The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Sundek India Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 91/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0270 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M M PATEL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business income; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 22/09/2009 DRAFTED ON: 14/1 0/09 ITA NO.91/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE ACIT CIRCLE-8 AHMEDABAD VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. 203-204, LALITA COMPLEX RASALA MARG NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AACCS 0897 A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND CO NO.80/AHD/2006 [ ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.91/AHD/2006 ] SUNDEK INDIA LTD. VS. THE ACIT, CIR CLE-8 AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) .. (RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. M. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL, DR O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS APPEAL IS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 0/112005 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 2 - (A) IN REVENUES APPEAL, ITA NO.91/AHD006 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT AMOUNTING T O RS.1,64,46,468/-. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC BY EXCLUDING AMOUNT O F EXCISE DUTY FROM TOTAL TURNOVER. 3. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. (B) IN ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.80/AHD/2006 F OR A.Y. 2002-03 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT U/S.145 OF THE I.T. ACT. THAT THE LEARN ED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE RESPON DENT MADE IN THIS REGARD, RELYING ON DIRECT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS W HICH WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT S CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.31,03,206/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS.1,95,49,674/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P., BY APPLYING THE G.P. RATE OF 22% AFTER REJECTING THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 3 - 3. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO REJECTION OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNT U/S.145 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREAFTER SUSTAINING GROSS PROFIT ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1,95,49,674/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF DEC ORATIVE LAMINATES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATERIAL IS NOT COMMENSURAT E WITH THE PRODUCTION OF FINAL PRODUCT. HE FOUND THAT MAIN COMPONENTS O F RAW-MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR MANUFACTURING LAMINATED -SHEETS ARE AS UNDER:- (I) BASE PAPER (II) MELAMINE (III) FORMALDEHYDE (IV) CRAFT PAPER (V) PHENOL (VI) METHENOL 4.1. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MAT ERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE INPUT AND OUTPUT NORMS LAID D OWN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WITH REGARD TO DUTY EXEMPTION SCHEME IN WHICH THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATERIAL FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF DECORATIVE LAMINA TED-SHEETS WERE ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 4 - RECOGNIZED. THE DATA IS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR ALLOWING DUTY EXEMPTION COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INPUT/OUTP UT NORMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF VA RIOUS RAW-MATERIAL WITH THE STANDARD CONSUMPTION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER S UCH SCHEME AND FOUND THAT ACTUAL PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND HUGE VARIATION IN THE MONTHWISE CONSUMPTION O F RAW-MATERIAL WHICH WAS NOT USED IN APPROPRIATE PROPORTION. THE CONSUM PTION OF VARIOUS RAW- MATERIAL VARIED FROM MONTH TO MONTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE MELAMINE BEING THE KEY RAW-MATERIAL AND EXAMINED I TS CONSUMPTION WITH OUTPUT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS WORKING, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ISSUED SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE A COPY OF WHICH IS PLA CED IN THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK AT PAGE NOS.1 TO 10. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER POINTED OUT THAT ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF MELAMINE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E IS 277900KGS. WHEN CORRELATED WITH THE STANDARD OUTPUT OF LAMINAT ED-SHEETS AS PER DUTY EXEMPTION SCHEME, THE PRODUCTION SHOULD BE OF 153 5359 SHEETS, WHEREAS TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY 1117003. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED A MARGIN OF 25% DUE TO VA RIOUS FACTORS AND WORKED OUT THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED ATLEA ST 1228287 SHEETS, ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 5 - WHEREAS THE PRODUCTION SHOWN IS ONLY 1117003 SHEETS . HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT UNDER PRODUCTION OF SHEETS AT 111284 AN D ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY CORRESPONDING ADDITION IS NOT MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NORMS WERE LAID DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT IN EXIM POLICY DUTY EXEMPTION NO RMS, WAY BACK IN 1992. THEY CANNOT BE RIGIDLY ADOPTED AS A PARAMETE R. SUCH STANDARDS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY LD.CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 AND THAT ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING SHEETS O F 2.9768 SQ.MM.SIZE AND NOT OF 1 SQ.MM SIZE WHICH IS PRESUMED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WORKED OUT VARIATION IN THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATERIAL, SUCH AS, PHENOL , CRAFT PAPER, BASE PAPER, FORMALDEHYDE, AND MELAMINE WITH THE STANDARD CONSUMPTION TAKEN FORM EXIM SCHEME AND HELD THAT PRODUCTION IS NOT CO MMENSURATE WITH SUCH CONSUMPTION. IT IS AT VARIANCE FROM THE STAN DARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONSIDERED POWER CONSUMPTION AND INFE RRED THAT WITH THE POWER CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE SHOU LD BE LARGER PRODUCTION. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTE D THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE DID PRODUCE ANY BILLS, SALES LE DGER, ETC. HE HAD ISSUED SUMMONS WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THUS, HE REJE CTED THE BOOKS OF ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 6 - ACCOUNT AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3 ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 4.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 23.81% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1, WHEREAS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, IT HAS SHOWN GROSS PROF IT RATE OF 20.85%. BUT IN THE CURRENT YEAR, ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS.2 8,90,41,614/- A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.4,40,39,481/- HAS BEEN SHOWN WHICH GIV ES A GROSS PROFIT AT 15.24%. TAKING AVERAGE OF TWO RATES IN THE IMMEDI ATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED A GROSS PROFIT OF 22% AND WORKED OUT AN ADDITION OF RS.1,95,49,674/-. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE SALE BILLS, SALE REGISTER, AND SALE VOUCHERS AND, HENCE, BOOK RESULT S WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HE, HOWEVER, CONSIDERED IT PROPER TO APPLY A GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 16.31% AND ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.1,64,46,468/- AND SUSTAINE D ADDITION OF RS.31,03,206/-. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPORT SALES REALIZATION IS LESS THAN EARLIER YEARS AND ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 7 - AVERAGE PRICE REALIZED IS RS.214/- PER SHEET, WHERE AS IN EARLIER YEAR IT WAS RS.261/- PER SHEET. 6. AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUPPO RTED BY ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE SALE RATES FOR THE EXPORT T HIS YEAR ARE LESSER AND HOW THE REALIZATION IS LESSER. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED GOODS TO SISTER-CONCERNS AT LOWER RATES , WHICH HAS RESULTED IN TRANSFER OF PROFITS TO THE SISTER-CONCERNS. HE, FU RTHER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. AGAINST THIS, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS IN EARLIER YEARS DID NO T UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS AND, ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATION OF PROFITS. HE REFERRED TO DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1996-97, 1995- 96, 1998-99 & 1997-98, WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AN D WERE CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS ISSUED THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON THE ACCOUNT OF UNDER PRODUCTIO N OF SHEETS BUT MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE LOW GROSS PROFIT. ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 8 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERING WITH THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). SO FAR AS REJECTION OF BOOKS ARE CO NCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS YEAR ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN EXTRA FACTS W HICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS YEAR, IT HAS BEE N FOUND THAT THE PRODUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COMMENSURAT E WITH THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATERIAL. HE HAS GIVEN AN EXAMP LE OF CONSUMPTION OF MELAMINE AND FOUND THAT PRODUCTION SHOULD BE MORE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CORRELATE RAW-MATERIAL WITH THE PRODUCTION FROM MONTH-TO-MONTH SO AS TO CREATE A CONFIDENCE THAT CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATE RIAL IS NOT AT VARIANCE WITH ITS OWN AVERAGE SO AS TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENC E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THE VARIANCE IN PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS GRADE OF SHEETS AS PER ANNEXURE-B OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED B Y HIM. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT CONSUMPTION OF DIFFERENT RAW-MATERIAL BASED ON STANDARD INPUT RATIO AS PER E XIM POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO ARRIVE AT PRODUCTION WHICH S HOULD ACTUALLY BE ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREAFTER COMPARED A CTUAL CONSUMPTION OF THESE RAW-MATERIAL WITH THE CONSUMPTION REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT THE ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 9 - PRODUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT MONTH S AND WORKED OUT THE VARIATION WHICH WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ANNE XURE-A OF HIS SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02/03/2005. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MONTH OF APRIL-2001, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS GRADES OF SHEETS AT 82080. TO ACHIEVE THIS PRODUCTION, THE INPUT OF TWO PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN 195675KGS. AND 8725KGS. AGAINST THIS, IT HAS SHO WN CONSUMPTION OF 231650.2KGS AND OTHER 32668KGS. THE VARIATION POIN TED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOTICEABLE. THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPONSE, IN HIS REPLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 12/03/2005, DID NOT EXPLAIN T HESE VARIATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CLEARLY INFERABLE THAT THE RECOR DS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUCH THAT IT MAY LEAD TO CORRECT WORKING OF PRODUCTION AND, THEREFORE, CORRECT WORKING OF INCOME. IN ADD ITION TO THIS, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SALES BILLS AND SALES REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. WE NOTICE THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED SUBSEQUEN TLY. THE LEARNED ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 10 - CIT(APPEALS) HAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THIS YEAR WHICH HAS BE COME THE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE UPHOLD THIS FIND ING OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ITS PRODUCTION VIS--VIS, THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW-MATER IAL AND ALSO THE VARIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNM ENT OF INDIA AS PER ITS EXIM POLICY. IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS WHOLLY RELIED ON A PARALLEL CASE OF BLOOM DCOR LTD. IN FACT, RELIANCE ON BLOOM DCOR LTD. WAS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 199 7-98 & 1998-99, AND THIS YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON T HE NORMS FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN ITS EXIM POLICY. ACCORDINGL Y, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS CANNOT BE FOLL OWED. 10. AFTER UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MET OUT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THIS YEAR SALES WERE AT REDUCED RATES RESULTING IN EARNING OF LOW GROSS PROFIT WHICH REASONING HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE APPLICATION OF GROSS PROFIT APPLIED B Y THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND SO THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED BY HI M. ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 11 - 11. AS A RESULT, GROUND RELATING TO GROSS PROFIT A DDITION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION ARE REJECTED. 12. GROUND NO.2 IN REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO EXCL USION OF EXCISE DUTY FROM TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80-HHC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. LAXMI MACHINE WORKS (2007) 290 ITR 667(SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX CA NNOT FORM A PART OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER U/S.80HHC(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.80/AHD/2006 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.91/AHD/2006) 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. 14. WHILE DISPOSING OF REVENUES APPEAL, WE HAVE U PHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CROS S OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO .91/AHD/2006 & CO NO.80/AHD/2006 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. SUNDEK INDIA LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 12 - 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.10.2009. SD/- SD/- ( R.V. EASWAR ) ( D.C.AGRAWAL ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16 / 10 /2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESP ONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD