O PPORTUNITIES. THE SAID SUBSIDY WAS A CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY. 01.02 THE AO HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE CAPITAL SUBS IDY AS THE REVENUE SUBSIDY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO ABOVE COMMON ISSUES A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99. THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CASH SUBSIDY FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND IN VIEW OF RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2,30,200/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE RESERVE AND SURPLUS ACCOUNT TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL RE CEIPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT DID NOT TREAT AS REVENUE RECEIPT, A S THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE TAXABLE U/S.28(IV) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN BY THE GUJARAT OF GOVT. FOR MAKING CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN ASSETS AND TO START NEW INDUS TRY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THIS WAS AN INCENTIVE TO START INDUSTRY AND THEREFORE TH E SAME WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE AND TREATED THE AMOUNT AS TAXABLE BEING REVENUE RECEIPT U/S.28(IV) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PARA-3.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- 3.2 FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANTS COUNSEL ARE CONSIDERED. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED SUBSIDY TWO YEARS AFTER IT COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION AS IT HAD S ET UP AN INDUSTRY IN A BACKWARD AREA. THE SUBSIDY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE GO VERNMENT OF GUJARAT UNDER CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCENTIVE SCHEME, 1995-200 0. AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE SUBSIDY AN ELIGIBLE UNIT WAS TO APPLY FOR TH E SUBSIDY WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION AND ONE OF THE CONDITIO NS FOR GRANT OF SUBSIDY WAS THAT OF THE UNIT SHALL REMAIN IN PRODUCTION CONTINU OUSLY AT LEAST TILL THE EXPIRY OF ELIGIBLE PERIOD OF INCENTIVE. THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY WAS, ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 & 1024/AHD/2006 A.YS.01-02 & 02-03 WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. V ITO WD-4(4) & ACI T CIR-4 BDR PAGE 3 HOWEVER, BASED ON THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE BY TH E UNIT. ON ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBSIDY, I FIND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT FOR MEETING THE COST OF ANY ASSET BUT THE SAME WAS GRANTED FOR RUNNING THE INDUSTRY IN A SPECIFIED BACKWARD AREA. SIMILAR ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT INCOME SAHANEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD. (228 ITR 253) . THE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE OBSERVED THAT THE SUBSI DY PAYMENT WAS MADE ONLY AFTER THE INDUSTRY WAS SET UP AND THE SAME WAS NOT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRY. THE PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION AND THE PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTI ON. IT WAS HELD THAT THE SUBSIDIES WERE OPERATIONAL SUBSIDIES AND NOT CAPITA L SUBSIDY AND THE SAME COULD ONLY BE TREATED AS ASSISTANCE GIVEN FOR THE P URPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS WHICH IS OF REVENUE CHARACTER. I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED B Y THE APEX COURT. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THE SUBSIDY HAS BEEN GRANTED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND WAS TO CONTINUE IF THE APPELLANT CON TINUED ITS PRODUCTION TILL AT LEAST THE PERIOD OF THE SCHEME FOR THE SUBSIDY. THI S WAS SNOT GIVEN FOR SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT. THE SAME WAS GIVEN FOR C ARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IN A BACKWARD AREA. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE SU BSIDY IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT CITED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ITS PRESE NT CASE AS IN THOSE CASES THE ISSUE INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT. IN THOSE CASES TH E SUBSIDY WAS CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE SAM E IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST OF ASSET FOR THE PU8RPOSE OF ARRIVING AT T HE ACTUAL COST OF ASSET FOR GRANT OF DEPRECIATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NAT URE OF THE RECEIPT IS TO BE DECIDED. AS HELD ABOVE, THE SAME IS REVENUE IN NATU RE AND HENCE THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE GRACE PAPER I NDS. PVT. (103 ITR 591) AND THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.J. CHEMICALS (SUPRA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. AS A RESULT, THE DECISION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THRO UGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT NONE OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE INTO THE CASH SUBSIDY SECTIONED BY THE GOVT. OF GUJ ARAT UNDER GENERAL SCHEME NEW PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FILED THE DETAILS FOR BOTH THE YEARS I.E. SANCTION OF STATE CASH SUBSIDY UNDER GENERAL SCHEME NEW PROJECT VIDE LETTER DATED 31-05-2000 AND OFFICE ORDER DATED 26-07-2000 AS WELL THE OFFIC E ORDER DATED 02-11-2001 AND AGREEMENT FOR CASH SUBSIDY DATED 19-06-2001 BUT IT SEEMS THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE PERUSED THESE DOCUMENTS. TH E TEST FOR FINDING OUT THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GIV EN AND IN SUCH CASES ONE HAS TO ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 & 1024/AHD/2006 A.YS.01-02 & 02-03 WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. V ITO WD-4(4) & ACI T CIR-4 BDR PAGE 4 APPLY THE PURPOSE TEST AND THE POINT OF TIME AT WHI CH THE SUBSIDY IS PAID IS NOT RELEVANT AND THE SOURCE IS IMMATERIAL. THE MOST MAT ERIAL THING IS FORM OF SUBSIDY. THE MAIN ELIGIBILITY CONDITION IN THE SCHEME IS TO BE SEEN, WHETHER THE INCENTIVE IS UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN FOR SETTING U P OF NEW UNITS OR FOR SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES OF EXISTING UNITS. IN VIEW OF THESE, WE SE T ASIDE THIS COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEARS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRE CT HIM TO DECIDE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIALS TO BE PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THIS COMMON ISSUE OF BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 IS AS REGARDS TO PROVISION OF SALES TAX LIABILITY OF RS.3 ,02,002/-. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS :- 02.01 DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD MADE A PROVISION OF SALES TAX LIABILITY OF RS.3,20,200/-. THE SAID PROVISION WAS PAID ON 119-10-2001 I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING T HE RETURN OF INCOME I.E. 31- 10-2001. 02.02 THE AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SALES TAX LIABILITY. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LIABILITY WHICH IS ALLOWABL E U/S.43B ON PAYMENT BASIS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN FOR THAT YEAR ON 14-08-2003, WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF SALES TAX LIABILIT Y WAS LODGED, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE REASON FOR FILING OF RETURN WAS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- THE COMPANY IS ESTABLISHED IN THE BACKWARD AREA OF PADRA-TAL. BARODA DIST. AND ENTITLE TO STATE SALES-TAX, EXEMPTION BENEFIT. IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000, COMPANY HAD GONE FOR EXPANSION AND WAS E LIGIBLE FOR SALES-TAX EXEMPTION BENEFIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,89,130/-. DU RING THAT PERIOD, I.E. FROM 25-12-1998, TO 25-12-199, THOUGH THE COMPANY WAS SU PPOSED TO COLLECT SALES-TAX FROM THE CUSTOMER FOR PAYMENT TO THE SALE S-TAX DEPTT., AS NO EXEMPTION LIMIT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE PERIOD. A LIABILITY OF RS.13,25,998/- HAD ARISES ALONG WITH THE INTEREST OF RS.7,27,357/- TOTALING TO RS.20,53,355/- WHICH WAS PAID FROM 19.10.2001 TO 9.3.2002. OUT OF THIS PAYMENT RS.3,02,002/- PAID ON 19.10.2001 WAS CLAIMED AS EXP ENSES DURING A.Y. 2001- 02 WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS DISALLOWED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. FIRST APPEAL WAS PREFERRED AGAINST THIS ASSTT. ORDER WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS CLAIMING THE SAME ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 & 1024/AHD/2006 A.YS.01-02 & 02-03 WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. V ITO WD-4(4) & ACI T CIR-4 BDR PAGE 5 AMOUNT OF RS.302002/- AS AN EXPENSES U/S.43B(4) ON PAYMENT GROUND IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT WAS CLAIMED FOR THE REMAINING AMO UNT OTHER THAN RS.302002/- I.E. RS.17,51,353/- WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN APPEAL NO.CAB/III/60/05-06 HAS ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA-8.2.1 8.2.1 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEES CLA IM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIABILITY PERTAINED TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 AND THE PROVISO TO SECTION 43B ALLOWING DED UCTION OF PAYMENTS MADE TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S.`139(1), IS A PPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF LIABILITIES OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE LIABILITY AROSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THUS, THERE IS CLEAR FINDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF RS.3,02,002/- AROSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IN ANY CASE, SECTION 43B CLEARLY STATES THAT THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY SUCH AS SALES-TAX, IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.17,51,352/- BEING INSTALLME NTS PAID BETWEEN 27-10- 20001 TO 9.3-2002, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. SINCE THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,02,002/- WAS MADE ON 19-10-2001, WHICH DATE FA LLS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION ME RELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTIO N. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 IS ALLOWED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE BEFORE US CONCEDED THA T THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03, WHEN ACTUAL PAYMENT IS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONCEDED THIS GROU ND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION AND THI S ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF C ASH CREDIT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3 :- 03.01 THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD RECEIVED A DEPOSIT OF RS.18000/- FROM AN AGRICULTURIST. 03.02 THE AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S.68 IN RESPECT OF A GENUINE DEPOSIT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITOR WAS NOT P ROVED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THE ITA NO.3092/AHD/2003 & 1024/AHD/2006 A.YS.01-02 & 02-03 WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD. V ITO WD-4(4) & ACI T CIR-4 BDR PAGE 6 ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.18,000/- ON 15-05 -2000 AS CASH DEPOSIT FROM SHRI TULSHIDAS B VACHANI, WHICH WAS RE-PAID ON 22-0 6-2000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THE ABOVE CREDITOR, AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE ISSUED INQUIRY LETTER U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, WHI CH RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE COMMENT NO SUCH PERSON KNOWN IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS . SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED REPLY FROM SHRI TULSHIDAS B VACHAN I CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. THE AO HAS NOT BELIEVED THE REPLY OF THE CREDITOR AND M ADE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A ) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION EXACTLY ON SAME REASONING. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS ESTABLISHED BY GIVI NG NAME, ADDRESS, CONFIRMATION LETTER AND HIS OWN ADMISSION OF HAVING GIVEN CASH D EPOSIT. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-04-2003 I NDICATING THE SAID DEPOSIT IS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOR CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE OWN ADMISSION OF THE CREDITOR BY WAY OF LETTER OR ASSESSEES AFFIDAVIT. IN VIEW OF THESE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSU E NEEDS RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISS UE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 6 TH JULY,2010 SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 06/07/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-III, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD