Shri Manoj Ratilal Sheth, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Surat

ITA 3601/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9756 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Share purchase agreement; Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3601-3602/AHD/2007 ITA NO.799 & 803/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05] MANOJ RATILAL SHETH,HUF -VS- INCOME TAX OFFICER P.O. BOX NO.1291 WARD-2(1), SURAT SHOP NO.B-224-226, UDYOGNAGAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX UDHANA, SURAT-294 210 ACTPS6419A ITANO.3603-3604/AHD/2007 ITA NO.800-801/AHD/2010 [ASSTT. YEAR: 2004-05] DEEPAK RATILAL SHETH -VS- INCOME TAX OFFICER P.O. BOX NO.1291, WARD-2(1), SURAT SHOP NO.B-224-226, UDYOGNAGAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, UDHANA, SURAT-394210 PAN NO.ACTPS6293E ITA NO.3605/AHD/2007 ITA NO.802/AHD/2010 [ASSTT. YEAR: 2004-05] SAPNA DEEPAK SHEDTH -VS- INCOME TAX OFFICER P.O. BOX NO.224-226, WARD-2(1), SURAT UDYOGNAGAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, UDHANA, SURAT-394210 PAN NO.ACTPS6418Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, SR-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D.K. PARIKH, AR ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 2 O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE TEN APPEALS BY THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, S URAT IN APPEAL NOS.CAS/II/326-330/06-07/CAS/II/22,25,27-29/09-10 B Y DIFFERENT DATES I.E. 09- 07-2007, 10-07-2007 AND 20-01-2010. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-2(1), SURAT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 24 -11-2006. THE PENALTIES UNDER DISPUTE WERE LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 24-03-2009. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE IN ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 IS AS REGARDS TO ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF CAPITAL LOSS. 3. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI D.K. PARIKH STATED THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS THIS COMMON ISSUE BUT HE URGED THAT NOT PRESS SHOULD NOT EFFECT THE PENALTIES. ACCORDINGLY, HE HA S NOT PRESSED THIS COMMON ISSUE. AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS COMMON ISSUE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3604/AHD/2007 IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF SUPPRESSED CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.2,09,869/-. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD A RESIDENTIAL FLAT DURING THE YEAR FOR A SUM OF RS.5 LAKH. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THE ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 3 RESIDENTIAL FLAT WAS ACQUIRED IN 1973 AT RS.54,672/ - AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAINS AFTER TAKING VALUE OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT RS.1 LAKH AS ON 01-04-81 AND COMPUTED INDEXATION COST AT RS.4.63 LAKH. ACCORDING LY, HE WORKED OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG IN SHORT) AT RS.37,000/-. THE AO UNDER MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED LTCG WRONGLY UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN 1973-74 AT RS.1 LAKH. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED FINDING IN PARA-8 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- 8. (ON THE TOP) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE SYMPATHETICALLY. BUT, I DO NOT FOUND ANY MERIT IN I T. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE FLAT DURING THE A.Y. 1973-74 IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1 LAC. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICAT ION OF THE DETAILS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED IT FOR RS. 54,672/-. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND HYPOTHETICA L. AS SUCH, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT WAS INFLATED AND TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS REJECTED. CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL FLAT IS CALCULATED AT RS.2, 46,869/- WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.37,000/-. THE REFORE, I HEREBY ADD RS.2,09,869/- AS SUPPRESSED CAPITAL GAIN OUT OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1) IS BEING SEPA RATELY INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. A GGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE MARKE T VALUE AS ON 01-04- 1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION FOR COMPUTING CA PITAL GAIN AT RS.1 LAKH. WE FIND THAT SINCE THE FACTS CLEARLY REVEALED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1973-74 FOR A SUM OF RS.54,672/-. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE MARKET VALUE AT RS .1 LAKH AS ON 01-04- 1981 FOR INDEXATION COST. WE FIND THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE IS VERY REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY WE ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ADDITION MADE BY ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS DELETE D. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO.799-803/ AHD/2010. 7. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE IN ITA NO.799-803/AHD/2010 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE ON CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS ON LTCG. 8. SINCE THE FACTS ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN ALL THE SE APPEALS, WE WILL TAKE UP THE FACTS FROM ITA NO.801/AHD/2010. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS ON LTCL ON AMOUNT RECEIVED ON MATU RITY ON MIP 98 AND SCHEDULE 2 AND 4 AT RS.2,55,217/-. THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMO UNT RECEIVED BY HIM OF RS. 4 LAKH EACH ON MATURITY OF SCHEME, WHICH WAS INVEST ED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS NO ELEMENT INCOME OR LO SS AND HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW HE HAS CLAIMED THE CAPITAL LOSS. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RETURNS ON REGULAR INT ERVENTION BUT NO ASSURED RETURN WAS THERE. HE STATED THAT NO DOUBT, THE AMOU NT INVESTED HAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS CLAIM OF LOSS ON LTCG. THE CI T(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER IN APPE AL BEFORE TRIBUNAL, DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS WAS CONFIRMED. THE AO STARTED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVIED THE PENALTY. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE ADDIT ION OF RS.2,55,270/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CARRY FORWARD OF LONG TE RM CAPITAL LOSS, IT IS STATED THAT THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE FACT THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.2,55,270/- IN RESPECT OF REDEMPT ION OF UNITS OF UNIT TRUST OF ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 5 INDIA MIP 98 WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AS ASSESSEE HAD MADE A BONA FIDE CLAIM BY DISCLOSING ALL THE FACTS REGARDI NG SUCH A CLAIM ON THE BONA FIDE GROUND THAT ON ACCOUNT OF REDEMPTION OF UNITS OF MIP 98 INDEXATION BENEFIT WAS AVAILABLE. EVEN IN THE PENALTY ORDER AT PARA-6 WHILE REJECTING THE REPLY AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT FINANCIAL ASSET S IN QUESTION ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAPITAL ASSETS. FROM THE DETAILS AV AILABLE ON RECORD IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BACK THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ON MATURITY, THERE WAS NO INCOME AND/OR LOSS. AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 45 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRANSACTION S COULD NOT BE TREATED AS TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF REDEMPTION OF THESE FINANCIAL ASSETS WAS N OT COVERED BY THE WORD TRANSFER AS DEFINED IN I.T. ACT. IT IS FURTHER OB SERVED BY THE AO THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABOUT POSITIVE INCOME DURING THE YEAR BUT IS THE CASE OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORW ARD THE LOSSES INTENDED TO BE SET OFF THE FUTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT RIGHT FROM DAY ONE, I.E. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FULL PARTICU LARS REGARDING COST I.E. FACE VALUE OF THE UNIT MIP 98 AS WELL AS CALCULATED INDE XATION WAS FURNISHED AND THERE WAS NO WITHHOLDING OF ANY INFORMATION SO AS T O DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. IN FACT EVEN IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HAS RE PRODUCED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDI NGS. AFTER REJECTING THE SAME HE HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO REJECTING T HE CAPITAL LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A BONA FIDE ONE BASED ON THE ADVISE GIVEN BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NTS, WHO FILED THE RETURN INCOME AND NO FACTS WERE CONCEALED, IN FACT THEY WE RE MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN THE CALCULATION ITSELF THAT UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT INDEXATION BENEFIT WAS AVAILABLE, THE SAME WAS CLAIMED. THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND OTHERS (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) TO HOLD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS MANDATORY AND NO DISCRETION IS LEFT WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF LEVYING PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED. NOW ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 6 WE FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 174 (SC) HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE RATIO OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (SUPRA) AND HAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WH ICH IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND IT IS REJECTED, IT CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN LAST PARA OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CITED THE PARAGRAPH FROM THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED TURNOVER AS TAXABLE. HOWEVER, SIN CE THE FIGURES OF TURNOVER WERE VERY MUCH THERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT NOT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF TURNOVER AS TAXABLE CANNOT BE VISITED WITH PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY ON THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL LOSS, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1) AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELET ED. 10. TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, AS THE FACTS IN OTHER APPEALS ARE EXACTLY SAME, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COMMON ISSUE. 11. AS REGARDS TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) OF T HE ACT IN ITA NOS.799- 800/AHD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF MANOJ RATILAL SHETH HUF AND DEEPAK R SHETH HUF RESPECTIVELY, IN REGARD TO ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.7,27,850/-, WE FIND THAT THE SA ID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED BY HIM AT THE ENHANCED FIGURE OF RS.13,14,976/- AS AGAINST RS.5,87,126/- WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE RELEVANT PARA IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA-6, WHEREIN THE ENHANCED CA PITAL GAIN WAS CALCULATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL SHARE CERTIFICATES SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DATE OF HOLDING OR DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE SHARES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE FINANCIAL YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE SHARES EITHER ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATES, OTHERWISE 2001-02 ON THE BASIS OF DEM AT ACCOUNT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 7 THAT HE HAD NO RECORDS REGARDING, THE ACQUISITION S HARES AS THE SAME HAD BEEN INHERITED FROM ELDERS LONG BACK BEFORE 1978-79 . SINCE THE SHARES WERE HELD FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE CIT(A), THE YEAR OF COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF HIS MEMORY AND KNOWLEDGE. HOWEVER, TO AVOID LITIGATION THE WORKING WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENTRY IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT ONLY IGNORING THE EARLIE R PERIOD OF HOLDING AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS DELIBERATELY WRONG CLAIM OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN SO AS TO GET THE ENHANCED DEDUCTION TO THE INDEX COST. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT MAINTAIN ANY RECORDS FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS AND THAT BECAUSE THE ASSESS EE WAS MORE THAN 80 YEARS OF AGE, THERE WAS NO SUCH DETAILS OF RECORDS SHOWING THE EXACT DATE OF SOME KUCHHA REGISTER AND OLD RECORDS, REVISED CALCU LATION FOR WORKING WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER IT W AS STATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AS PER PAPER BOOK PAGE 1 9-21 OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.3604/AHD/2007. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE OLD RECORDS AND ACCEPTED BONA FIDE CALCULATIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO ALSO WENT MERELY B Y DEMAT ACCOUNT AS STATED BY HIM IN PARA-6 OF THE AO, THAT WHATEVER WAS CALCU LATED BY THE AO ALSO WAS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE SEEMS TOTALLY BONA FIDE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID FURTHER LITIG ATION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS OF A VERY RIPE AGE OF 80 YEARS, THE CALCULATION MADE WAS ACCEPTED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IS A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION AND ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION IS BONA FI DE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALT Y LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 12. THE NEXT ISSUE AS REGARDS TO CONCEALMENT IN ITA NO.800/AHD/2010 AS REGARDS TO LEVY OF PENALTY ON CAPITAL GAINS ASSUMED FOR SALE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT. ITA NO.3601-3605/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 MANOJ R SHETH HUF, DEEPAK R SHETH & SAPNA D SHETH V. ITO WD-2(1) SRT PAGE 8 13. AT THE OUTSET IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT WE HAV E ALREADY DELETED ADDITION ON LTCG MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). SINCE THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE SURVIVED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME . 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO.3601-3603/AHD/2007 & 3605/AHD/2007 ARE DISMISSED IN ITA NO.3604/AHD/2007 IS PARTLY ALL OWED AND IN ITA NO.799-803/AHD/2010 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 17 TH SEPT,2010 SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 17/09/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- II, SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD