The DCITNavsari Circle, Navsari V. Dharampur Uthan Vahini,

ITA 600/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6110 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K N BHAT
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N. S. SAINI, AM) ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2004-05 THE A. C. I. T., NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI (DHRUVA) VRINDAVAN CAMPUS, VALSAD, DIST- NAVSARI PA NO. AAATD 4290 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. N. BHAT, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), V ALSAD DATED 23-10-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AGGREGATE ADDITIONS OF RS.3570570/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE TRUST FROM THE BENEFICIARIES AND PAID TO THE NABARD, AS THE TRUST IS NOT PROVIDING FREE SERVICES OR COST TO COST SERVIC ES TO THE BENEFICIARIES. BESIDES, THE SURPLUS ON SALE OF MATE RIALS VIZ, FERTILIZERS, EQUIPMENT ETC. THOUGH THE SAID BU SINESS ACTIVITIES WERE OUT OF PREVIEW OF OBJECT OF THE TRU ST. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE A. O. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST CARRYING OUT PROGRAMMES UNDER THE OB JECT OF RURAL ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 2 DEVELOPMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT IN THE FORM OF DO NATIONS AND GRANTS OR LOANS RECEIVED FROM NABARD. THE ASSESSEE TRUST DOES NOT HAVE ANY CORPUS AND INTEREST AND ALSO DOES NOT OWN ANY PROPE RTY FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNS ITS INCOME IS DERIVED. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS FINANCING THE FARMERS THROUGH GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, WHICH IS NOT A B ODY FORMED UNDER ANY LEGAL SHELTER. THE ASSESSEE TRUST EARNS INCOME IN THE FORM OF HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED TO THE GRAM VIKAS MANDAL A S AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID TO NABARD. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST SUPPLI ES FERTILIZERS TO THE FARMERS WHEREIN A MARGIN OF PROFIT IS EARNED. THE A O, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS EARNING INCOME OUT OF FINANCING ACTIVITIES AND TRADING OF FERTILIZERS, THE SAID ACTIVITY BEING PURELY A BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT W AS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A O F THE IT ACT WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPT ION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED U/S 1 2A OF THE IT ACT CARRYING OUT VARIOUS OBJECTS INCLUSIVE OF THE OBJECT OF RURA L DEVELOPMENT. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FUR NISHED WITH THE AO REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OBJECTS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC, HEALTH, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS, WH ICH IN TURN PROVIDES SELF-EMPLOYMENT, WATER RESOURCES, TRAINING AND EDUC ATION FOR SELF- SUFFICIENCY TO THE PEOPLE OF RURAL AREA AT LARGE. T HE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST BEING RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THE SAME FALLS WITHI N THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE MEAN ING OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, PARTAKE S THE CHARACTER OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF (I) ADDL. CIT VS SURAT ART MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (1980) 121 ITR 01 (SC), (II) CIT VS ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 3 (1986) 159 ITR 01 (SC), (III) VICTORIA TECHNICAL IN STITUTE LTD. VS ADDL. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 57 (SC), (IV) GIRIJAN CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETY LTD. VS CIT (1989) 76 CTR 44 (AP), (V) MAHAKOSHAL SHAHEED SMARA K TRUST VS CIT (1983) 140 ITR 795 (MP), (VI) JAIPUR CHARITABLE TRU ST VS CIT (1981) 127 ITR 620 (DEL.) AND (VII) ADDL. CIT VS AUTOMOBILE AS SOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA (1981) 127 ITR 730 (MAD.) THE ASSESSEE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT, AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO NON-ALLOWABILITY OF THE BENEFIT U/S 11 IPSO FACT O. THE ASSESSEE DISTINGUISHED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO JUSTIF YING THEIR CLAIM U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT DEFINING THE NATURE AND APPLICATIO N OF INCOME ALONG WITH THE ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS FUNDS AND THE BENEFICIA RIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A TABLE SHOWING THE S UMMARY AND INCOME THEREOF AS UNDER: INCOME & EXPENDITUTRE ACCOUNT YEAR ENDING: 31.3.2004(RS. IN LACS) PARTICULARS OPTION A OPTION-B A-INCOME (IGNORING APPROPRIATION) BY RECEIPTS FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES 32.13 32.13 BY GRANTS 577.09 577.09 BY INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS 10.22 10.22 BY DONATIONS 0.47 0.47 BY SURPLUS ON MATERIALS SUPPLIED 4.34 4.34 TOTAL (A) 624.25 624.25 B-APPLICATI0N OF INCOME:- EXPENSES ON OBJECTS OF THE TRUST 588.54 588.54 APPROPRIATION OF INCOME TO VARIOUS FUNDS 33.73 33.73 TOTAL (B) 622.27 622.27 C- SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR 1.98 1.98 D- % SPENT/APPLIED FOR 99.68% 94.28% IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HA S MET WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT WITH REG ARD TO THE INCOME AND APPLICATION THEREOF AS WELL AS THE ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS FUNDS. THE ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 4 ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BENEFICIARIES O F THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE POOR FARMERS OF TRIBAL AREAS AND THE ENTIRE ACT IVITY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS CARRIED OUT FOR ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIV ES OF THE TRUST. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DIVERSION OF INCO ME TO ANY PERSON OR FOR ANY PURPOSE AS INDICATED U/S 13 OF THE IT ACT A ND THAT THUS THE ASSESSEE TRUST DESERVED THE BENEFITS U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE DEALT WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF A BSENCE OF PROPERTY AND HAVING NO CORPUS FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 12(1) OF THE IT ACT DEFINES PROPERTY W HICH INCLUDES MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. FURTHER MEANING OF PROPER TY WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ALSO A PROPERTY AND THAT THE TERM PROPERTY HAS T HE WIDEST AMPLITUDE, WHICH INCLUDES IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES LIK E MONEY, SHARES, SECURITIES, BANK BALANCE ETC. AND THEREBY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST OWNS A PROPERTY RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS SU CH AS (I) J. K. TRUST VS CIT (1957) 32 ITR 535 (SC), (II) CIT V P. KRISHN AWARRIAR (1964) 53 ITR 176(SC), (III) THANTI TRUST VS CBDT (1995) 213 ITR 639 (MAD), (IV) CIT VS RADHASWAMI SATSANG (1954) 25 ITR 472 (AH), (V) CIT VS BREACH CANDY SWIMMING BATH TRUST (1955) 27 ITR 372 (BOM) AND (VI ) THIAGESAR DHARMA VANIKAM VS CIT (1963) 50 ITR 798 (MAD). THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF CORPUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL DE NIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT BY THE AO SUBMITTING AS UNDER: TRUST CRATED WITH NO CORPUS FUNDS SIR, THE LAO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS CREATED WITH NO CORPUS FUND. IT IS OUR HUMBLE SUBMISSION TH AT THE LAO HAS MEASURABLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT H E SAID ISSUE IS BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION. SIR, IT WOULD BE WORTH-NOTHING THAT EVEN WHILE GRAN TING THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT, THE HONBLE CIT I S REQUIRED TO ENQUIRE INTO AS TO WHAT AMOUNT SHOULD FORM THE CORP US OF THE TRUST AND THEREFORE THE LAO HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE S IMPLY TO DISREGARD THE OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST AND TO TREAT THE APPELLANT TRUST A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 5 SIR, RECENTLY, THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF :- SAIN JI DHARMARATH TRUST V/S C I T (2006) 8 SOT 446 (DEL) HELD: AT THE STATE OF GRANTING OR REFUSING THE REGI STRATION TO THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMI NE AS TO WHAT AMOUNT SHOULD FORM THE CORPUS OF THE TRU ST AND AS TO WHAT AMOUNT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN WHAT MANNER THE ACCOUN TS RELATING TO THE PERIOD PRIOR AND POST CONSTITUTION OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING THE ISSUE O F BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS ALLEGED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FINANCING ACTIVITY AND ALLEGE D TRADING ACTIVITY OF FERTILIZERS, WHICH TRANSPIRES THAT BOTH THE ACTIVIT IES ARE CARRIED OUT UNDER THE OBJECT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF POOR FARMERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AN D IN REALITY THE ASSESSEE TRUST PROVIDED FERTILIZERS TO THE FARMERS FREE OF COST AND THAT FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY AND THAT TO REPORT TO THE SPONSORER THE SAME WAS FILED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN UNDER THE IT ACT CARRYING ON TH E BUSINESS ACTIVITY BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST IS NOT BANNED AS PER CBDT CIRC ULARS NO.621 AND 642 DATED 19-02-1991 AND 112-12-1992 RESPECTIVELY, WHEREIN THE TRUST IS PERMITTED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR ATTA INMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST, THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 11(4A) OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESS EE TRUST FOR ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF (I) CIT VS DHARMODAYAM (2 001) 165 CTR 12 ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 6 (SC ), (II) ADDL. CIT VS THANTHI TRUST (2001) 247 I TR 785 (SC) AND (III) ADDL. CIT VS SURAT ART CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIAT ION (1980) 121 ITR 01 (SC). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) OF THE IT ACT, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE US/.11 OF THE I T ACT. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 6 AND 7 ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. I FOUN D FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT A ND I AM SATISFIED IN TERMS OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, TH E RURAL DEVELOPMENT BEING AN OBJECT FALLS WITHIN PURVIEW OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY AS DEFINED U/S. 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE TRUST BEING REGISTERED U/S. 12A CARRYING OUT VARIOUS ACTIVITIES APPLYING INCOME TOWARDS THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND ACCUMULATING THE SURPLUS FUNDS WITHIN THE PARAMETER S LAID DOWN UNDER THE ACT AND THE INCOME OF THE TRUST BEING APPLIED, BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE DESER VES EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. I FOUND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY, CORPUS AND THE NATURE OF A CTIVITY BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TRUST. SINCE THE APPELLANT TRUST COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 11(4A) OF THE ACT, I FOUND AO BEING NOT JUSTIFIED I N DRAWING A CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS CA RRYING OUT PURELY A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREBY DENYING THE BENEFIT U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANTS APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 6. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND THE STATEMENT OF FACT FILED IN THE APPEAL PAPERS. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS REGI STERED U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT BEING PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND HAS CARRIE D OUT VARIOUS ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 7 OBJECTIVES INCLUSIVE OF OBJECTIVE OF RURAL DEVELOPM ENT, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A). IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARI TABLE TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT C ARRYING OUT VARIOUS OBJECTS INCLUSIVE OF OBJECT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST BEING RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THE SAME FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(15) OF T HE IT ACT WHICH DEFINES MEANING OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF CHARITABLE TRUST. T HE ASSESSEE FILED TABLE OF INCOME AND APPLICATION OF INCOME BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH PROVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MET WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT. BENEFICIARIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE FARMERS OF TRIBAL AREA AND T HE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE CARRIED OUT FOR ATTAINMENT OF TH E OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST. NOTHING IS POINTED OUT IF THERE WAS DIVERSIO N OF ANY INCOME TO ANY PERSON PROHIBITED UNDER THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE TRUST HA S PROVIDED FERTILIZERS TO THE POOR FARMERS EVEN AT FREE OF COST. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIALS BEFORE HIM AND THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM WAS SATISFIED WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AN D ITS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OT HER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE IT ACT. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT DEFINITION OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WAS EXPANDED BY ADDING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE IT ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2009 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON CONSIDERATION O F THE MATERIAL ON RECORD SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMP LIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ITA NO.600/AHD/2008 ACIT VS DHARAMPUR UTHAN VAHINI 8 DENIED THE BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT KALYAN PRATISTHAN VS DIRECTOR OF INC OME-TAX (EXEMPTION) 299 ITR 406 HELD HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE TRUST DEED REQUIRED THE TRUST TO UTILIZE ITS FUNDS FOR CHARITA BLE PURPOSES WHICH WERE MEDICAL RELIEF, EDUCATION AND RELIEF TO THE PO OR. IN THE APPLICATION FOR ACCUMULATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECI FIED THESE THREE OBJECTS. IT WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO THE UTILISATION OF THE FUND S. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME FOR THE OBJEC TS OF THE TRUST. INCIDENTAL INCOME OR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS OF TRUST CANNOT DENY BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT TO ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTE RFERENCE. WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISM ISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-06-2010 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 04-06-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD