Shri Bipinbhai D.Chandarana, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Circle-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 3275/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63210 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3275/AHD/2010 & 2324/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 BIPINBHAI D. CHANDARANA C/O NEW NANDI SEEDS CORPORATION 1, PATEL SOCIETY, NEAR SEARS TOWER, GULBAI TEKRA, AHMADABAD - 380006 V/S . JCIT, CIRCLE-3, AHMEDABAD. PAN NO. A DHPC9790M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI Y.P. VERMA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 31.10.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.12.2012 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL FOR QUANTUM ADDITION FOR A.Y. 07-08 IN ITA NO.3275/AHD/2010 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XV I, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DATED 08.11.2010 AND APPEAL FOR PENALTY FOR A.Y. 07 -08 IN ITA NO.2324/AHD/2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XX I, AHMEDABAD, DATED 26.09.2012. BOTH APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. GROUNDS OF ITA NO.3275/AHD/2010 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN SETTING ASIDE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO OF RS.1,13,469/- ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME NOT INCLUDED FOR WANT OF VERIFICATI ON. THE LEARNED ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 2 CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT OFFERED GREATER AMOUNT OF INTER EST THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE ACTION OF A.O. OF IGNORING THOSE CERTIFICATES WHERE AMOUNT IN CERTIFICATE IS L OWER AND MAKING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ONLY THOSE CERTIFICATES WHER E THE AMOUNT IN CERTIFICATE IS HIGHER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HIMSELF OUGHT TO HAVE RECONCILED THE FACTS RATHER T HAN SETTING IT ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF AO IN GRANTING LONG TERM CAPIT AL LOSS OF RS.6,97,384/- INSTEAD OF RS.10,46,563/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE FLAT IN F.Y. 1995/ 96 BY MAKING FULL PAYMENT FOR THE SAME AND HENCE THE INDEXATION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FROM THAT YEAR AND TAKING ACTUAL POSSESSION IN F.Y. 1997/98 DOES NOT IPSO FACTO CHANGE THE YEAR OF PURCHASE. 2. THE FIRST GROUND HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE APP ELLANT, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.10,46,563/-, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. AT RS.6,97,384/-. DURING T HE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL FLAT NO. C-9 AT AALOK FLATS, NR. H.L. COMMERCE COLLEGE, NAVARANGPURA, AHMADABAD-09 ON 06.01.1989. THE APPE LLANT HAD CLAIMED INDEXATION ON PURCHASE COST FROM 1995 WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE A.O. BECAUSE IT WAS THE YEAR OF ALLOTMENT OF THE FLAT. THE POSSESSION AS WELL AS FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 19 97 WITH PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED. THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON TWO CASES I.E. CIT VS. TATA SERVICES LTD. 122 ITR 594 (BOMBAY) & CIT VS. J INDAS PANCHANAND ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 3 GANDHI (GUJ), WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. BUT BY ANALYZING THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION DEFINED IN SECTION 48, THE LD. A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD THE PROPERTY FROM THE YEAR 1997. ACCORDIN GLY, THE INDEXATION WAS ALLOWED FROM THE YEAR 1997 AND HE ASSESSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.6,97,384/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A)-XVI WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARAGRAPH NO.3.3 AS UNDER: 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF A.O. FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS MAKING DIFFERENCE BET WEEN TRANSFER DATE AND THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSEST I S HELD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION, OF SALE AMOUNT YEAR OF TRANSFER IS IMPORTANT WHEREAS FOR THE COST OF ACQUI SITION THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSES SEE IS IMPORTANT FOR ADOPTING THE COST INFLATION INDEX. T HE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT USED THE WORD TRANSFER BUT HAS USED THE PHRASE THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS HELD THE POSSESSION OF TH E FLAT FROM THE YEAR 1997, AND IT COULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT THE FLAT WHEN IT WAS NOT EVEN READY FOR POSSESSION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, T HE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALSO NOT RELEVANT. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DI SMISSED. 5. NOW THE MATTER IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID RS.12,48,480/- ON 24.06 .1995 AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.3,060/- ON 06.06.1997 TO M/S. PRARTHAN A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 4 LIMITED. THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26 TH JUNE, 1995 ISSUED BY SKY REACH TOWERS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE POSSESSIO N WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ON 06 TH JUNE, 1997. THEREFORE, HE HELD THE FLAT FROM THE YEAR 1995 AND ACCORDINGLY THE INDEXATION IS TO BE ALLOWED ON COST OF ACQUISITION FROM 1995. HE ALSO RELIED UPON IN CASE OF VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. CIT 344 ITR 501 (PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED A FLAT UNDER THE SCHEME OF DDA ON 27.02.1982. THE POSSESS ION TOOK PLACE ON 15.05.1986 WHEN ACTUAL FLAT NUMBER WAS ALLOTTED. T HE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLAT ON 06.01.1989. THE A.O. TREATED THIS PROPERTY AS S HORT TERM CAPITAL GIAN ON THE BASIS OF DATE OF POSSESSION I.E. 15.05.1986 WHE REAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF LETTER OF AL LOTMENT I.E. 27.02.1982 WHICH WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI, C BENCH, IN CASE OF JITENDRA MOHAN VS. ITO, WARD 28(2), NEW DELHI, WHEREIN THE INDUSTRIAL SHED WAS ALLOTTED ON 08.07.1994 WITHOUT ANY SPECIFI C NUMBER. THE NUMBER WAS GIVEN ON 27.08.1996. THE FIRST AND SECOND INST ALLMENTS WERE PAID ON 21.10.1993 & 28.12.1994 RESPECTIVELY AND DEPOSITED LAST INSTALLMENT ON 19.12.1997. THE POSSESSION ON SHED WAS TAKEN ON 18 .05.1998. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THIS PROPERTY ON 15.12.2000 AND DECLA RED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN HIS RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IT IS A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF FINAL INSTALLMENT AS ON 19.12.1997 AND DATE OF POSSESSION I.E. 18.05.1998. THE ITAT C BENCH HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS HOLDING PROPERTY FROM 28.12.1994. THE ITAT C BENCH HELD THIS TRAN SACTION AS A LONG TERM ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 5 CAPITAL ASSETS RESULTING INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N OR LOSS. HE FURTHER RELIED IN CO-ORDINATE B BENCH, ITAT AHMADABAD DECISION IN C ASE OF SHARADBHAI D CHANDARANA VS DCIT, CIRCLE 3, IN ITA NO. 3276/AHD/2 010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF SAME APARTMENT HAS BEE N CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OPERATIVE P ART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. R EGARDING TWO TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. D.R., WE FIND T HAT THESE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS ARE NO MORE APPLICABLE AS THE SAME WERE R EVERSED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF DCIT VS MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA). REGARDING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S N ZUBIN GEORGE (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LD. D.R. , WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IS NOT A PPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND MOREOVER, IN COMPARISON OF THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, WE ARE DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF J INDAS PANCHAND GANDHI. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE RELEVANT DATE COULD BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE MEMBER ACQUIRES THE SHARES IN THE PROPERT Y OF THE HOUSING SOCIETY AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE MEMBER HA S SOLD HIS SHARES IN THE SAID COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY. RE GARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT NO SHARE WAS ALLOTTE D TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGARD, WE F IND THAT THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE SKY REACH TOWER APAR TMENT ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 6 OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 11 OF THE P APER BOOK. IN THIS ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26.06.1995 IT IS CERTIF IED THAT MR. SHARADBHAI D CHANDARANA, THE ASSESSEE IS A MEMBER O F SKY REACH TOWER APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND HE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED FLAT NO. B-7 OF 153 SQ. YARDS. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AND IF THE SHA RES WERE NOT ALLOTTED THEN HOW HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AN D THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. THAT NO SHARE WAS ALL OTTED TO THE ASSESSEE, IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE, WE FIND THA T THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JINDAS PANCHAND GANDHI (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICAB LE. WE ALSO FIND THAT ALMOST THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE ON 24.06.1995 BY CHEQUE AS PER MONEY RECEI PT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ONLY AMO UNT OUTSTANDING WAS RS.3060/- WHICH WAS PAID ON 06.06.1 997. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND BY FOLLOWING THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAS PA NCHAND GANDHI (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CAS E LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT. THE CO-ORDINATE B BENCH DECISION IN C ASE OF SHARADBHAI D CHANDARANA VS DCIT (SUPRA), IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, EVEN THE PROPERTY FLAT HELD IN SAME ASSOCIATION I.E. BY SKY REACH TOWERS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION WHERE IN THE MOSTLY PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BUILDER ON 24.06.1995 IN ASSES SEES CASE ALSO THE PAYMENTS WERE MOSTLY MADE ON 24.06.1995. SIMILAR A MOUNT WAS REMAINED IN ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 7 BOTH THE CASES, IS RS.3,060/-, WHICH WAS PAID ON 06 .06.1997 IN BOTH CASES. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. GROUND OF ITA NO.2324/AHD/2012 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING PENALTY LEVIED BY AO OF RS.69,835/- INVO KING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS NEITHER FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALED ANY INCOME AND HELD THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, PEN ALTY IS LEVIABLE. THE PENALTY LEVIED BEING WITHOUT ANY MERITS AND JUS TIFICATION DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 7. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), DATED 26.09.2012 BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.69,835/- . THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, TWO ADDITIONS WERE MADE I.E. A DDITION OF RS. 1,13,469/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST INCOME SHOWN A ND INTEREST AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE. FURTHER, HE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS LONG T ERM CAPITAL LOSS BY RS.3,49,179/-, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRY FORWA RDED AND SET UP AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING IN SUBSEQUENT YE AR. THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE LD. A.O. HAD GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY AND FOUND THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 8 BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y. 04-05 WHEREAS THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y. 07-08. THEREFORE, HE ONLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXATION COST OF THE FLAT. IN PENALTY ORDER, HE HAS CONSIDERED THE INDEX I.E. 331 AS AGAINST 281. ACCORDINGLY, THE CARRY FORWARD ED CAPITAL LOSS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. AT RS.3,49,179/-. HE ALSO E XAMINED THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PENALTY ORDER. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, HE IMPOSED THE PENALTY AT RS.69,835/-, WHICH IS 300 % OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY DISCUSSING THE CASE LAWS OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT, T. ASHOK PAI VS. CIT, UOI VS. DHARMEDNRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, CIT VS. RELIANCE PET RO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL & UOI VS. RAJASTHAN SPINN ING & WEAVING MILLS. 9. NOW THE MATTER IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BEFORE THE A.O. IN RETURN. IT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE WHETHER COST O F ACQUISITION IS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER, DATE OF MAJOR PAYMENT OR DATE OF POSSESSION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS ENTI TLED TO CALCULATE THE COST OF INDEXATION FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT. NO PENAL TY IS REQUIRED TO BE IMPOSED. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GO NE THROUGH THE QUANTUM APPEAL AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AP PELLANT FOR QUANTUM ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 9 APPEAL, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE. WHEN ADDIT ION HAS BEEN DELETED IN QUANTUM APPEAL, THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS NOT SU RVIVED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR QUANTUM IN ITA NO.3275/AHD/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR P ENALTY IN ITA NO.2324/AHD/2012 IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.12.2012 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ; STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 29.11.2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 03.12.2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION ,, ,, 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 14.12.2012 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON ,, ,, 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 14.12.2012 ITA NOS. 3275/AHD/10 & 2324/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 10