M/s Kunal Bulk Carriers, GANDHIDHAM v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, GANDHIDHAM

CO 27/RJT/2008 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2724923 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAEFK2529C
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number CO 27/RJT/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant M/s Kunal Bulk Carriers, GANDHIDHAM
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, GANDHIDHAM
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 05-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) AND SHRI N.R.S. GANESA N (JM) I.T.A. NO.207/RJT/2007 - AY 2003-04 ITO WD.1 VS M/S KUNAL BULK CARRIERR GANDHIDHAM SHOP NO.11 NAHATA COMPLEX PLOT NO.111 SEC.9/C GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH PAN : AAEFK2529C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.733/RJT/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) AND C.O. NO.27/RJT/2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.207/RJT/2007) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) M/S KUNAL BUNLK CARRIERS VS THE ITO WD.1 GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH GANDHIDHAM (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI MK SINGH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL DESAI O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JM APPEAL IN ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 IS FILED BY THE REVE NUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II RAJKOT DATED 19-12-2006 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARISES OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARISES OUT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II RAJKOT DATED 05-01-2010 WHEREBY HE H AS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 1 31 400 IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 2 THEREFORE THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION WE RE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE ADDI TION OF RS. 41 37 691 ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMPUJAN P AL AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 5%. 3. SHRI MK SINGH THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS. 41 37 691 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL WHO WAS SHOWN AS PROPRIETOR OF BAJRANGI BULK CARRIERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUB TED THE LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE SAID SHRI RAMPUJA N PAL WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON EXAMINATION THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND THAT THE ABOVE SAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL IS NOT THE PROPRIETOR OF BAJRANGI BULK CARRIERS AND HE WAS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE HAVING A MEAGER SALARY. THE SAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION WHAT SOEVER WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE OTHER CREDITOR S U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AT 5%. O N APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT SHRI RAMNPUJAN PAL IS ONLY A NAME LENDER. HOW EVER THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 41 37 691 COULD NOT BE ADD ED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT HAS TO BE TAXED. ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 3 ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO ADD ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 80 534 INSTEAD OF RS. 41 37 691. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR WHEN THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY IS FOUND TO BE BOGUS AND FALS E THE QUESTION OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT ON SUCH BOGUS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. IF THE TRANSACTION OF HIRING VEHICLE AND THE OUTSTANDING L IABILITY IS TRUE THEN ONE MAY TAKE THE PROFIT ELEMENT ON SUCH TRANSACTION. IN THIS CA SE WHAT WAS SHOWN IS AN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. EVEN THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL IS ONLY A NAME LENDER. IN SUCH A CASE NO QUESTION OF TAKING ANY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE TRANSACTION WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS. 41 37 691 HAS T O BE ADDED SINCE THE CIT(A) HIMSELF FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE A ND THE ABOVESAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL IS ONLY A NAME LENDER. 4. REFERRING TO THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION THE LD.D R SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS REJECTED ONLY B ECAUSE SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICSE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.89 74 610 PAYABLE TO ONE BAJRANGI BUL K CARRIERS AS ON 31-03- 2003. THE ABOVESAID BAJRANGI BULK CARRIERS WAS SHO WN AS SUNDRY CREDITOR TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 41 37 691. ALL THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE PREPARED IN ONE-GO WITH SAME PEN. THE VOUCHER S DID NOT CONTAIN COMPLETE ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 4 ADDRESSES AND NAMES OF THE ALLEGED STRUCK OWNERS. THE ASSESSEE FABRICATED THE MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND SHOWED DIFFERENT TRUCKS IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON. REFERRIN G TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MORE PARTICULARLY PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT ONE KAMLESH WAS SHOWN AS OWNER OF TRUCK NO.GJ 12 W 5866; GH 12 W 9770 GJ 3U 5794 AND GJ 12 V 6521. THE VOUCHERS FO R PAYMENT SAID TO BE MADE TO BAJRANGI BULK CARRIERS WERE FOUND TO BE BOG US SINCE THE SIGNATURE DID NOT TALLY WITH. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT A CASE OF MERE NON RESPONSE FROM SOME OF THE CREDITORS FOR THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6). THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 5% ON THE TURN OVER OF RS. 4.42 CRORES. AS SUCH THE CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 1.7% INSTEAD OF 5%. 5. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI VIMAL DESAI THE LD.REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT SH RI RAMPUJAN PAL IS ONLY A NAME LENDER ONLY THE NET MARGIN EARNED BY THE SAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL HAS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE G ROSS AMOUNT OF THE FREIGHT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE WHAT PAID TO SH RI RAMPUJAN PAL WAS FREIGHT CHARGES AND NOT THE PROFIT. THEREFORE ONLY THE PR OFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE PAYMENT HAS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CONSIDERED ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). REFE RRING TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 5 CONSIDERATION THE EARLIER YEAR PROFIT OF THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 77 014. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 41 3 7 691 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL. ON EXAMINATION THE ABOVESAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL VERY CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXTRACTED THE STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSE AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAID SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL CATEGOR ICALLY STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW ANY KUNAL BULK CARRIERS AND HE HAD NO CONNECTI ON WITH IT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. THE CIT(A) HAVING FOUND TH AT SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL IS ONLY A NAME LENDER OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOWN AS LIABILITY. WHEN THE TRANSACTION ITSELF IS FOUND TO BE BOGUS THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SEGREGATING THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN IT. THE QUESTION OF SEGREGATION OF PROFIT ELEMENT WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY I N GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. WHEN SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL CLAIMS THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT PROVED AND THE LIABILITY WAS PROV ED TO BE BOGUS THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY OCCASION FOR THE CIT(A) TO TAKE THE PROFIT ELEMENT ON SUCH OUTSTANDING AMOUNT. THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO PROVE THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL AND THE ASSESSEE THE AMO UNT SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 6 41 37 691. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. NOW COMING TO THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 5% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.4.42 CRORES. TH E CIT(A) FOUND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CATEGORICALLY RECORDED HIS REASONING FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BELOW: SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED IN THOSE VOUCHE RS. THESE ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.89 74 610/- PAYABLE AS ON 31-03-03. BESIDES ABOVE ONE PARTY M /S BAJRANGI BULK CARRIER WHO HAD DONE TRANSPORT WORK F OR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITOR FOR RS.41 37 691/-. (B) THE SHEETS FOR FREIGHT PAYMENTS WERE ALSO EXAMI NED. THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED THESE FREIGHT SHEETS RECENTLY AND IN ONE GO. EVEN THE SIGNATURE OF VARIOUS TRUCK OWNER WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE IN ONE GO AND WITH THE SAME PEN. AL L THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE KEPT BELOW RS.20 000/- JUST TO E SCAPE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. A CT. THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES AND NAMES OF THESE ALLEGED TRUCK OWNERS WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. (C) WHILE PREPARING THIS FABRICATED EVIDENCE THE A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN DIFFERENT TRUCKS IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON. FO R ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 7 EXAMPLE ONE PERSON NAMED KAMLESH WAS SHOWN OWNER O F TRUCK NO.GJ 12 W 5866 GJ 12 W 9770 GJ 3U 5794 AND GH 12 V 6521. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY THE SAID PER SON MUST BE IDENTIFIABLE. FURTHER IT WAS STRANGE TO SEE TH AT HE HAD SIGNED BOTH IN HINDI AND ENGLISH WHICH IS AGAINST T HE LAW OF PROBABILITY. SIMILARLY ONE KALURAM WAS SHOWN OWNER OF TRUCK NO.GJ 12 V 7594 GJ 12 W 7368 & GJ 12 V 8012. IN SUCH A CASE THE SAID PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODU CED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE S OF RS.1 67 16 111/- IN NAME OF M/S BAJRANGI BULK CARRI ER (PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF RAMPUJAN RAMCHANDRA) IN ITS P&L A/C AND OUT OF ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.1 24 02 902/- W AS PAID DURING THE YEAR AND AMOUNT OF RS.41 37 691 HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING. THE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT TO M /S BAJRANGI BULK CARRIER WERE EXAMINED HOWEVER SIGNAT URE ON THESE VOUCHER WERE DIFFERENT ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND THESE SIGNATURES DID NOT TALLY WITH THE SIGNATURE O F RAMPUJAN RAMCHANDRA IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 . IT MEANT THAT THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI RAMPUJAN RAMCHANDR A WERE NOT TAKEN ON THESE VOUCHERS AND THESE WERE SIG NED BY SOME ONE ELSE. THE VOUCHERS AND RETURN OF INCOME O F SHRI RAMCHANDRA RAMPUJAN ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A OF T HE ORDER. (E) WITH THIS BACKGROUND SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE I. T. ACT WERE ISSUED TO SHRI RAMPUJAN RAMCHANDRA AND HIS STATEMEN TS ON OATH WERE RECODED WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- FURTHERMORE ON EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAMPUJAN PAL HE STATED THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. SHRI RAMP UJAN PAL HAS STATED BEFORE ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS MERELY A SALARY E MPLOYEE WITH A MEAGRE SALARY. HE HAD ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY FRE IGHT CHARGES. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO TH E NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AS HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE CIT(A). IT IS A C LEAR CASE OF DEFECT IN THE BOOKS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RE CORD THE DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 8. NOW WHAT REMAINS IS THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. O NCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER WA Y BUT TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE NET PROFIT FOR IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING YEAR AT 1.31%. BUT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO COMPARE THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE SIMILARLY PLACED TRADERS IN THE LOCALI TY. ESTIMATION OF PROFIT REQUIRES LITTLE BIT OF GUESS WORK. HOWEVER THAT GUESS WORK NEEDS TO BE EMPLOYED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER SEVERAL FACTORS SUCH AS PROFIT RATIO OF THE SIMILA RLY PLACED TRADERS IN THE LOCALITY PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS DEMAND FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT LOCAL ITY AVAILABILITY OF LABOURERS ETC. IN THIS CASE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH PAIN TO EXAMINE ALL THOSE FACTORS BEFORE ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFI T. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. ACCORDINGLY THE ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 9 ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSUE IS SET A SIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTORS IN DICATED ABOVE AND THEREAFTER ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AFTER BRINGING ON RECORD ALL TH E MATERIALS. NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT. 9. COMING TO THE PENALTY APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE ON THE QUANTUM APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DECISION. THEREFORE THE ISSUE IN THE PENALTY APPE AL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RED ECIDE THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION ON THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS AFTER GI VING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-07-2011. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 29 TH JULY 2011 PK/- ITA NO.207/RJT/2007 ITA NO. 733/RJT/2010 C.O. 27/RJT/2008 10 COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A)-II RAJKOT 4. THE CIT-I RAJKOT 5. THE DR I.T.A.T. RAJKOT (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT