M/s. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT,Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 720/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1961 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI SHODHAN ARS; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 80HHC; 143(1); 148; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A.N. PAHUJA, AM CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LTD., CORPORATE TOWERS, NEAR PARIMAL CROSSING, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD- 380 006 V/S . ACIT CIRCLE-1, 3 RD FLOOR, JITENDRA CHAMBERS, NEW RBI LANE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380014. PAN :AAACC 6366 Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY - SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & MS. URVASHI SHODHAN,ARS REVENUE BY- SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, DR O R D E R A.N. PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATE D 13.12.2006 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VII, RAISES THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-V HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.15,97,902/-. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1 )(III) AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG . IT IS PRAYED THAT IT BE HELD SO NOW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-V HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT G ROSS RECEIPT REALIZED ON SALE OF DEPB LICENCES IS PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF LICE NCES AS PER SECTION 28(IIID). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS OF VALUE REALIZED ON SALE OF LICENCES OV ER ITS FACE VALUE IS THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT AS PER SECTION 28(IIID) AND, T HEREFORE, SHOULD BE PROPERLY DEALT WITH IN COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC. IT IS PRAYED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC, SUCH EXCESS SHOULD ONLY BE TREATED AS PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEP B LICENCES U/S 28 (IIID). IT IS PRAYED THAT IT SHOULD BE HELD SO NOW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE AMENDED PROVISIONS BEING DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE ARE UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND /OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF GROUNDS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF APPEAL. ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR:2002-03 ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 2 2 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 RELATING TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, FACTS ,IN BRIEF, AS PER RELE VANT ORDERS ARE THAT THE RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME FILED ON 29/10/2002 BY THE .AS SESSEE COMPANY, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEU TICAL PRODUCTS WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RETURN ALREADY FILED MA Y BE TREATED AS RETURN IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOT ICED THAT ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.2,62,82,646/- IN EQUITY SHARES OF CATAL YS VENTURE CAPS LTD., MAURITIUS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. TH E SAID AMOUNT INCLUDED RS.36,82,538/- AS ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SINCE THE COMPANY DEBITED INTEREST OF RS.36,45,606/- TO THE P & L ACCOUNT, TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TH EY HAD HUGE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS.5887.15 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2003 WHILE THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS BY WAY OF WORKING CAPITAL LOANS AND OTHE R LOANS HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN INVENTORIES AND DEBTORS. THE ASSESSEE P LEADED THAT SINCE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOS E OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISAL LOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,97,902/-, AT AN AVERAGE INTEREST @ 14% PA, RE LYING, INTER ALIA, ON HIS OWN FINDINGS FOR THE AY 2001-02 AND DECISIONS IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. DOCTOR & CO.,180 ITR 627(BOM.) & GOVAN BROTHERS VS. CIT, 4 8 ITR 930(ALL.). 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHILE THE A SSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 5887.14 LACS BESIDES CASH PROFITS EARN ED IN THE AYS 2000-01 TO 2002-03 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3063.22 LACS. ACCORDING LY, RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF TORRENT FINANCIERS VS. AC IT 73 TTJ 624 (AHD),SHAHIBAUG ENTREPRENEURS (P) LTD. VS. ITO 49 T TJ 554 (AHD),GUJARAT NARMADAVALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. LTD. VS. DCIT 73 TTJ 787 (AHD),RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES VS. ITO 51 TTJ 355 (AHD) AND SHREE DIGVI JAY CEMENT CO. VS. CIT ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 3 3 138 ITR 45 (GUJ), THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE WA S NO GROUND FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 286 ITR 1 ( P & H) UPHE LD THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAIN ST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSSESS EE WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION DATED 4.9.2009 &16/10/2009 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. YASHVANT S. TEJANI IN ITA NO.268/A/05 FOR AY 2001-02 AND DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHD. VS. CORE HEALTH CENTRE LTD., AHMEDABAD IN ITA NOS.8 5 & 86/AHD/2007 FOR AYS 1996-97 & 1997-98,ARGUED THAT THE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) HA S BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION V S. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO GROU ND FOR DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (2009) 313ITR 340. ON THE OTHER HAND. WHILE SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DR REL IED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CENTURY TOWERS,312ITR(AT)161(C OCHIN) 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. THE RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON THE BORROWED FUNDS RAISED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. ONCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ANY SUC H DEDUCTION, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY THE AO THAT LOANS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IF IN THE PROCESS OF EX AMINATION OF CLAIM FOR SUCH A DEDUCTION, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AD VANCED CERTAIN FUNDS TO ANY OTHER PERSON WITHOUT ANY INTEREST OR THAT IT HAD MA DE INVESTMENTS IN ANOTHER COMPANY ,CLAIMING THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE OUT O F INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THERE WOULD BE A VERY HEAVY ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO BE DISCHARGED BEFORE THE AO TO THE EFFECT THAT IN SPITE OF PENDING LOANS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING THE LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST, STILL THE RE WAS JUSTIFICATION TO ADVANCE LOANS TO OTHER PERSONS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES WI THOUT ANY INTEREST OR TO MAKE INVESTMENTS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 4 4 NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT BORROWED FUNDS ALONE HAD BE EN UTILIZED IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY NOR THERE IS ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT WORKING CAPITAL LOAN OR OTHER LOANS WERE DIVERTED TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THE SAID SUBSIDIARY. THE AS SESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5887.14 LA CS BESIDES CASH PROFITS OF RS.3063.22 LACS IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE AYS. 2000-01 TO 2002-03. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN RELIANCE UTILITIES A ND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT IF THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FR EE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENT WO ULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS AND PRESUMP TION THAT THE BORROWED CAPITAL WAS USED FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS HENCE INT EREST WAS DEDUCTIBLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE , UNDISPUTEDLY, BESIDES INTEREST F REE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED CASH SURPLUS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS. IF THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS, AVAILABLE AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN HE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. EVEN PRESUMING THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE B EEN UTILIZED IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THE D ECISION TO INVESTMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY . AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN SA BUILDERS VS. CIT,288 ITR 1 (SC) , THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-C HAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME T HE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE.. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN T HE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AU THORITIES MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEW POINT BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. THE TRANSFER OF THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE TO A SISTER CONCERN HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXP EDIENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED FOR E ARNING PROFITS. BUT IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PL ACED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE, WHICH COULD LEAD US TO INFER THAT BORROWED FUNDS INDEED HAD BEEN UTILIZED IN THE SHARES OF THE SUBSIDIARY. ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 5 5 6. MOREOVER. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) WAS FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB HIGH COURT IN MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION VS. CIT (2008) 2 98 ITR 288 (P&H), WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REVERSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION V/S. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC). IN T HE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, APART FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAIL ABLE, THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED SUFFICIENT CASH SURPLUS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF VIE W TAKEN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION (SUPRA ), THERE SEEMS TO BE NO APPARENT REASON TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL LOAN OR OTHER LOANS. THE LD. DR DID NOT DEMOSTARTE BEFORE US AS TO TO HOW THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF CENTURY TOWERS(SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION . 7. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKENBY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA), WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN VACATING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF T HE ACT ON THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB LICENSE. THE AO TREATED ENTIRE REC EIPTS ON SALE OF DEPB LICENSE AS PROFIT AND ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF AMENDED PROVISIONS COMPUTED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN THE LIGHT OF AMENDED PROVISIONS AND FURTHER HOLDING THAT NO COST HAVING BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING DEPB LICENSE, COMPUTATION MAD E BY THE AO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORES AID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE RELIED UPON A DECISION DATED 11.8.2009 OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, MUMB AI IN THE CASE OF M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.5769/MUM/2006 AND PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 6 6 IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OPPOSE THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . A.R. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISION RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION DATED 11.8.2009, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS REFERRE D TO THE SPECIAL BENCH: WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEPB ENTITLEMENTS REPRESENTS PROFIT CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OR THE PROFIT REFERRED TO THEREIN REQUIRES ANY ARTIFICIAL COST TO BE INTERPOLATED? 10.1 THE SPECIAL BENCH ADJUDICATED THE AFORESA ID QUESTION IN FOLLOWING TERMS: I) THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT DEPB IS A POST EXPORT EVENT AND HAS NO RELATION WITH THE PURCHASE OF GOODS CANNOT BE ACCEP TED. THERE IS A DIRECT RELATION BETWEEN DEPB AND THE CUSTOMS DUTY PAID ON THE PURCHASES . FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, DEPB IS A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PURCHASE TO THE EXTENT OF CUSTOMS DUTY; (II) THE DEPB BENEFIT (FACE VALUE) ACCRUES AND BECOMES A SSESSABLE TO TAX WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR DEPB IS FILED WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY . SUBSEQUENT EVENTS SUCH AS SALE OF DEPB OR MAKING IM PORTS FOR SELF CONSUMPTION ETC ARE IRRELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE ACCRUAL OF THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DEPB; (III) THOUGH S. 28 (IIIB) REFERS TO A CASH ASSISTA NCE AGAINST EXPORTS, IT IS WIDE ENOUGH TO COVER THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB BENEFIT; (IV) S. 28 (IIID) WHICH REFERS TO THE PROFITS ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB OBVIOUSLY REFERS ONLY TO THE PROFIT ELEMENT AND NOT THE GROSS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DEPB. IF THE REVENUES ARGUMENT THAT THE SAL E PROCEEDS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS ACCEPTED THERE WOULD BE ABSURDITY BEC AUSE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WILL THEN GET ASSESSED IN THE YEAR OF RECE IPT OF THE DEPB AND ALSO IN THE YEAR OF ITS TRANSFER; (V) CONSEQUENTLY, ONLY THE PROFIT (I.E. THE SALE VALUE LESS THE FAC E VALUE) IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF S. 80H HC . 10.2 IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID FINDINGS OF TH E SPECIAL BENCH AND THE UNDISPUTED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ITA NO.720/AHD/2007 7 7 AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO CLAIM FOR DED UCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DEPB, AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AN D KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUND NO. 2 IS DISPOSED OF. NO SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AR ON THE ALTERNATE GROUND, ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMI SSED. 11. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED IN TE RMS OF THE RESIDUARY GROUND, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 31/12 /2009 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2 ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-1, 3 RD FLOOR, JITENDRA CHAMBERS, NEW RBI LANE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380014 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VII , AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/12 /2009