M/s. Prakash Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The Addl.CIT.,Range-4, Baroda

ITA 4164/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6435 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D' BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2004-05) M/S PRAKASH CHEMICALS P. LTD., INDUCHACHA HOUSE, OPP. CHHANI NAKA, BARODA V/S ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4, BARODA PAN: AABCP 1987 H [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M K PATEL, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI B L YADAV, DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 22-10-2008 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III, BAROD A,FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS:- [1] THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.3,00,000/- U/S 271D OF THE ACT. [2] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL . 2 FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 ,BARODA NOTICED FROM THE CASH DAY BOOK DATED 30-01-2004 THA T THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED LOAN/DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,00,000/- IN CASH I.E. OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT P AYEE DRAFT FROM M/S STATIONARY & PAPER MART IN VIOLATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 271D OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE-4, BARODA, THE ASSESSEE R EPLIED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY W AY OF ADVANCE AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY AS PER AGREEMENT EXECU TED ON 30.1.2004. SINCE THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS ACT OR DEFA ULT, NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, T HE ADDITIONAL 2 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 2 CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT DID NOT MENTION THE CIRCU MSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COMPANY ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,00 0/- IN CASH NOR IT CONTAINED ANY DETAILS OF THE ADVANCE PAID/PA YABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADDL. CIT, PENALTY OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT. 3 ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RECEIP T OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS NOT DEPOSIT OR LOAN. SINCE THE AM OUNT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JA GVIJAY AUTO FINANCE P. LTD. VS. CIT 52 ITD 504, THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS WERE NOT ATTRACTED. HOW EVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSE AND UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNS EL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS R ECEIVED CASH OF RS.3.00 LACS FROM STATIONERY AND PAPER MART. HOWEVER THE AP PELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS RECEIVED AGAINST A BANAKHAT TO SALE THE OF FICE PREMISES AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS R.W.S 271D W ILL NOT APPLY. THE ADDL. CIT WHILE LEVYING PENALTY HELD THAT ARGUMENTS PUT F ORTH BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND HENCE, THE PENALTY WAS LE VIABLE. TO CLAIM THE TRANSACTION OF RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS.3 LACS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 269SS THE APPELLANT PREPARED A BANAKHAT (AGREEMENT TO SALE). THE SAID AGREEMENT IS DATED 30-1-2004. IT IS ON STA MP PAPER OF RS.100/- PURCHASED ON 31-3-2003 AND NOT NOTARIZED. THIS AGRE EMENT MENTIONS THAT IF BY 15-2-2004 IF THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE T HE AGREEMENT TO SALE WILL BE CANCELLED AUTOMATICALLY. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF TH E AGREEMENT IS THAT NO PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THE CASH RECEIVED WAS RETURNE D IMMEDIATELY AFTER 15-2-2004. ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANT AND LENDER WAS NOT TO SALE OR BUY PROPERTY BUT TO G IVE THE CASH LOAN TRANSACTION A COLOUR OF SALE TO GET OUT OF RIGORS O F SECTION 269SS. THIS CONCLUSION IS REACHED IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACT S:- (I) THE APPELLANT USED THE STAMP WHEREAS THE BANAKH AT IS DATED 30-1- 2004. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS BANAKHAT WAS PRE PARED SUBSEQUENTLY BY USING OLD STAMP PAPER KEPT BY THE S AID PARTY TO GIVE THE CASH LOAN TRANSACTIONS A COLOUR OF SALES. 3 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 3 (II) THE BANAKHAT IS NOT NOTARIZED WHICH ALSO PROVE S THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT IS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY. (III) AGAINST THE BANAKHAT, 20% OF THE PROPERTY VAL UE IS NORMALLY NOT GIVEN. ONLY TOKEN IS GIVEN. (IV) THE PROPERTY IS NOT TRANSFERRED SINCE THEN TIL L TODAY WHICH SHOWS THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. (V) THE BANAKHAT IS NOT ACTED UPON AND NO REMAINING PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED (VI) THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT OLD STAMP PAPER TO PRO VE THAT THE APPELLANT ACTUALLY RECEIVED CASH AGAINST THE BANAKHAT, BECAUS E NO DOCUMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE PROVES CONTEMPORARINESS OF TH E TRANSACTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRE PARATION OF BANAKHAT ON OLD STAMP PAPER IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IS FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. IN FACT, TO A VOID THE PENALTY U/S 271D, SUCH TACTIC IS USED BY THE APPELLANT EVEN WITHOUT T HERE ANY SALE OF PROPERTY OR EVEN INTENTION TO SELL THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THAT THE TRANSACT ION IS OF CASH LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY. EVEN IF THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS ADVANCE, THE CASH RECEIVED IS COVERED IN THAT CATEGORY OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. TILL SUCH TIME NO S UCH PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED, THE MONEY RECEIVED IS DEPOSIT OR ADVAN CE LIABLE TO BE REPAID. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH REFERRED BY T HE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS LIABLE TO B E RETURNED IF THE SALE IS NOT COMPLETED. SINCE THE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES REFERRED ABOVE ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTA NCE IN THE TRANSACTIONS, THOUGH THE FORM WAS CREATED BY PREPAR ING A BANAKHAT. SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANY TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN THE FORM. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED CASH DE POSITS/LOANS FOR WHICH IT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 'ID. THE SAME IS LEVIED B Y THE ADDL. CIT, WHICH IS CONFIRMED. 4 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE-4 OF AGREEMENT DATED 30-01-2004, CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S STATIONARY PAPER & MART IN CASH TOWARDS ADVANCE AGA INST SALE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE SALE DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE 4 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 4 AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED. THE LEARNED AR ADDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADJUSTED IN A RUNNING ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS OF THE ACT, WHI CH READ AS UNDER: ' NO PERSON SHALL, AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984 , TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION RE FERRED TO AS THE DEPOSITOR), ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY A N ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF,- (A) THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGRE GATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT; OR (B) ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REPAYMENT HA S FALLEN DUE OR NOT), THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID; OR (C) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT RE FERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), IS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE: .. EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, (III) 'LOAN OR DEPOSIT' MEANS LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MO NEY.' 5.1 THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS SAY TH AT IF THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS ACCEPTED OTHERWISE TH AN BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, THERE IS A VIOL ATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE L D. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 3 LACS IN CASH IS NOTHING BUT LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PRO PERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ONLY THE FORM WAS CREATED BY P REPARING A BANAKHAT AND THAT SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANY TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN THE FORM ONLY . HOWEVER, T HERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE ATTACHE D WITH CERTAIN 5 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 5 CONDITIONS OR STIPULATION AS TO PERIOD OF REPAYMENT , RATE OF INTEREST, MANNER OF REPAYMENT, ETC. SO AS TO TREAT THE SAID T RANSACTIONS AS LOANS OR DEPOSITS. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFO RE US ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ACTUA LLY IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR DEPOSIT NOR THE LD. CIT(A) RECORDED HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THIS ASPECT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE PLEADED.SO. S INCE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTION I S IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, APPARENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE MEANING OF 'DEPOSIT ' AND ' LOAN ' H AS BEEN EXPLAINED ON PAGE 8454 OF THE CHATURVEDI AND PITHISARIA'S IN COME-TAX LAW. FIFTH EDITION, VOLUME 5, AS UNDER: ' 'DEPOSIT' AND 'LOAN'- THESE TWO ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN MEANING. - IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH IN THE CASE OF A LOAN AND IN THE CAS E OF A DEPOSIT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP OF A DEBTOR AND A CREDITOR BETWEE N THE PARTY GIVING MONEY AND THE PARTY RECEIVING MONEY. BUT IN THE CAS E OF A DEPOSIT, THE DELIVERY OF MONEY IS USUALLY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GIVER AND IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON WHO DEPOSITS THE MONE Y - THE BENEFIT NORMALLY BEING EARNING OF INTEREST FROM A PARTY WHO CUSTOMARILY ACCEPTS DEPOSITS. DEPOSITS COULD ALSO BE FOR SAFE-K EEPING OR AS A SECURITY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEVER, IT IS TH E BORROWER AT WHOSE INSTANCE AND FOR WHOSE NEEDS THE MONEY IS ADVANCED. THE BORROWING IS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BORRO WER ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO LENDS THE MONEY MAY ALSO STAND TO GAIN T HEREBY BY EARNING INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT LENT. ORDINARILY, TH OUGH NOT ALWAYS, IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT, IT IS THE DEPOSITOR WHO IS T HE PRIME MOVER WHILE IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, IT IS THE BORROWER WHO IS THE PRIME MOVER. THE OTHER AND MORE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED. IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT WHICH IS PAYABLE ON DEMAND, THE DEPOSIT WOULD BECOM E PAYABLE WHEN A DEMAND IS MADE. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEV ER, THE OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE AMOUNT ARISES IMMEDIATELY O N RECEIPT OF THE LOAN. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN CASE OF DEPOSITS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERIOD OR LOANS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERIOD, THE P OINT OF REPAYMENT MAY ARISE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. BUT BY AND LARGE, THE TRANSACTION OF A LOAN AND THE TRANSACTION OF MAKING A DEPOSIT ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL. ' 5.11 IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISTINCTION BETWEE N LOAN AND DEPOSIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION IS I N THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS O F SEC. 269SS ARE 6 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 6 NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS F ORTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS IN MUTHOOT M. GEORGE BANKERS V. ASSTT. CI T [1993] 146 ITD 10 (COCHIN), ITO V. RAJENDRA TRADING CO. [1993] 48 ITD 210 AND DECCAN FARMS & DISTILLERIES LTD. V. VELABAI LAXMIDA S BHANJI [1979] 49 COMP. CAS. 321 (BOM.). 5.2. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS WERE BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE BOOK TO COUNTER THE EVA SION OF TAX IN CERTAIN CASES, AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE HEADING OF CHAPTER XXB OF THE ACT WHICH READS 'REQUIREMENT AS TO MODE OF ACCEPTAN CE, PAYMENT OR REPAYMENT IN CERTAIN CASES TO COUNTERACT EVASION OF TAX'. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION IN BRIN GING SECTIONS 269SS & 269T IN THE ACT WAS TO AVOID CERTAIN CIRCUM STANCES OF TAX EVASION, WHEREBY HUGE TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY WAY OF CASH. AS FAR AS THIS APPEAL BEFOR E US IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE TRANSACTION HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN CIT V. SAINI MEDICAL STORE [2005] 277 IT R 420,HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT BONA FIDES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD CONSTITUTE A ' REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271D OF THE ACT. HONBLE HIGH COURT INTER ALIA, HELD AS UNDER: 'AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN IF, THE RE IS ANY IGNORANCE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INFRACTION OF LAW, THE DEFAULT IS TECHNICAL AND VENIAL WHICH DID NOT PREJUDICE THE IN TERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR TAX EVASION WAS INVO LVED. TO MY MIND, BONA FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE UNDE R SECTION 273B FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY IS CANCELLED. 5.21 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO NOTHING TO S UGGEST THAT THE BONAFIDE OR GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN DO UBTED BY THE 7 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 7 AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT, INTERPRETING THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE REV ENUE UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT IN ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPEC TION (INVESTIGATION) V. KUM. A.B. SHANTHI [2002] 255 ITR 258, HELD THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET A LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND D RAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASON, THE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH THE POW ER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETION NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND IN THE L IGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, BOTH IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS, WE FIND THAT IMPO SITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 D OF THE ACT WAS NOT IN ORDER A ND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CANCEL TH E PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, T HIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 17 -06-2011 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17-06-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S PRAKASH CHEMICALS P. LTD., INDUCHACHA HOUSE, OPP. CHHANI NAKA, BARODA 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -4, 8 ITA NO.4164/AHD/2008 8 BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-III, BARODA 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-D, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD