Shri Navin K.Modi, Mehsana V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Mehsana

ITA 3838/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9359 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(1); 143(2); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: AHMEDABAD BEN CHES C BENCH: AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI R.V. EASWAR, VP AND A N PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO. 3838/AHD/2008 A Y: 2006-07 SHRI NAVIN K. MODI,10, SAKET SOCIETY,NEAR RAILWAY STATION, VADNAGAR, [PAN: ABOPM 4998A ] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4,MEHSANA APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.N DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY SMT. NEETA SHAH, DR ORDER A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DAT ED 11-08-2008 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, RAIS ES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING RS.74,500 /- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING RS.5 0932/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING RS.6 7630/- BEING THE DEPRECIATING ON OFFICE. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE RESPE CTIVE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THE Y FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPL ANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIM E TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LE VY OF INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C. 6. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE IN ITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT WITH OUT THERE ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 2 BEING ANY SATISFACTION RECODED BY THE LD. AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, E DIT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT BADNAG AR WAS CLOSED, THE ASSESSEE HAVING SHIFTED TO AHMEDABAD, THERE WAS DELAY OF ELEVEN[NOT FIVE] DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS MAY BE CONDONED. ON T HE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FIL ING THESE APPEALS. 2.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPLICATION DATED 18.11.2008. IN THE CASE OF COLLEC TOR, LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIJI [1987] 167 ITR 471 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED POWER TO CONDONE DELAY BY ENACTING SE CTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBS TANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SUF FICIENT CAUSE IN SECTION 5 IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY TH E LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE - THAT BEING TH E LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. A JUSTIFIABLY LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED ON PRINCIPLE. EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DO ES NOT IMPLY A PEDANTIC APPROACH. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONA L, COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECH NICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. IN THE LIGH T OF AFORESAID DECISION OF APEX COURT AND REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF ELEVEN DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 3 3. NOW ADVERTING TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEA L, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOM E OF RS.4,44,371/- FILED ON 29- 3-2007 BY THE ASSESSEE, AN INSURANCE AGENT, AFTER B EING PROCESSED ON 31-3- 2007 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 17-4- 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM THE FOLLOWING FOUR PERSONS: (IN RS.) 1. SHRI NILESH M. PATEL 19,500 2. SHRI KAUSHALYA K. MODI 19,000 3. SHRI KETAN P. THAKOR 18,000 4. SHRI SWAPNIL C. PATEL 18,000 74,500 IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESAID PERSONS AS ALSO PRODUCE THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PR ODUCE THE AFORESAID PERSONS NOR FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGA RDING SOURCE OF EARNINGS OF THE AFORESAID PERSONS OR COPY OF THEIR BANK STAT EMENT, THEIR INCOME TAX DETAILS; INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THEIR AFFIDAV ITS CONFIRMING THE LOAN GIVEN BY THEM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE AFORES AID PERSONS NOR FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IDENTITY AND CRE DITWORTHINESS NOR EVEN ESTABLISHED GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 74,500/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THOUGH TH E LOANS WERE OBTAINED IN CASH FROM THE AFORESAID PERSONS, SUBSEQUENTLY TH ESE HAVE BEEN REPAID BY CHEQUES DATED 6-5-2008 DRAWN ON CENTRAL BANK OF IND IA. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION IN FOLLOWING TERMS. 2.3 THE MATTER HAS BEEN GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION. `ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS (COPIES ONLY) BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEES ONUS WOULD NOT ST AND DISCHARGED ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 4 BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED THE APPELLA NT TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS, TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS, HE WAS DUTY B OUND TO DO SO. FILING OF AFFIDAVITS THEMSELVES WILL NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER GETS A C HANCE TO EXAMINE THE PERSON DEPOSING IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND TO SCRUTINIZE THE DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH THE DEPOSITION HAS BEEN MADE. S IMILARLY, THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN REPAID BY CHEQUE AL SO DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE INITIAL TRANSACTION. B EFORE ME ALSO THERE WAS NO DETAIL OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OR TH E INCOME-TAX DETAILS. THEREFORE, ON THE WHOLE, I THINK THAT THE CREDITS REMAINED UNPROVED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.74,500/- IS JUS TIFIED AND IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORES AID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED FRESH OP PORTUNITY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AFOR ESAID DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, SINCE THE ISSUES R AISED IN OTHER TWO GROUNDS NEED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH PARA 2.1.1 & 2.3 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR ON THE GROUND THAT DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY ALLOWED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE A FORESAID DEPOSITORS NOR ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ME RE FILING COPIES OF AFFIDAVIT IS NOT EVIDENCE. SINCE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS WERE NEVER CORROBORATED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) NOR EVEN AT THIS S TAGE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE AO OR LD. CIT(A), THE L D. DR ADDED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, FACTS ON RECORD REVEAL THAT EXCEPT FI LING COPY OF AFFIDAVITS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING EITHER IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITORS NOR ES TABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE CONTE NTS OF AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT EVIDENCE UNLESS CORROBORATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT THEREOF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING EITHER IDENTITY AND ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 5 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITORS OR EVE N THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCH ARGE INITIAL ONUS LAID DOWN UPON HIM. EVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), APART FRO M STATING THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN REPAID BY CHEQUES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOTHIN G FURTHER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN NEITHER BEFORE THE A O AND THE LD. CIT(A) NOR EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE PLACED ANY MATERIAL EV IDENCING IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITORS NOR ES TABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THUS, THERE IS NOTHING TO CONT ROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOL D HIS FINDINGS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 50,932/-PAID TO THE FOLLOWING SIX PARTIES: (IN RS.) 1. SHRI PRAVIN VYAS 2,356 2. SHRI RAJNIKANT SUTHAR 2,333 3. SHRI KHEMCHAND M. SUTHAR 2,319 4. SMT. TRUPTI VYAS 2,329 5. SHRI LAXMAN L. MISTRY 24,423 6. SMT. BHIKHIBENI L. MISTRY 17,17 2 TOTAL 50,932 THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED DEPOSITS FROM AFORESAID PERSO NS AT SR. NO.1 TO 4 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND FROM THE PERSONS AT SR. NO. 5 AND 6 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINCE THESE DEPOSITS WERE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED, ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN THE AFORESA ID TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS.ON APPEAL, THOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITI ON , THE ITAT, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO VIDE THEIR ORDERS DATED 29.7.2005 IN ITA NO.1033/AHD/2005 FOR THE AY 2002-03 AND ORDER DATED 5.11.2007 IN ITA NO. 3203/AHD/2007 FOR THE AY 2004-05 . THE CONSEQUENTIA L ORDERS DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO.SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED INTEREST ON THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE AY 2002-03 HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND THE AO HAD ADDED THE DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE AY 2004-05, T HE AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST PAID ON THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.3.2008. ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 6 8. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE MATTER RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ,THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS SUBJECT TO OUTCOME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT FOR THE AYS 2002-03 AND 2004-05. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REFERRING TO THE DIREC TIONS OF THE ITAT IN THEIR ORDERS AY 2002-03 AND 2004-05 PLEADED THAT THE MATTER SHOU LD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OPPOSE THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR . 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE NAME OF AFORESAID SIX PERSONS HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE ITAT VIDE THEIR AFORESAID ORDE RS TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE AY 2002-03 AND 2004-05, CONSEQUENTLY THE ISSUE OF D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE SAID DEPOSITS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE VACAT E THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE AO WITH THE DIRE CTIONS TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN THE AY 2002-03 AND 2004-05 IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 67,630/- ON OFFICE PREMISES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON TWO PREMISES[RS.67,630+67,7 50]. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM DEPRECIATION WITH ANY EVIDENCE, THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON ONE OFFICE PREMISES AND DISALLOWED RS.67,630/- IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER OFFICE PREMISES. ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 7 12. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ITAT VIDE THEIR AFORESAID ORDER DATED 29.7.2005 HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELYING UPON HIS OWN FINDINGS FOR AY 2002-03 UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION FOR THE OTHER OFFICE P REMISES SUBJECT TO OUTCOME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E ITAT FOR THE AY 2002-03 . 13. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REFE RRING TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT FOR THE AY 2002-03 PLEADED THAT THE MATTER SHO ULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OPPOSE THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR . 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE OFFICE PREMI SES IN THE AY 2002-03 HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE ITAT VID E THEIR AFORESAID ORDER DATED 29.7.2005, CONSEQUENTLY THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTO RE THE MATTER TO THE FILE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LI GHT OF HIS FINDINGS IN THE AY 2002- 03 IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT. WITH THESE D IRECTIONS, GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. 15. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT M AKE ANY SUBMISSIONS ON THIS GROUND. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234B & 234C OF THE ACT , BEING MANDATORY [COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.VS ANJUM M. H. GHASWALA AND OTHERS,252 ITR 1(SC)] AND NO INFIRMITY HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT IN ITS LEVY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE AO SHALL ALLOW CONSEQUENTIA L RELIEF , WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 16. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO INITIATION OF PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SINCE NO APPEAL IS PROVIDED AGAINST MERE INITI ATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.3838/AHD/2008 NAVIN K. MODI 8 WHILE NO SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AR O N THIS GROUND, ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 6 IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO. 4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE ,DOES N OT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEE N RAISED IN TERMS OF THE RESIDUARY GROUND , ACCORDINGLY, THESE TWO GROUNDS A RE ALSO DISMISSED . 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21S T AUGUST,2009 SD/- SD/- (R. V. EASWAR) (A.N. PAHUJA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 21ST AUGUST,2009 LAKSHMIKANT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4,MEHSANA 3. CIT(A) ,GANDHINAGAR 4. THE CIT CONCERNED 5. THE D.R. ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DR / AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD