Shreeji Steel, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITA 3102/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0204 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MITISH S MODI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M M/S SHREEJI STEELS, PROP. VIJAY JAGMOHANDAS MEHTA, PLOT. NO.5419, NR. WATER TANK, GIDC, SACHIN, SURAT. VS. ASSTT. C.I.T., CIR-2, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI MITISH S. MODI, AR REVENUEBY:- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA, DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) THE LD. CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT PA SSED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-2, SURAT MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISAL LOWANCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30.94,129/- IN AGGREGATE AND HENCE , LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE LD.AO H AS WRONGLY APPLIED THE GP OF THE OTHER SISTER CONCERN HAVING H IGHEST GP WITH DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR TRADING AS THAT OF TRADED BY THE APPELLANT AND INSTEAD OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GP OF THE AP PELLANT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AVAILABLE ON HIS RECORDS AND T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.18,46,998/- MADE ARBITRARILY ON ACCO UNT OF ALLEGED LOW GP WITHOUT CONSIDERING, IN THE RIGHT PE RSPECTIVES, THE EXPLANATIONS/EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE HIM DESERV ES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.3102/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR :2005-06 2 (3) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,91,262/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RECOR DS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN AND HENCE, NOT JUSTIFIED. (4) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCES OF DIRECT AND SELLING AND ADMINISTRAT IVE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,55,869/- AND HENCE, NOT JUSTI FIED. (5) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING AND IN SUMM ARILY REJECTING THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENC ES PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED AND OTHER MATERIALS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WHILE ACCEPTING THE L OP-SIDED AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT VERSION OF THE LD. AO AND HENCE , THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEING PERVERSE, ARBITRARY, BAS ELESS AND MISLEADING, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF M.S. STEEL AND ITS PRODUCTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO CALLED FOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE LOST IN THE FLOODS IN THE CITY OF SURAT. ACCORDINGLY THE AO PROCEEDED TO FRAM E THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. HE NOTI CED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.26,01,40,667/- GIVING GP OF RS .81,55,468/- WHICH COMES TO 3.13%. THE AO THEN NOTICED THAT OTHER GROU P CONCERNS HAD GIVEN BETTER RESULTS THOUGH THEY WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN THE SAME KIND OF BUSINESS. HE NOTICED THAT DIFFERENT CONCERNS OF ASS ESSEE GROUP HAD SHOWN FOLLOWING RESULTS :- GROSS TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT G.P. RATIO M/S SHREEJI STEELS PROP. VIJAY J. MEHTA (ASSESSEE) 26,01,40,667/- 81,55,468 3.13% M/S SATYAM STEEL PROP. VIJAY JAGMOHAN MEHTA (HUF) 13,29,07,214/- 41,69,601 3.14% 3 M/S JAGMOHAN D. MEHTA HUF PROP. ZENITH STEEL 15,33,33,261/- 64,01,721 4.17% M/S STANDARD STEEL SALES PROP. HARESHBHAI JAGMOHANDAS MEHTA HUF 10,72,12,102/- 43,25,601 4.03% MEHTA STEEL CORPORATION PROP. HARESHBHAI J. MEHTA 10,63,68,990/- 50,77,776 4.77% ON THE ABOVE BASIS THE AO WORKED OUT AVERAGE AT 3.8 4% AND APPLIED THE SAME TO THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RE SULTED IN AN ADDITION OF RS.18,46,998/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVOIDED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORDS FOR SEV ERAL PAST YEARS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE AUDIT REPORT BUT AC CORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) IF AUDIT REPORT IS CORRECT THEN THERE SHOULD BE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUPPORT THE REPORT OR AUDIT REPORT SO PRODUCED BEFO RE THE AUDIT WOULD ONLY BE FICTITIOUS AND BOGUS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE NOT INTERESTED IN PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S SO AS TO AVOID CORRECT ESTIMATION OF PROFITS. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE AP PLICATION OF AVERAGE GP RATIO SHOWN BY ALL THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY GUESS WORK OR PRESUMPTION OR ASSUMPTION. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR WERE FO UND TO BE GENERAL AND INCAPABLE OF REBUTTING THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO . THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.18,46,998/ -. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN PLACE OF RELYING ON THE DATA OF SISTER CONCERNS AO SHOULD HA VE RELIED ON ASSESSEES OWN DATA FOR PAST YEARS. HE REFERRED TO FOLLOWING R ESULTS OF LAST THREE YEARS INCLUDING THE CURRENT YEAR TO SHOW THAT AVERA GE GP RATE IS 3.47%:- 4 ASST. YEAR TURNOVER G.P. G.P. MARGIN 2005-06 260140667/- 8155468/- 3.13% 2004-05 210880610/- 6547080/- 3.10% 2003-04 186955554/- 7777375/- 4.16% ON THIS BASIS THE LD. AR CLAIMED THE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. ACCORDING TO HIM TOTAL INCOME OFFERED DURING THE YEAR WAS MORE T HAN 30% AS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THUS ASSESSEE HAS PAID MORE TAXES THIS YE AR. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN LAST SEVERAL ASSESS MENT YEARS ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY ARE DESTROYED IN THE FLOODS. HE S UBMITTED THAT RATHER TAKING DATA OF PAST YEAR IT SHOULD BE PREFERABLE TO TAKE CURRENT YEARS DATA AS IT IS MORE RELIABLE AND ALL THE SISTER CONCERNS WHOSE DATA HAS BEEN AVERAGED BELONGED TO ASSESSEE GROUP AND, THEREFORE, REPRESENT BETTER ACCURACY AND FAIRER ESTIMATE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE . THE REASONS ARE THAT WITHOUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDIT REPORT COULD NOT BE PREPARED AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED MUCH BEFORE THE BOOK S WERE LOST. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF LOSS OF BOOKS, SUCH AS FIR. IN A DDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BULKY PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ACCOUNTS, BAL ANCE SHEET ETC. WHICH COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS . WE HAVE IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLINED TO PROD UCE THE BOOKS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE REJECTION O F THE BOOKS, IF ANY. SO FAR AS ESTIMATE OF PROFITS IS CONCERNED WE AGREE WI TH THE LD. DR THAT DATA OF CURRENT YEAR IF AVAILABLE IN THE GROUP WOULD GIV E BETTER AND FAIRER ESTIMATE THAN AS COMPARED TO DATA OF EARLIER YEARS, EVEN THOUGH BELONGING 5 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ALL GROUP COMPANIES ARE CARRYING SAME LINE OF BUSINESS DATA WOULD BE CLOSER IN THE S AME YEAR AS COMPARED TO DATA OF EARLIER YEARS OF THE SAME ASSESSEE. ACCO RDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES TO AVERAGE OUT THE GP RAT E SHOWN BY DIFFERENT CONCERNS OF THE SAME GROUP AND AVERAGING IT AT 3.84 % AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NGLY WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION UNDER SECTIO N 41(1). THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING BALANCES AGAIN ST DIFFERENT CREDITORS AS UNDER :- SL.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1 GRACE CASTINGS P. LTD. 9562 2 INDIA COM.DIRECTORIES LTD. 5763 3 JAGDISHBHAI 77500 4 MAHASHIV TEXTILE INDUSTRIES 93034 5 MAHAMMAD YUSUF ADULHAMID DOBIWALA 45000 6 PATEL TRADERS 299847 7 PRIME STEELS 100000 8 RAMSINH GANDABHAI CHAUHAN 70000 9 SHREE MAROLI V.K.U.S.M.LTD. 7380 10 SHRI HARI STEEL 338048 11 SUSHA TESTING MACHINE CO. 9353 12 VIJAY ELECTRONICS 4265 13 VIVIDH METALS 31510 T OTAL 10,91,262 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADD RESSES OF THE PARTIES, LEDGER ACCOUNT, COPIES OF THOSE PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRST YEAR ONWARDS IN WHICH LIABI LITY WAS CREATED. AS ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION ON THE GRO UND THAT BOOKS ARE LOST IN FLOODS, THE AO PROPOSED THE ADDITION. 6 8. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR SIMILA R REASONS. HIS OBSERVATION ON THIS ISSUE IS AS UNDER :- 10. THE AR HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUCH CREDITS VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.11,2007 FI LED BEFORE THE AO. THE AR HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID SUB MISSION ALONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMO. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE VOLUMINOU S DETAILS FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMO, I FIND THAT THROUGH THE ALLEGED LETTER DATED 28.11.2007, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO FURNISH DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CREDITORS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT IS FROM SU CH DETAILS THAT THE AO HAS CULLED OUT THE CESSATION OF LIABILITY IN RESPEC T OF THE 13 CREDITORS LISTED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE AR'S CLAIM OF HAVING FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS, AND THAT THE AO'S ACTION WAS BASED ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS ETC. IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT FURTHER MEANS THAT THE AR'S CLAIM THAT THE SUM OF RS. 10,91,262 ALSO I NCLUDED ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS, IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY B ASIS. IF THAT WAS THE CASE THEN THE ASSESSES OR THE AR OUGHT TO HAVE FURN ISHED A DEAR BREAK-UP OF SUCH CREDITORS AND SHOULD HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE SAID CREDITORS FROM THE CREDITORS WHO HAD MERELY PAID ADVANCES AGAINST SUPPLY OF GOODS. 10.1 ON HER PART, THE AO HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE CREDITS HAVE REMAINED OUTSTANDING FOR A PERIOD INCLUDING TH E PRECEDING THREE YEARS AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT THREE YEARS, DURING WHICH PERIOD THERE HAS BEEN NO TRANSACTION WITH SAID THE 13 PARTIES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE EXCUSE OF THE BOOKS HAVING BEEN DESTROYED IN TH E FLOOD FOR NOT FILING ANY DETAIL WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITORS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ALONG THE APPEAL MEMO THE AR HAS FURNISHED VOL UMINOUS DETAILS INCLUDING COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS, ACCOUNT CONFIRMA TION ETC, ETC. IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD INDEED BEEN DESTROYED IN THE F LOOD AS CLAIMED, THEN WHERE DID THESE DETAILS COME FROM? A SIMILAR CLAIM OF DESTRUCTION OF BOOKS HAS BEEN REJECTED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL O F THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. THEREFORE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT IN THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSES AS ALSO THE AR. AS A COROLLARY, THE AO'S ACTION DESERVES TO BE FULLY SUSTAINED, AND THE ADDITION OF RS.10,91,26 2 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.41(L)(A), CONFIRMED. 9. AGAINST THIS, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY AS ASSESSEE IS COMMITTED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY PAID. HE REFERRED TO T HE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARESHBHAI J. MEHTA (HUF) V S. ACIT IN ITA 7 NO.424/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03 PRONOUNCED O N 8 TH JANUARY, 2010 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE ASSESSEE ACKNOW LEDGES THE LIABILITY AND SUCH LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADDITION UNDER SECTION 41(1). HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GP INTERNATI ONAL LTD. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P & H) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE L IABILITY IS STILL OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN ADDIT ION UNDER SECTION 41(1) COULD NOT BE MADE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT PRODUCING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER LIABIL ITIES ARE STILL EXISTING. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING NAMES AND ADDRESSES O F THE ALLEGED CREDITORS SO AS TO ENABLE THE AO TO CARRY OUT NECES SARY ENQUIRIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ADDITION UNDER SECTI ON 41(1) CANNOT BE MADE IF AMOUNTS ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE OR EVEN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 41(1) FOLLOWING POINTS ARE TO BE KEPT IN VIEW: (1) IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR AN EARLIER YEAR AN ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF ANY TRADING L IABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE; (2) SUBSEQUENTLY A BENEFIT IS OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF SU CH TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EVENT HAS OCCURRED; (3) IN THAT SITUATION THE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE WILL BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE B USINESS; (4) AND SUCH BENEFIT IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX AS INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH BENEFI T WAS OBTAINED. 8 12. THE CESSATION OF A LIABILITY CAN OCCUR EITHER B Y ACTION OF THE COURT OR BY CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OR SETTLEMENT. IN REMIS SION THERE HAS TO BE A POSITIVE ACT ON THE PART OF OTHER PARTY IN DECIDING TO FORGO HIS ASSET (THAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE) RESULTING IN EXTINGUISHM ENT OF THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNT. THUS WHERE LIABILITY I S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PAYABLE IN THE BOOKS EVEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS THEN UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT OTHER PARTY HAS ALSO FOREGONE ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY POSITIVE ACT OF FOREGOING, IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT SUCH CREDIT S STANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN THE BOOKS WOULD BECOME INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. FURTHER IF SUCH CREDITS ARE STANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS, THEN UNLES S SOME EVENT TAKES PLACE IT COULD NOT BE DECIDED AS TO WHICH YEAR SUCH AMOUN T WOULD BE TAXABLE. SITUATION IN SEVERAL YEARS WOULD BE SAME OR IDENTIC AL SO FAR AS THE LIABILITY STANDING IN THE BOOKS IS CONCERNED. IT IS EQUALLY T AXABLE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS IN EARLIER YEAR OR IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT SOMETHING POSITIVE HAS HAPPENED FROM THE SIDE OF CR EDITOR WHICH RESULTED IN FOREGOING HIS CLAIM IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO CALL IT CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY. IF NOTHING HAPPENS OR NO EV ENT TAKES PLACE SUCH OUTSTANDING LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS CANNOT BE HELD T O BE TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT YEAR OR IN ANY PARTICULAR YEAR. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AS REF ERRED TO BY THE LD. AR ALSO IN ANOTHER DECISION OF THE SAME COURT IN CI T VS. SITA DEVI JUNEJA IN ITA NO.619 OF 2009 PRONOUNCED ON DECEMBER 2, 200 9. OUR VIEW IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY DECISION IN DSA ENGINEERS, BOM BAY VS. ITO (2009) 30 SOT 31 (MUM). ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE. 13. THE THIRD GROUND IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.1,55,869/-. THE AO HA S DISALLOWED 5% OF 9 THE CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE INCURR ED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. EVEN BEFORE US, NO EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED AS TO BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT HAVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS ETC. THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS REASONABLE AND, THEREFORE, CON FIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/8/2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD, DATED :6/8/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD