Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5865 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
24-12-2010
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
1996-1997
Appeal Filed On
18-06-2009
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.204/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT MA 75 / AHD/2008 (IN C/W ITA NO.794/AHD/2001) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996-97 DATE OF HEARING:20.12.10 DRAFTED:20.1 2.10 SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA ZAVERI, A/801, KAUSHAMBI FLATS, NR. SUVIDHA SHOPPING CENTRE, PALDI, AHMEDABAD 389 007 PAN NO.AAIPJ3903A V/S . JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11, AHMEDABAD (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI A.C. SHAH, A.R RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, D.R O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS (MA), THE ASSESSEE HA S REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER PASSED IN MA NO.75/AHD/2008 DATED 29-0 5-2009. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS MA IS THAT AN AP PEAL IN ITA NO.794/AHD/2001 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WAS DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL ON 31-12-2007 AND AGAINST THE SAME MA WAS PREFERRED VIDE NO.75/AHD/20 08, WHICH WAS DISMISSED. EVEN NOW IN THE PRESENT MA THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SAME ISSUE AS UNDER:- 1. I AM IN RECEIPT OF THE M/A. NO.75/AHD/2008 ORDER DATED 29-05-2009. THERE ARE CERTAIN ERRORS IN THE SAID ORDER. 2.THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED IN PAA-3 ON PAGE NO .3 MIDDLE AS UNDER:- WE DO NOT FIND ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH MAY SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P SHAH V/S. ITO282 ITR (AT) (MUM). EVEN NO AFFIDAVI T WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE STATING ON OATH THAT SUCH DECISION WAS CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 2 . WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P. SHAH V/S/ ITO 282 ITR 211 (AT (MUM) AND WE FIND THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 WHEREAS THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL T HAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P SHAH V/.S. ITO 282 ITGR 211 (MUM) W AS NOT CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT SINCE: (A) THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO GIST OF SUBMISSION FO RMING PART OF PAPER BOOK DATED 24-01-2007 PARAA-7(VI) ON PAGE NO.3 AS UNDER: PERMANENT LEASE AMOUNTS TO OWNERSHIP :- (VI) EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE PROPERTY IS TE NTANTED THEN IT IS A PERMANENT ASSESSEE SINCE NO PERIOD OF TENANCY IS ME NTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE IT IS PERMANENT. IF IT IS A PERMANENT LEASE IT AMOUNTS TO OWNERSHIPS [MRS. PREMA P SHAH V/S. ITO 2 82 ITR 211 AT (MUM)]. 9.2 PERMANENT LEASE AMOUNTS TO OWNERSHIP [MRS. PRE MAP SHAH V/S. ITO 282 ITR 211 AT (MUM)] (B) THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE INDEX OF THE PAPE R BOOK DATED 24-01- 2007 UNDER THE HEADING, JUDICIAL DECISION: 3.3 PERMANENT LEASE AMOUNTS TO OWNERSHIP: MRS. PRE MA P SHAH V/S. ITO 282 ITR 211 AT (MUM) THE XEROX COPY OF THE ORDER PAGE NO.43 TO 49 4 THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P SHAH V/S. ITO 282 ITR 211 AT (MUM) IS NOT A PPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONS. 5 AND WHEREAS PARA-9 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN MA ORDER IN PARA-3 LAST LINES ARE AS UNDER:- IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR OPINION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TENANCY AGREEMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF A LEASE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE TO PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE MEA NING OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 6 AND WHEREAS FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AGREEMENT IS INS THE NATURE OF L EAS AND WHEN THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT IN THE AGREEMENT, IT IS A PERMANENT LEAS E AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY MUMBAI BENCH DECISION IN MRS.PR EMA P SHAH V/S ITO 282 ITR 211 AT (MUM) SINCE IT IS HELD THAT (II) TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN THE UK THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE SOVEREIG N. THE SUBJECTS ENJOY IT. THE LEASE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VALID FOR 150 YEARS, WHICH WAS IN MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 3 PERPETUITY AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS AS GOOD AS ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS PERMAN ENT LEASE IS OWNERSHIP. 7. THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO PARA-45 ON PAGE NO.241 OF SC DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE L TD. 305 ITR 227-341 AS UNDER:- 45. RECTIFICATION OF AN ORDER STEMS FROM THE FUNDAM ENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE IS ABOVE ALL. IT IS EXERCISED TO REMOVE THE ERROR A ND TO DISTURB THE FINALITY. 8. THE ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO PARA-12 & 13 ON PAGE NO.472 & 473 OF SC DECISION IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS L TD. V/S.CIT 295 ITR 466-472-472 AS UNDER:- 12. AS STATED ABOVE, IN THIS CASE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT. A S STATED ABOVE, THE EXPRESSION RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE FROM THE RECORD OCCURS IN SECTION 154. IT ALSO FINDS PLACE IN SECTION 254(2). THE PUR POSE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 254(2) IS BASED ON THE FUNDAME NTAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BE IT AS AS SESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT, SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAK E COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TR IBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2003, ALLOWING THE RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT SAMTEL COLOUR LTD. [SUPRA] WAS CITED BEFORE IT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THROUGH OVERSIGHT IT HAD MISSED OU T THE SAID JUDGMENT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE O N THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY / ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE FOR ENHANCED DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 43A. ONE OF THE IMPORTAN T REASONS FOR GIVING THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION TO THE TRIBUNAL I S TO SEE THAT NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO EITHER OF THE PARTIES APPEAR ING BEFORE IT BY ITS DECISION BASED ON A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECOR D. 13. RULE OF PRECEDENT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF LEG AL CERTAINTY IN RULE OF LAW. THAT PRINCIPLE IS NOT OBLITERATED BY SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WHEN PREJUDICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUT ABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, THEN IT IS T HE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT. ATONEMENT TO THE WRONGED PARTY BY THE COURT OR THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE WRONG COMMITTED BY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OF INHERENT POWER TO REVIEW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING ITS POWERS UNDER SECTIO N 254(2) WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE JUDGMENT OF TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH WAS PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE ORIGINAL OR DER CAME TO BE PASSED BUT IT HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN NOT CONSID ERING THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACKNO WLEDGED ITS MISTAKE, IT HAS ACCORDINGLY RECTIFIED ITS ORDER. IN OUR VIEW, THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED DIN INTERFERING WITH THE SA ID ORDER. WE ARE NOT GOING BY THE DOCTRINE OR CONCEPT OF INHERENT POWER. WE ARE SIMPLY PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT IF PREJUDICE HAD RESUL TED TO THE PARTY, WHICH PREJUDICE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS M ISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION AND WHICH ERROR IS A MANIFEST ERROR THEN T HE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 4 JUSTIFIED IN RECTIFYING ITS MISTAKE, WHICH HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 9. THE ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT BY I TAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF STOCK EXCHANGE AHMEDABAD VS. ACIT 68 TTJ 610. THE CATCH NOTES ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- APPEAL (TRIBUNAL) RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 254(2 ) NON ADJUDICATION OF A GROUND BY TRIBUNAL GROUND WAS SPECIFICALLY R AISED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST REJECTION OF APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 11(2) A ND ARGUED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ISSUE HAS BEEN SP ECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE SYNOPSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS CITING VARIOUS CON TENTIONS AND DECISIONS NON CONSIDERATION OF THE GROUND IS AN AP PARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N ACCEPTED. 10. THE ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAHID ATIQ V/S. ITO 87 ITD 22. THE CATCH NOTES ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL P OWERS OF A.Y. 1992-93 & 1993-94 WHETHER THOUGH TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REC ALL AND REVIEW ITS ORDERS, IT IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO AMEND ITS ORDER, PA SSED UNDER SECTION 254(1), IF ANY MISTAKE IS POINTED OUT OR IS FOUND APPARENT FRO M RECORD HELD YES WHETHER WHERE PARTICULAR ISSUE HAS BEEN OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED OR HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED PROPERLY OR WHERE PERVERSE FINDING S HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF MATERIAL ON RECORD BY LOWER AUTH ORITY, TRIBUNAL IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO CIT(A) FOR DECIDI NG SUCH ISSUES ALTHOUGH NO SPECIFIC GROUND IS TAKEN FOR THAT PURPOSE BY CONCER NED PARTY AND MISTAKE ON PART OF TRIBUNAL IN NOT RESTORING MATTER TO CIT(A) CAN BE RECTIFIED BY AMENDING ITS EARLIER ORDER HELD YES. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONLY STATED THA T THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P SHAH V. ITO 282 ITR 211 (AT) (MUM) WAS CITED IN THE INDEX OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THIS WAS NOTED B Y THE MEMBER IN HIS NOTES BUT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. ACCORDING TO HIM, HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BATA INDIA LTD. V. DCIT AND OTHERS ((1996) 217 ITR 871 (CAL) HAS HELD ON RECTIFICATION AS UNDER:- FOR THE REASONS AFORESAID, WE ALLOW THEREFORE, REV ISIONAL APPLICATION, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, REMAND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OB SERVATIONS MADE BY US HEREINABOVE. WE KEEP IT ON RECORD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WOULD RECORD ITS FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED ADMISSION KEEPING ALL OT HER POINTS OPEN ACCORDING TO LAW FOR BEING AGITATED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FO RUM. MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 5 HE FURTHER RELIED ON HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (2003) 262 ITR 146 (GUJ), WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY HONBLE APEX COURT. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PAGE-154 :- THE ORDER PASSED ON APPEAL CAN BE AN ORDER PAS SED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT OR IT COULD BE AN ORD ER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AS AMENDED BY AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS AN ORDER WOULD NONE THE LESS RE MAIN AN ORDER ON APPEAL . THEN PAGE-155 :- IT HAS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ACT IS A S TATUTE PROVIDING FOR LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAX. IN CASE A PARTY BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL INVITES THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT A POINT OR A CONTENTION WHICH IS MATE RIAL FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE (WHICH MAY BE NIL IN A GIVEN CASE) HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT WOULD CERTAINLY CONS TITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2 ) OF THE ACT. THEN PAGE-162 :- (B) AN ORDER ON APPEAL WOULD CONSIST OF AN ORDER M ADE UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT OR IT COULD BE AN ORDER MADE UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) AS AMENDED BY AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 OF TH E ACT; THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION IS TO BE EXERCISED TO REMOVE AN ERROR OR CORRECT A MISTAKE AND NOT FOR DISTURBING FINALITY, THE FUNDAM ENTAL PRINCIPLE BEING, THAT POWER OF RECTIFICATION IS FOR JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY ; AND (G) AFTER THE MISTAKE IS CORRECTED, CONSEQUENTIAL O RDER MUST FOLLOW, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO PASS ALL NECESSARY CONSEQUENT IAL ORDERS. 4. WE FIND FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (SUPRA) THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR OF SUPREME COURT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR-DR ARGUED THAT TRIBUNA L HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER BUT ONLY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE CORRECTED. FAILURE OF TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER ARGUMENTS IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM R ECORD AND HE RELIED ON BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (BOM) AND HE ALSO STATED THAT ORDER PAS SED U/S.254(2) CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY ANOTHER ORDER U/S.254(2). WHEN ONCE A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN REJECTED, ANOTHER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AGAINST TH E SAME ORDER CONTAINING THE SAME MATTER CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. FOR THIS, HE RELIED O N HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 6 CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER V. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AN D OTHERS (1992) 196 ITR 838 (ORISSA), WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 254(2) EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE, TO ATTRACT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 254(2), THE MI STAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND THE SAME MUST BE IN ANY ORDER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254. THE ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 254(1) IS THE ONE RELATING TO AN APPEAL FIL ED ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 254(1) IS THE ONE RELATING TO AN APPEAL FILED BY EI THER THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. SECTION 254(1) READS AS FOLLOWS:- THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THER EON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE APPEAL REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISION IS ONE FI LED UNDER SECTION 253. THEREFORE, THE ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED MUST BE ONE WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC TION 253. IN OUR VIEW, AN ORDER REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UN DER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2). THE SAME MAY RELATE TO AN APPEAL, BUT IT IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUN AL UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254. AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES APP LICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS FOR RECTIFICATION OF SOME ALLEGED MISTAKES IN T HE SAID ORDER OF REJECTION. SECTION 254(2) HAD NO APPLICATION TO SUCH AN ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER SECTION 254(2) AND PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSAR Y TO DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE DISPUTE WHETHER THERE W AS ANY RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OR NOT. 6. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE PETITION, A S WE HAVE NOTED THAT THIS IS THE REPETITION OF ORIGINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WH ICH WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 29-05-2009, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), MA AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL PASSED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. A CCORDINGLY, THE MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES MA IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/12 /2010 SD/- SD/- (A.N. PHAUJA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 24/12/2010 MA NO.204/AHD/2009 (A/O MA NO.75/AHD/08) SANDEEP B ZAVERI V. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-11 ABD PAGE 7 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- III, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD
