Shri Abdul Aziz Abdulvahab Attarwala, Ahmedabad V. The CIT,Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 895/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0360 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' (BEFORE S/SHRI P K BANSAL AND MAHAVIR SINGH) ITA NO.895/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2003-04) SHRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDULVAHAB ATTARWALA, MOTI BALUCHWAD, DARIAPUR, AHMEDABAD V/S THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD-I, AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S N DIVATIA RESPONDENT BY:- SMT. NEETA SHAH, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER P K BANSAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT FOR SHORT] C HALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS HAVING SHARE INCOME FROM THE FIRM S APART FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE RETURN FOR AY 2003-04 WAS FILED ON 31- 03-2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,19,340/- AN D AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.16,07,036/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 24-03-2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10 ,49,560/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.8,86,716/-. THE CIT O N VERIFICATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNING 4 HECTARES OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND. THE YIELD OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE AT 2 RS.16,07,036/- IS AT EXCESS LEVEL. AGRICULTURAL EXP ENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO THE TUNE OF 16% AND 1 3% FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT TELAV AND BAKROL RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CIT WERE AT A LOWER SIDE. THE CIT WA S OF THE OPINION THAT THIS REQUIRED VERIFICATION ABOUT THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, EXTENT OF LAND CULTIVATE D, NATURE OF CROPS GROWN, CORRECTNESS OF YIELD AND THE EXPENDITU RE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED TO ACHIEVE THE GIVEN YIELD OF A PARTICU LAR CROP, ETC. THE CIT ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE EXPENSES / INVESTMENTS IN FURNITURE OF RS.3,62,000/-AND GOLD P URCHASE OF RS.8,67,352/-, THE SOURCE OF WHICH ALSO REQUIRED PR OPER VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12/12/2006 BY THE CIT. T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE HAD ALSO SU BMITTED ALL THE SALES BILLS AND PURCHASE BILLS AND OTHER VOUCHERS. THE AO HAS ALREADY ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT HIGHER SIDE AND T HE ORDER OF THE AO WAS CHALLENGED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. IN RESPECT O F INVESTMENTS IN HOUSE FURNITURE AND GOLD, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE WERE PURCHASED OUT OF SHARE INCOME OF THE FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS DULY VERIFIED ALL THESE POINTS AND PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 SHOULD BE DROPPED. THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE PRO PER INQUIRIES ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO THE HUGE INV ESTMENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND GOLD. ULTIMATELY THE CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS WITHOUT PRO PER APPLICATION OF MIND AND, THEREFORE, IS ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL 3 TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY HE SET- ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FRAME A DE NOVO ORDER. 3 THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. THE AO HAS DULY MADE THE INQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE FURNITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,62,200/- AND GOLD PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.8,6 7,352/-. ABOUT THE INVESTMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER AVAILABLE AT PAGE-7 OF THE PAPER BOO K THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THESE INVESTMENTS THROUGH CHEQUES OUT OF THE FIRM AND THESE HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SO FAR AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 31-11-2006 THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS ALONG WITH THE SALES, PURCHASE BILLS, EXPENSES VOUCHERS AND THE COPY OF B ANK ACCOUNT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGES-6, 9 AND 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO FROM PAGES-13 TO 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO PAGES 14A TO 54A CONSISTING OF EN GLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS IN RESP ECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN T OWARDS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 24-03-2006 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT UNDER PARA-5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE AO HAS DULY DISCUSSED THE CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.16,07,036/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PRODUCED THE BO OKS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CL AIM OF THE EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND 4 ULTIMATELY ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT 30% TO BE REAS ONABLE AND ULTIMATELY ADDED THE SUM OF RS.1,94,085/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FROM TELAV LAND. SIMILARLY, A S UM OF RS.76,235/- WAS ADDED FROM BAKROL LAND AND ACCORDIN GLY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REDUC ED TO THAT EXTENT I.E. BY RS.2,70,320/-. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE AO. THE CIT(A ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 03-04-2007 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS .2,70,320/-AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM T O THAT EXTENT TO BE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,70,320/- AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. REGARDING THE OTHER I SSUES IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES WERE EXAMINED AND CO NSIDERED BY THE AO AND THUS THE ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE REGAR DED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN, SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO AGR ICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, TOWARDS CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 263 WHI CH DEBARS THE CIT NOT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE MATTE RS AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT MUST BE ANNULLED. 4 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THA T THERE HAS NOT BEEN PROPER INQUIRIES ON THE PART OF THE AO. ABSENCE OF PROPER INQUIRIES / VERIFICATION BY THE A O TANTAMOUNT TO BE AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE CIT WAS COMPETENT TO 5 REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US ALONG WIT H THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BEFORE US ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT PASSED U/S 263. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263, BOTH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO THAT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MUST BE SATISFIED. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT , IT WILL BE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 WERE NOT LAWFULL Y INVOKED. THE TERM ERRONEOUS HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE INC OME-TAX ACT BUT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR. AN ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS IF THERE IS INCORRECT ASSUM PTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW IN THE ORDER BY THE AO. IF THE AO AFTER MAKING THE ENQUIRIES AND EXAMINING THE RECORD S TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS. THE RECORD AND THE EVIDENCE P RODUCED BEFORE US DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING CLEARLY REFL ECT THAT THE ENQUIRY IN THE IMPUGNED CASE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT B Y THE AO ON THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE AO AFTER APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REDUC ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY RS.2,70,320/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS PASSED. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED QUERIE S RELATING TO THE ISSUES FROM TIME TO TIME ON THESE VERY ISSUES A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED ALL THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE AO. 6 6. MERELY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCU SSED THE INQUIRY CARRIED OUT AND ITS OUTCOME IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER T HE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOUL D PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE MANNER SO THAT ALL THE QUER RIES RAISED BY HIM AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE INC ORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OUR OPINION, WHERE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TAKES A VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD DISCUSS THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO THAT TH E PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE ADVERSE VIEW IS TAKEN, CAN KNOW THE REASON S FOR THE SAME. IN OUR OPINION THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER IF HE HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ONLY THE QUERRIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WILL SPEAK OF WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND OR NOT. AN ASSESSEE CANNOT COMPEL THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INCORPORATE EACH AND EVERY ISS UE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ENQUIRY WIT H THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT SATISFIE D THAT NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GA BRIEL INDIA LIMITED 203 ITR 108 HAS HELD IN THIS REGARD AS UNDE R: 'HELD, THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAD MADE ENQUIRIES IN REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD BY A LETTER IN WRITING. ALL THESE WERE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE. EVIDENTLY, THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON BEING SATISFIE D WITH 7 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS DECISION OF T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE 'ERRONEO US' SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELAB ORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF, EVEN AFTER INITIATING PROCEED INGS FOR REVISION AND HEARING THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT SAY TH AT THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ERRONEOU S AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT REVENUE EXPENDITURE BU T AN EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE. HE SIMPLY ASKED THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER. THAT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDE R SECTION 263.' A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 143(3) HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DESIRED ENQUIRIES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THE ASSESSME NTS. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE ENQUIRY AND IT SHOULD BE THE TOUCHSTONE TO BASE THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED BY HIM. THE CIT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE HIS SUBJECTIVE VIEW IN PLACE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNTIL AND UNL ESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. NO COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE BY T HE LD. DR WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOT TO MAKE THE ADDITION ON BOTH THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSE D TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE ON BOTH THE ISSUES TO BE MADE DE NOVO AND THE ASSESSEE WILL HAV E ANOTHER CHANCE TO AGITATE THESE ISSUES AGAIN. IF THE ACTION OF THE CIT IS 8 ILLEGAL, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINE D. ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS CARRIED OUT ON THE ILLEGAL ORDER ARE VOID. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED FROM BOTH THE SIDES, BUT SINCE WE FIND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I S DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, WHER EIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- 'THE PRE-REQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED O F TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABS ENT- IF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS N OT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE - RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1). THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROV ISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTR ACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLI CATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHO UT APPLICATION OF MIND. THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EV ERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND I T HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH W HICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED A S AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED BY A P ERSON IS 9 ASSESSED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE.' THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE THE VIEW UNSUSTA INABLE IN THE LAW. BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CIT TRIED TO IMP OSE HIS VIEW ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TANTAMOUNT TO BE THE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 263 . WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IS DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE AFORESAID CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAI D JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND ALSO IN VIEW OF OUR AFORE SAID DISCUSSION, WE ANNUL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/ S 263 BY HOLDING THAT THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN TAKI NG ACTION U/S 263 AND THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL. 7 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 09-10-2 009 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (P K BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 09-10-2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 10 1. SHRI ABDUL AZIZ ABDULVAHAB ATTARWALA, MOTI BALUC HWAD, DARIAPUR, AHMEDABAD 2. THE ACIT CONCERNED 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABA