Leo Formulation Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 481/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67660 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2442/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] AND ITA NO.481/AHD/2013 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. 604, SEARS TOWERS GULBHAI TEKRA AHMEDABAD 380 006. PAN : AACL 9728 P /VS. ITO, WARD-4(3) AHMEDABAD. ITA NO.2837/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] AND ITA NO.765/AHD/2013 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] ITO, WARD-4(3) AHMEDABAD. /VS. LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. 604, SEARS TOWERS GULBHAI TEKRA AHMEDABAD 380 006. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID, SR.DR 4& 1 2 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA 5 1 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH AUGUST, 2013 678 1 &(*/ : 5.9.2013 LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -2- DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT : THESE ARE CROSS- APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2008-2009 AND 2007-2008 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE C IT(A). THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. ITA.NO.481/AHD/2013 (ASSTT.YEAR 2008-2009) (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ARE AS UNDER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 20-12-2012 FOR A.Y.2008-09 BY CIT(A)-VIII, ABAD IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXP LANATIONS FURNISHED AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UP HELD THE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN EXTRA CONSUMPTION AND SUPPR ESSED THE PRODUCTION AND SALE BY 10%. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UP HELD THE LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -3- EXTRA CONSUMPTION AND SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN ESTIMATI NG THE UNACCOUNTED SALE AT 10% OF BOOK SALES AND THEREBY DETERMINING INCOME AT 36% OF THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTE D CONSUMPTION. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHEL D THE ADDITIONS OF 36% OF THE IMPUGNED 10% CONSUMPTION. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE AO, AS THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO TAX AUDIT , AND ALSO STRICT VERIFICATION AND SUPERVISION UNDER CENTRAL EXCISE A ND DRUG CONTROL AUTHORITIES, WHO HAVE NOT FOUND ANY DISCREP ANCY THEREIN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATE OF THE CIT(A) OF EXT RA CONSUMPTION AT 10% AS AGAINST 25% TAKEN BY THE AO I S UNREALISTIC AND ON THE HIGHER SIDE. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE GP RATE CONSIDERED AT 36% OF THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION IS ALSO ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED SUBMISSIONS OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT A NUM BER OF DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE SAME, AND THEREFOR E, THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION WAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED AT 25% BY THE AO FOR THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, AND SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES ON PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBITED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND THEREFORE, 100% OF TH E UNACCOUNTED SALES SHOULD BE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND NOT MERELY THE AVERAGE GP AT 36% OF SUCH EXTRA CONS UMPTION LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -4- SHOULD BE ADDED, AS DONE BY THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN T HIS CASE, AND SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY, AND ALSO THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF DEFECTS IN ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND T HEREFORE, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE DEPAR TMENT. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE DISCREPANCIES COULD NO T BE RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AFTER GIVING SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO, AND THEREFORE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE CORRECT AND COMPLETE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, AND REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. 6. OTHER ISSUE OF ESTIMATING OF EXTRA CONSUMPTION A T 10% BY THE CIT(A) AS AGAINST 25% TAKEN BY THE AO, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE. HE HAS ESTIMATED EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 10% IN VIEW O F THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVIDENCE PRODU CED AND ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE EXPLANA TION ABOUT THE LOSS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE IN TOTO BECAUSE IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE MONOGRAPH ISSUED BY INDIAN PHARAMA COPIA. HE HAS ESTIMATED THE EXTRA CONSUMPT ION AT 10% AS AGAINST 25% TAKEN BY THE AO WHICH IS NEARLY THE AVERAGE OF LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -5- THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION WORKED OUT BY BOTH THE PARTIE S. THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ON THI S ISSUE OF ESTIMATING THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 10%, WHICH SEEM S TO BE MORE REASONABLE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. 7. THIRD ISSUE OF ESTIMATING OF GP AT 36% ON SUCH E XTRA CONSUMPTION, WE FIND THAT THE APPROACH OF THE CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE GP RATE OF 35.10% FOR THIS YEAR AND HAD DISCLOSED GP A T 38.51% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE PLEA OF THE L EARNED DR THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES ON PURCHASE OF RAW-MATERIAL HAV E ALREADY BEEN DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND HENCE 10 0% OF THE UNACCOUNTED SALES SHOULD BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING T HAT THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME HAS TO BE RIGHTLY RATIONAL AS WE LL AS BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND THAT THE ENTIRE SALES OR PR OCESSING CHARGES CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, UNLE SS THERE IS ANY MATERIAL TO COME TO SUCH CONCLUSION. HE HAS CITED DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES, 258 ITR 654 (GUJ) AND CIT VS. GURUBACHAN SINGH JUNEJA, 302 ITR 63 (GUJ) IN SUPPOR T OF THE CONCLUSION OF APPLYING THE GP RATE ON THE EXTRA CON SUMPTION. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT ELEMENT OUT OF EXTRA CONSUMPT ION, AND NOT ADDING THE ENTIRE SALES AS WELL AS EXTRA-CONSUMPTIO N AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -6- ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION IS PARTLY UPHELD O N ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABI LITIES, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ELEMENT AT 36% OF SUC H EXTRA CONSUMPTION IS FAIR AND REASONABLE, IS UPHELD AND T HE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. ITA NO.765/AHD/2013 ASSTT.YEAR 2008-2009 (REVENUES APPEAL). 9. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO WORK OUT THE EXTRA CONSUMPTIO N AT 10% AND ADOPT GP AT 36% OF SUCH EXTRA CONSUMPTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURING DRUGS ON LOAN AND LICENSE BASIS. IT H AD PURCHASED FINISHED GOODS FROM OPEN MARKET AND SOLD IT WITHOUT MAINTAINING ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. AS PE R COMPANIES ACT, MAINTENANCE OF RECORD OF RAW MATERIA LS IN TERMS OF QUANTITY IS COMPULSORY. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS DEFINED IN PART-II AND III OF SCHEDULE VI TO COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE COMPANIES W HO ARE IN THE TRADING ACTIVITY SHOULD MAINTAIN QUANTIT Y DETAILS OF GOODS TRADED. AFTER A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. H AD CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE GP AT 25% OF TURNOVER . 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE IN T HIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS INTER-LINKED WITH THE ISSUE IN THE G ROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 IN ITA NO.481/AHD/2013. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED WHIL E DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008- LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -7- 2009, IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 11. ITA NO.2442/AHD/2012 : ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 12. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ARE AS UNDER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 250 ON 24.9.2012 FOR A.Y .2007- 08 BY CIT(A)-VIII, ABAD IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UP HELD THE REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT. 3.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN EXTRA CONSUMPTION AND SUPPR ESSED THE PRODUCTION AND SALE BY 20%. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UP HELD THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION AND SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. 4.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN ESTIMATI NG THE UNACCOUNTED SALE AT 20% OF BOOK SALE AND THEREBY LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -8- DETERMINING INCOME AT 35% OF THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTE D CONSUMPTION. THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHEL D THE ADDITIONS OF 35% OF THE IMPUGNED 20% CONSUMPTION. 13. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEPARTMENT . BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SMENT FOR A.Y.2008-2009 IN ITA NO.481/AHD/2013 IN THE FOREGOI NG PARAS OF THIS ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W ERE RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 15. OTHER ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS R EGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 20% BY THE CIT(A ) AS AGAINST 40% BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE WORKING OF THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION MADE BY THE AO COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN TOTO BECAUSE IT SUFFERS FROM VARIOUS INFIRMITIES. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE CONSUMPTION IN CASE OF MANY ITEMS ON THE BASIS OF T HE FORMULA/INFORMATION GIVEN ON THE PACKING MATERIAL A ND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE O R EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM. HE HAS FURTHER RECORDED THAT IT I S ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES IN CASE OF WO RKING MADE IN SOME OF THE PRODUCTS, AND HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EXP LANATION ABOUT LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -9- THE AVERAGE/LOSS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BR USHED ASIDE BECAUSE THE MONOGRAPH ISSUED BY INDIAN PHARMA COPIA IS A MORE AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED A CHART SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE WHICH REMAINED UN-RE CONCILED EVEN AFTER THE FRESH WORKING MADE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES, LOSS, AVERAGE ETC. THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION REMAINED UN-REC ONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT AT 14.12% AS PER THE ANNEXE D CHART. IN THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE MO ST REASONABLE AND PROPER TO ESTIMATE THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 15% AS AGAINST 20% ESTIMATED BY THE CIT(A), AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED A CHART SHOWING EXTRA CONSUMPTION REMAINED UN-RECONCILED AT 14.12% AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, IN THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 15% AS AGAINST 20% DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A). 16. THE THIRD ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATE OF P ROFIT ELEMENT AT 38% ON THE GROUND OF EXTRA CONSUMPTION MADE BY T HE CIT(A) AS AGAINST WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF EXTRA CONSUMPTION ADDED BY THE AO. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2008-2009 IN ITA NO.481/AHD/2013. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OF THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSES SEES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2008-2009, IN ITA NO.481/AHD/2013 IN THE FOREGO ING PARAS OF THIS ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EX TRA CONSUMPTION LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -10- COULD NOT BE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE, AND THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT SHOWN COULD BE ADDED AS IN COME. THE CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE AVERAGE GP AT 35% AS FAIR AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF INCOME, CONSIDERING THE GP R ATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE OTHER YEARS. THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE AND HIS ESTIMATE OF GP AT 35% BEING MOST REASONABLE , THE SAME IS UPHELD, AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E, ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 18. ITA NO.2837/AHD/2012 : ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 (REVENUES APPEALS) 19. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RESTRICT EXTRA CONSUMPTION AT 2 0% AS AGAINST 40% TAKEN BY THE AO AND ADOPT GP AT 35% OF SUCH EXTRA CONSUMPTION AS AGAINST 40% ADOPTED BY THE AO EVEN WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNT U/S.145(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 20. THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS INTE R-LINKED WITH THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE S AME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO.2442/AHD/2012. FOR THE REASONS RECO RDED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-2008, IN ITA NO.2442/AHD/2012 IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF T HIS ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. LEO FORMULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO (4 APPEALS) -11- 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-2009 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2007-2008 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2007-2008 IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD