Shri Tarun K.Mody, Valsad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-4, Valsad

ITA 3609/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6034 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R M UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 133A; 147; 131; 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING:9.06.10 DRAFTED ON:9.06.10 ITA NO.3606/AHD/2007, 3607/AHD/2007, 3608/AHD/2007 & 3609/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI TARUN K. MODY PROP. OF BHARUCHA CORPORATION, C/O. GANESH HALL & DECORATORS, NANI MAHETWAD, VALSAD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, DHARAMPUR ROAD, VALSAD. PAN/GIR NO. : ABGPM 6228 B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.M.UPADHYAY A.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ANIL KUMAR D.R. O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL S)-VALSAD, ALL DATED 19.06.2007. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER:- 1. LD. CIT(APPEALS) VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. U/S.147 OF THE ACT W ITHOUT COMPLYING PREREQUISITE OF THE REOPENING. 2. LD. CIT(APPEALS) VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN PASSING ORDER U/S . 147 - 2 - R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY LAPS ES ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. 3. LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO DISALL OW 20% OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TOTAL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 53,806 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, RS.23,630/- FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03, RS.20,270/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, RS.17,240/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WITHOUT POI NTING OUT THE SAME BEING PERSONAL OR FOR NON-BUSINESS PUR POSES AND WHEN HE IS ESTIMATING INCOME AT RS.1,21,266/- F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, RS.1,88,061/- FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03, RS.88,500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, RS.88,497/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. LD. CIT(APPEALS), VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE SAID ADDITION. 4. LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT SIMP LY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANTS SON , UNDER PRESSURE, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. LD. CIT(APPE ALS) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING SUCH ASSESSMENT . 3. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 READS AS UNDER:- 4. LD. A. O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO ADD SECURITY IN GNST FOR RS.5,00,000/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. LD. CIT(A) VALSAD HAS A LSO ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 4. IN GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. A SURVEY UNDER SECT ION 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 3.01.2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 3.01.2006, THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT HE HAS CONSTRUCTED FOUR PROJECTS VIZ. BIMAL COMPLEX, BHARU CHA COMPLEX, SIDDHI VINAYAK A AND B AND TRILOKNATH COMPLEX. TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDE D AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUNBHAI MODY AND FROM THE STATE MENT OF HIS PARTNERS - 3 - HIS SIVPAL J. MISTRI THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SHOPS A ND FLATS IN HIS NAME WHICH ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT IN THE CASE OF TRILOKNATH COMPLEX WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS A PAR TNERS RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED FOR LAST FIVE YEARS ALTHOUGH T HEY ARE SELLING FLATS AND SHOPS YEAR AFTER YEAR AS PER THE INFORMATION GATHER ED ORALLY. FURTHER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S.ANUKUL BUILDERS, VALSAD WH ICH HAS CONSTRUCTED AN APARTMENT IN THE NAME OF CITY PALACE APARTMENT, VALASAD AND NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY M/S.ANUKUL BUILDERS. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONS IDERATION BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS. REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT . REGARDING SHRI TARUN K. MODY AY :2004-05 HALAR ROAD, VALSAD. SARDABEN K. MODY HALAR ROAD, SURAT. IN THIS CASE, SURVEY ACTION U/S, 133A OF THE ACT WA S CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES AT GANESH HALL , NEAR KASTURBA HOSPITAL, VALSAD ON 3.1.2006. SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED U/ S. 131(3) OF THE ACT. IN HIS STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE ACT DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ON 3.1.2006, IT IS STATED THA T HE HAS CONSTRUCTED FOUR PROJECTS VIZ. BIMAL COMPLEX, BHARU CHA COMPLEX, SIDDHI VINAYAK-A & B AND TRILOKNATH COMPLE X. IT IS FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED U/S.131, A ND ALSO FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUNBHAT MODI AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF HIS PARTNER SHRI SHIVPAL J. MISTRY THA T THERE ARE - 4 - SEVERAL SHOPS AND FLATS IN HIS NAME WHICH ARE NOT A CCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE CASE OF TRILOKNATH COMPLEX, IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER, THE RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN FILED FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS ALTHOUGH THEY ARE SELLING FLATS AND SHOPS Y EAR AFTER YEAR. THERE IS ALSO OPEN SALEABLE LAND IN THE NAME OF TRILOKNATH COMPLEX. STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF SHRI DHANSUKHBHAI GARAGEWALA AND ALSO OF SHRI JAGDISHBHA I POONAMJI SANDESHA WERE RECORDED WHEREIN THEY HAVE S TATED THAT THEY PURCHASED SHOPS FROM SHRI TARUNBHAI MODY IN CASH. HOWEVER, BEING A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM , SHRI TARUNBHAL HAS NOT SHOWN THESE RECEIPTS OR INCOME TH EREON ANYWHERE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL FIATS IN CITY PALACE APARTMENT, JAWAHAR SOCIETY, HALAR ROAD EITHER IN HI S NAME OR IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM M/S. ANUKUL BUILDERS, VA LSAD IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. M/S.ANUKUL BUILDERS HAVE CON STRUCTED THE BUILDING CITY PALACE APARTMENT AND THE FIATS AR E BEING SOLD BY THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICAT ION OF RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT NO RETURNS ARE BEING FILED IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANUKUL BUILDERS. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO THE EXTENT OF THE INVESTMENT M ADE IN THE LAND AND BUILDING, FLATS AND SHOPS EITHER IN HIS NA ME OR IN THE NAME OF SOMEBODY ELSE WHOSE OWNERSHIP APPEARS T O BE OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND I PROPOSE TO ASSESS/REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. SUBMITTED TO THE ADDL. C.I.T., V.R., VALSAD FOR APPROVAL. 6. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND MA DE ADDITION OF RS.53,806/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, RS.23,630/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, RS.20,270/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 AND RS.17,240/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF 20% OUT OF - 5 - EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE REOPENING WAS DONE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PREREQUISITES OF THE REOPENING. THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) JUSTIFIED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSM ENT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SU PREME COURT IN RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 236 I TR 34 (SC) OBSERVING THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IN D ETERMINING WHETHER REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID, IT HAS ONLY TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DEP ARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DIS TINGUISHED HOW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE TYPICAL FACTS THAT CERTAIN I NCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ACTION CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING TWO PRELIMINARY GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. LD. CIT(APPEALS) VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. U/S.147 OF THE ACT W ITHOUT COMPLYING PREREQUISITE OF THE REOPENING. 2. LD. CIT(APPEALS) VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN PASSING ORDER U/S . 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY LAPS ES ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. - 6 - 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING WAS MADE ON INCORRECT FACTS BY T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REASONS OF REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT M/S.T RILOKNATH COMPLEX WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERS HAS NOT FILED RETU RN OF INCOME FOR LAST 5 YEARS WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS REGULARLY FILED BY THE FIRM AND ASSESSED BY THE SAME OFFICER. REGARDIN G ANUKUL BUILDERS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FIRM AND ANY INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAGAR ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (GUJ) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED ON THE GROUND OF FACTUALLY INCORRECT BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED EVEN ON THE BASIS OF ALTERNATIVE REASON S INCE IT COULD NOT BE SAID WITH CERTAINTY AS TO WHICH FACTOR WEIGHED WITH THE CONCERNED OFFICER WHEN HE ISSUED THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AND WHEN THE RES PONDENT-AUTHORITY WAS HIMSELF UNSURE AS TO THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME WHICH IS STATED TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BY FILING THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES. IT IS THE DU TY OF ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DETAILS ASKED BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR S TANDARD PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS A RE TO BE COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AND NOT REITERATION OF SUBMIS SIONS. - 7 - 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 3.02.2006. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SAM E AND THE SAME WERE AS UNDER:- REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT . REGARDING SHRI TARUN K. MODY AY :2004-05 HALAR ROAD, VALSAD. SARDABEN K. MODY HALAR ROAD, SURAT. IN THIS CASE, SURVEY ACTION U/S, 133A OF THE ACT WA S CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES AT GANESH HALL , NEAR KASTURBA HOSPITAL, VALSAD ON 3.1.2006. SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED U/ S. 131(3) OF THE ACT. IN HIS STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE ACT DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ON 3.1.2006, IT IS STATED THA T HE HAS CONSTRUCTED FOUR PROJECTS VIZ. BIMAL COMPLEX, BHARU CHA COMPLEX, SIDDHI VINAYAK-A & B AND TRILOKNATH COMPLE X. IT IS FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED U/S.131, A ND ALSO FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUNBHAT MODI AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF HIS PARTNER SHRI SHIVPAL J. MISTRY THA T THERE ARE SEVERAL SHOPS AND FLATS IN HIS NAME WHICH ARE NOT A CCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE CASE OF TRILOKNATH COMPLEX, IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER, THE RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN FILED FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS ALTHOUGH THEY ARE SELLING FLATS AND SHOPS Y EAR AFTER YEAR. THERE IS ALSO OPEN SALEABLE LAND IN THE NAME OF TRILOKNATH COMPLEX. STATEMENTS U/S 131 OF SHRI DHANSUKHBHAI GARAGEWALA AND ALSO OF SHRI JAGDISHBHA I POONAMJI SANDESHA WERE RECORDED WHEREIN THEY HAVE S TATED THAT THEY PURCHASED SHOPS FROM SHRI TARUNBHAI MODY IN CASH. HOWEVER, BEING A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM , SHRI - 8 - TARUNBHAL HAS NOT SHOWN THESE RECEIPTS OR INCOME TH EREON ANYWHERE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL FIATS IN CITY PALACE APARTMENT, JAWAHAR SOCIETY, HALAR ROAD EITHER IN HI S NAME OR IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM M/S. ANUKUL BUILDERS, VA LSAD IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. M/S.ANUKUL BUILDERS HAVE CON STRUCTED THE BUILDING CITY PALACE APARTMENT AND THE FIATS AR E BEING SOLD BY THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICAT ION OF RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT NO RETURNS ARE BEING FILED IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANUKUL BUILDERS. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO THE EXTENT OF THE INVESTMENT M ADE IN THE LAND AND BUILDING, FLATS AND SHOPS EITHER IN HIS NA ME OR IN THE NAME OF SOMEBODY ELSE WHOSE OWNERSHIP APPEARS T O BE OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND I PROPOSE TO ASSESS/REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. SUBMITTED TO THE ADDL. C.I.T., V.R., VALSAD FOR APPROVAL. VALSAD (MATHEW THOMAS K) DT.3.02.2006 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, VALSAD 12. A PERUSAL OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED B Y THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE I N RESPECT OF THE ISSUE WHICH WAS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ONLY AFTER DISALLOW ING 20% OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES WHICH WERE ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR WANT OF EVIDENCES. APART FROM MAKING THE ADDITI ON BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCES OUT OF DISCLOSED EXPENSES THE ONLY O THER ADDITION MADE IN RE-ASSESSMENT WAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 W HICH WAS RS.5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH GENEXT POWER IN DIA LTD., FOR OBTAINING AGENCY BUSINESS. WE THUS, FIND THAT IN THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED, NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED HIS REASONS TO BELIEVE A BOUT INCOME ESCAPING - 9 - ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONS IDERED OPINION, THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT VALID AND BAD I N LAW. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 READS AS UNDER:- IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 148 TO 153, A SSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION,. THUS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASSESS OTHER INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS NOTIC ED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT ONLY ALONG WITH THE INCO ME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH REASON TO BELIEVE WAS FORMED AND RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIN DS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI RAM SINGH (2008 ) 306 ITR 343 (RAJ). WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT FRA MED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 29.12.2006 IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIONS. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. . 13. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION IN RESPECT OF GRO UND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, ACADEMIC IN NATURE REQUIRING NO ADJUDICATION BY US. ACCORDINGLY, ALL ARE DISMISSED. - 10 - ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N .S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 PARAS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VALSAD. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09.06.2010 --------------- ---- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 10.06.2010 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 10.06.2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 10.06.2010 --------- ---------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 10.06.2010 --------- ----------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 11.06.2010 ---------- ---------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.06.2010 ------- ------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- ------------------