The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, GANDHIDHAM V. M/s Saraswati Construction Co., GANDHIDHAM

ITA 693/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0049 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG A WIR
• Assessee Lawyers: KALPESH DOSHI R
• Section: 133(6); 194C

Judgement Text

F, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI A . K. GARODIA , AM IT A NO . 692 AND 693 / RJT/2 0 1 0 . W W / ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 5 - 06 & 2006 - 07 AND IT A NO .175/RJT/2011. W W / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ACIT PLOT NO.32, SEC - 3 GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE - KUTCH ( 7 / APPELLANT) VS. M/S SARASWATI CONSTRUCTION CO., PLOT NO.235/236, WARD 12/B GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH PAN:AATFS592 8 E J)7 / RESPONDENT : R / REVENUE BY SHRI ANKUR GARG A WIR / ASSESSEE BY SHRI KALPESH DOSHI R / DATE OF HEARING 25.7 .2012 R / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 . 8 .2012 / ORDER PER T. K. SHARMA J M THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.11.2009 AND OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(A) - II, RAJKOT AND ORDER DATED 20.1.2011 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(A) - XX, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 A ND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER , THEREFORE, ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 2 ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.78,61,230/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(A). 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.10,95,009/ - AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.43,80,036/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. ITA NO.69 3 /RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.6,86,116/ - AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.27,44,456/ - MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF NON - VERIFIABLE EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,105/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) A. THE LD. CIT (A) XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.6,09,970/ - (BEING 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES) AS AGAINST RS.24,39,882/ - (BEING 20% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPEN SE. B. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 3 C. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. BRIEF FA CTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ARE THAT AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78,61,230/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS O F SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.5,99,07,029/ - UNDER THE HEAD SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSE . PARTY - WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO SIMPLY COMPARED TOTAL AMOUNT CREDITED IN PARTIES ACCOUNT AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE SUM OF RS.5,99,07,029/ - COMPRISES THREE PARTS, THE FIRST PART IS BEING THE VALUE OF SUB - CONTRACT WORK OF RS.5 , 05 , 28 , 678/ - FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT APPLICABLE RATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. THE SECOND AND THIRD PART COMPRISES RS.68,18,266/ - AND RS.25,60,085/ - WHICH ARE RELATED TO COST OF DIESEL AND MATERIALS PURCHASED BY TH E APPELLANT AND CONSUMED BY THE SUB - CONTRACTOR IN EXECUTING THE APPELLANTS CONTRACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING TRACK, HOW MUCH MATERIAL AND DIESEL WERE CONSUMED BY EACH SUB - CONTRACTORS, THE APPELLANT KEPT SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF EACH SUB - CONTRACTORS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAID EXPENDITURE TO DIESEL AND MATERIALS ACCOUNT, IT DEBITED UNDER THE SUB - HEAD ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 4 OF SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SI NCE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE MATERIAL AND DIESEL WHICH WERE FOR EXECUTING THE WORK OF SUB - CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING THE TDS ON THE SAME. 4.1 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LEDGER ACCOU NT OF EACH SUB - CONTRACTOR, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DIESEL, AND MATERIAL SUPPLY OF EACH SUB - CONTRACTOR AS WELL AS COPIES OF BILLS RAISED BY THE SUB - CONTRACTORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OF RS.5, 20,458/ - AT THE RATE OF ONE PER CENT ON SUB - CONTRACT ED EXPENSES OF RS. 5 , 20,45,800/ - . THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.5,99,07,029/ - AS SUB - CONTRACT PAYMENT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON RS.5,99,07,029/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE DEDUCED THE TAX ON RS.5,20,45,800/ - AND HENCE THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE O RS.78,61,230/ - WAS DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA). 4.2 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATERIAL INCLUDING DIESEL FOR EXECUTION OF WORK WERE SUPPLIED BY IT TO THE SUB - CONTRACTOR AND THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AFTER RECOVERY OF MATERIAL, THUS TDS NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED ON THE WHOLE AM OUNT OF SUB - CONTRACT PAYMENT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS.5,99,07,029/ - CONSISTS OF THREE PARTS, THE FIRST PART IS BEING VALUE OF SUB - CONTRACT WORK OF RS. 5 , 05 , 28 , 678/ - FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 5 APPLICABLE RATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE SECOND AND THIRD PARTS CONSISTS OF RS.68,18,266/ - AND RS.25,60,085/ - RELATED TO COST OF DIESEL AND MATERIALS PURCHAS ED BY THE APPELLANT AND CONSUMED BY THE SUB - CONTRACTOR IN EXECUTING THE APPELLANTS CONTRACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING TRACT, HOW MUCH MATERIAL AND DIESEL WERE CONSUMED BY EACH SUB - CONTRACTORS, THE APPELLANT KEPT SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF EACH SUB - CONTRACTORS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAID EXPENDITURE TO DIESEL AND MATERIAL ACCOUNT, IT DEBITED UNDER THE SUB - HEAD OF SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPHS 2.(B) AND ( CA ) TO (CB) . THE MAIN REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT OF SUB - CONTRACTED AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,679/ - AT APPLICABLE RATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 94C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON COST OF DIESEL AND MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT FOR MATERIAL AND DIESEL TO IS SUB - CONTRACTOR. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,99,07,029/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TDS AT APPLICABLE RATE ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SUB - CONTRACTED AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,679/ - AND IN RESPECT OF BALANCE AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS TO D ELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 6 HE CORRECTLY DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,05,28,679/ - . HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND ONLY GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARE THA THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENSES. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5%. T HE SUMMARY OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: A.Y. DISALLOWED BY THE AO RS. CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) RS. 2005 - 06 4,38 0, 036/ - 10,95,009/ - 2006 - 07 27,44,465/ - 6,86,116/ - 2007 - 08 2,43,981/ - 6,09,970/ - 8 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US SHRI ANKUR GARG , DR POINTED OUT THAT ,LOOKING TO THE REASONING RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES IS REASONABLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE SAME TO 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES. HE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ABNORMAL INCREASE OF EXPENDITURE. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. COUNSEL POI NTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% AND THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) BE UPHELD. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. D R CONTENDED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE BE RAISED AT LEAST TO 12.5% OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPEND ITURE. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR THE ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 7 MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF 5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EX PENDITURES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE TO EXTENT OF 5% OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON LOWER SIDE AND IN OUR OPINION AND IT WOULD MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE IF WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 7.5% OF TOTAL UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSE S . ASSESSMENT YEAR DISALLOWED BY THE AO SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ACCORDING TO TRIBUNALS ORDER 2005 - 06 4,380,036/ - 10,95,009/ - 16,42,513/ - 2006 - 07 27,44,465/ - 6,86,116/ - 10,29,174/ - 2007 - 08 2,43,981/ - 6,09,970/ - 9,14,955/ - WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . RESULTANTLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 1 . BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ARE THAT AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,86,105/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUB - CONTRACT EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.30,86,105/ - TO ONE MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA FOR SUB - CONTRACT WORK. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HIM BEFORE THE AO, BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF ACT WAS SENT TO THE CONCERNED PARTY TO REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE AO BUT WITHOUT COMPLIANCE. THE AO AGAIN CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE SUB - CONTRACTOR ONE MR.KANTILAL ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 8 MANJI HADIA FAILING WHICH RS.30.86,105/ - WILL BE DISALLOWED AND WILL B E ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 2 . IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE SAME IS PAID TOWARDS WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE HIM AND THE PAYMENT IS MADE AFTER VERIFICATION. 1 3 . THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. RS.30.86,105/ - CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND HE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 4 . A GGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 1 5 . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB - CONTRACT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION BY IS ENGINEER. WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF MR.KANTIALAL MANJI HADIA BEFORE THE AO, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA WAS NOT IN TOWN HENCE HE COULD NOT PRODUCE MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA BEFORE THE AO. 1 6 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE OBSERVED AND HELD THAT THE AO HAS NO STRONG CASE. THE NON - COMPLIANCE BY A PARTY TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) SHOULD NOT DRIVE THE AO TO PENALIZE THE APPELLANT. TH E LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA, BILLS RAISED BY HIM, HIS INCOME TAX RETURN CONSISTING OF PAN , AND ADDRESS. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA SHOWS THAT HE RECEIVED PAYMENTS FROM THE ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 9 ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE FROM BANK MNS BANK LTD AN BMCPP LTD. TAX WAS ALSO DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS OF MR.KANTILAL MANJI HADIA AND AFTER GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN PARAGRAPH 3(BA) TH E CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,105/ - MADE BY THE AO. 1 7 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR THE MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,86,105/ - . THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD AND DIRECTLY ACCORDINGLY. 1 8 . THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 1 9 . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. S D SD ( A. K.GARODIA) ( T. K. SHARMA) ,, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : / JUDICIAL MEMBER N/ ORDER DATE 30 - 0 8 - 2012. /RAJKOT ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 10 SRL 0 RJK AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. 7 / APPELLANT - , 2. J)7 / RESPONDENT - 3. F ( / CONCERNED CIT . 4. ( - / CIT (A) . 5. G JF, F, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT . W / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY IV F, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT. ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 11 F , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI A. K.GARODIA, AM ITA NO.692 AND 693/RJT/2010. W W / ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 AND ITA NO.175/RJT/2011. W W / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ACIT PLOT NO.32, SEC - 3 GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE - KUTCH ( 7/ APPELLANT) VS. M/S SARASWATI CONSTRUCTION CO., PLOT NO.235/236, WARD 12/B GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH PAN:AATFS5928E J )7/ RESPONDENT CORRIGENDUM IN THIS ORDER, IN PARAGRAPHS 10 AND 19, DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE PARAGRAPHS 10 AND 19 OF THE ORDER THERE FORE SUBSTITUTED AS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 IN PLACE OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. THIS CORRIGENDUM IS ISSUED TODAY I.E. ON 8 TH FEBRUARY 2013. SD S D ( .. : / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( .. W / T. K. SHARMA) : / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : /JUDICIAL MEMBER N/ ORDER DATE 8.2.2013 /RAJKOT ITA NO.692/RJT/2010. (AY - 2005 - 06) ITA NO.692/RJT/2010(AY - 2006 - 07) ITA NO.175/RJT/2011(AY 2007 - 08) 12 SRL 0 RJK AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. 7 / APPELLANT - , 2. J)7 / RESPONDENT - 3. F ( / CONCERNED CIT. 4. ( - / CIT (A). 5. G JF , F , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. W / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.