The Income tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Vimpson Agencies, Ahmedabad

ITA 721/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9338 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S GEHJLOT
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTAAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Assessment record; Revised return; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B - BENCH,AHMEDABAD . BEFORE : SHR I R.V.EASWAR, VICE - PRESIDENT, AND SHRI P.K.BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02) ITO, WARD 3(4), AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S.VIMPSON AGENCIES, RAM NIVAS - I, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02) M/S.VIMPSON AGENCIES, RAM NIVAS - I, AHMEDABAD VERSUS ITO, WARD 3(4), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SHRI B.S.GEHJLOT, CIT DR FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI P.M.MEHTA,AR ORDER SHRI R.V.EASWAR, VICE - PRESIDENT : THESE CROSS APPEALS ARISE OUT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 TAKEN IN RESPECT OF M/S. VIMPSON AGENCIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN DEALING I N SCOOTERS AND TRADING OF GOODS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEALS MAY BE NOTICED. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT OUT OF THE COMMISSION RECEIPTS OF RS.4,29,76,000 RECEI VED FROM FOUR PARTIES, THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF R S.2.20 LAKHS, BEING COMMISSION PAID TO FOUR PARTIES. THE COMMISSION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROCURING CUSTOMERS TO SOFTWARE COMPANIES FOR SALE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCED BY THEM. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PAYEES OF THE COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED THAT THE PAYEES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND ALSO F ILED THE ENTRY MADE BY THEM FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ENTRY WAS MADE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR NAMELY, 31.3.2001 AND IT WAS IDENTICAL IN THE CASE OF ALL ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 2 THE FOUR PAYEES, CONTAI NING THE NARRATION TO COMMISSION RECEIVED BEING THE ENTRY PASSED FOR COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM VIMPSON AGENCIES FOR THE YEAR MARCH,2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE DT.27.12.2002 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FOR THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. IT WAS ONLY ON 30.3.2004 THAT THE ASESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS AND PRODUCED SOME CONFIRMATIONS. SINCE THIS WAS FILED ALMOST ON THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNABLE TO VERIF Y THE CONFIRMATIONS. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.2.20 LAKHS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) AFTER NOTICING THE BASIC FACTS, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE ON 27.12.2002 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH PART DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IN NONE OF THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING S BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THE QUESTION OF COMMISSION PAYMENT BROUGHT UP BY HIM AND THEREAFTER IT W AS ONLY TOWARDS THE CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE QUESTION OF PROVING THE C OMMISSION PAYMENT HAD CROPPED U P. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT FROM THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS RECORDED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 26.9.2003 TO 24.3.2004, NO ENQUIRY, WHATSOE VER, WAS MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT WHATEVER DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND MENTIONED IN THE ORDER SHEET NOTING AND IT APPEARED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, WHI CH WAS PERUSED BY HIM, THAT THERE WAS NO SERIOUS ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBTAIN SUCH DETAILS FROM THE APPELLANT FIRM . THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE HIM IN COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMMISSION AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID WERE AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DOUBTED. HE ALSO H ELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET INCOME OF RS.2,09,76,000 FROM THE NEW BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 3 MARKETING THE COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND SINCE NO LOSS WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ACTIVITY, THERE WAS NO APPARENT REASON FOR SUSPECTING THE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM. FOR THESE RE ASONS, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. 4. IT IS AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT - DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNA IRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.12.2002, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ONLY SCANTY INFORMATION AND THAT TOO ONLY O N 30/31.3.2004 WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ABOUT TO GET TIME BARRED AND THUS SUCCESSFULLY PREVENTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CONDUCTING ANY F URTHER ENQUIRY BASED ON THE INFORMATION. CRITICISING THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT - DR STRONGLY URGED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BUT HAS ERRONEOUSLY PREFERRED TO RE ST HIS CONCLUSION ON THE LACK OF ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OVERLOOKING THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO PREVENTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CONDUCTING ANY SUCH ENQUIRY. THE LEARNED CIT - DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE CIT(A), CONS IDERING THE PLENARY NATURE OF HIS POWER OVER THE ASSESSMENT, TO HIMSELF DIRECT AN ENQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRIES, FOR WHATEVER REASONS. IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT AT ANY RATE, THE CIT(A) COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR PROMPTING FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD, EV EN ON 27.12.2002 ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMISSION RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A), INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON MERITS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT HAVING PERFORMED HIS DUTY. LEARNED CIT - DR THUS URGED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE RESTORED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BEING DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 4 5. ON BEHALF OF THE ASESSEE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REPEATEDLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 7.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION PAYM ENT WAS JUSTIFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PAYEES AND SINCE THIS FINDING HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CI T(A) WHICH WERE COMPILED IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE B USINESS. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD RECEIVE FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT SOME DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED N 27.12.2002 BUT APPARENTLY THEY WERE NOT ENOUGH AND EVEN THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE AWARE OF THE SAME AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY IT F ILED CERTAIN CONFIRMAT ION LETTERS FROM THE PAYEES ON 30/31/3/2004. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS AWARE OF THE FA C T THAT IT WAS ITS DUTY TO FURNISH COMPLETE PARTICULARS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR SOME REAS ON THE ASSESSEE PERHAPS WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN T IME SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ABLE TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY IN TO THE SAME IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY. IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT AS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. S O FAR AS THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS CONCERNED, IT IS A SETTLED POSITION THAT MERELY PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEES AND SHOWING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WAS NOT ENOU GH TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN AND IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF SOME SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AGENTS. THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE SERVICE S TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND ALL OTHER FACTS WHICH SUPPLY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PAYMENT AND ITS NEXUS WITH THE ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 5 ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LAXMINARAYAN MADANLAL V. CIT, W EST BENGAL [( 1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC) ] . IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SELLING AGENTS FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BUT EVEN SO IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ITO TO CONSIDER ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DETER MINE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE SELLING AGENTS IS PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. SUCH RELEVANT FACTS WOULD INCLUDE THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED BY THE AGENTS AS ALSO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT FACTUALLY SUCH SERVICES WER E RENDERED JUSTIFYING THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, THERE IS NOTHING EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE APPELLATE ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE LED ANY EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED CIT - DR, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, IS RIGHT IN SAYING TH AT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE MADE AN ENQUIRY INTO THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT HIS POWERS OVER THE ASSESSMENT ARE CO - TERMINUS WITH THOSE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT HE CH OSE TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LACKADAISICAL IN HIS ENQUIRY, WHICH IS NOT EVEN CORRECT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY SOUGHT TO PREVENT ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FURNISHING INFORMATION PIECEMEAL AND ALSO BY FURNISHING THE CONF IRMATION LETTERS ON THE LAST TWO DAYS OF MARCH,2004, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE THE CONFIRMATIONS VERIFIED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED CIT - DR ARE WELL FOUNDE D AND HIS CRITICISM OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED. IN OUR OPINION, THE RIGHT COURSE NOW WOULD BE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECT ION THAT HE SHOULD PROCESS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IT IS NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE DIRECT ACCO RDINGLY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 7. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT OF RS.38,30,538. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD GOODS TO M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD., DURING THE FY ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 6 1998 - 99 OF THE VAL UE OF RS.86,01,513. A SUM OF RS.34,01,425 WAS RECOVERED IN THAT YEAR ITSELF AND THE ACCOUNT OF M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD., SHOWED A BALANCE OF RS.52,00,.088. THIS WAS BEING CARRIED FORWARD FROM YEAR TO YEAR. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT RECOVER ANYTHING FROM M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WRITE OFF THE BALANCE DUE FROM M/S. SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD AND NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBT WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 31.10.2001. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT CAME TO KNOW THAT M/S. SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD HAD APPROACHED THE BIFR AND IDBI BANK WAS ALSO APPOINTED AS THE LEAD BANK AND THE BANK HAD SOLD THE ASSETS OF M/S. SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD TO RECOVER THE LOANS ADVANCED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND BANK; THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE JUST SUFFICIENT TO MEET THOSE LOANS AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT WHICH COULD BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLAIMED THAT ON C OMING TO KNOW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THE AMOUNT OF RS.38,30,538 OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FROM M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS BAD DEBT IN THE REVISED RETURN SUBMITTED ON 4.2.2003. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF BAD DEBT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 36( 2)(V II) OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED. 8. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE FA C TS AND HELD THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE BAD DEBT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR TH E YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IS MADE AND THIS CONDITION WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE INASMUCH AS THE DEBT CLAIMED TO BE PAID WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF IN T HE ASSESSEES BOOK FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON THIS FINDING, HE REJECTED T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 9. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IF THE CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT, IT IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS ON THE VERY SAME FACTS. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED BOTH THE CLAIM S. THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTEDLY WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS ALSO CAN NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE LOSS DID NOT ARISE IN THE YEAR OF ITA NO. 721/AHD/2005 AND ITA NO. 3886/AHD/2004 (CROSS APPEALS) 7 ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD WAS BEING CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND WAS WRIT TEN OFF IN THE BOOKS ONLY WHEN REVISED RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED ON 4.2.2003. THE DEVELOPMENT S REL ATING M/S.SUNSTAR FUTURE WOOD LTD SUCH AS, ITS CASE BEING REFERRED TO BIFR, ITS ASS E TS BEING SOLD BY THE LEAD BANK, THE SALE PROCEEDS NOT BEING SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DUES OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THESE ARE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT S NOT RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LOSS CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID TO ARISE IN THIS YEAR TO MERIT ALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE CLAI M ALSO. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS , THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. NO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 21.8.,09 SD/ - SD/ - (P.K.BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( R.V.EASWAR) VICE - PRESIDENT DATE: 21.8.09 (H.K.PADHEE) SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPL ICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY.REGISTRAR.