Shri Kalpesh H. Fatnani(HUF), Surat v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1),, Surat

ITA 1017/AHD/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 101720514 RSA 2007
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1017/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Shri Kalpesh H. Fatnani(HUF), Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 06-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 16-07-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 08-03-2007
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JM AND D.C.AGRAW AL AM KALPESH H. FATNANI (HUF) GP/7 BOMBAY MARKET ADATIYA AAWAS SURAT. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN AR REVENUEBY:- SHRI K. M. MAHESH SR.DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 7.2.2007 WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FO LLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND ALSO IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A)-II SURAT ERRED BY DISMISSING T HE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT F OR LEVY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.5 61 000/- CHARGED FOR CONC EALMENT OF INCOME AND/OR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND ALSO IN LAW THE LD. AO HAS ERRED BY LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.5 61 000/- IN VIEW OF THE STATE MENT OF FACTS MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-II SURAT. HENCE YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS TO YOUR HONOUR TO DELETE THE PENALTY INTO THE MATTER LEVIED BY THE LD. AO AND OBLIGE. ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR :2004-05 ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AOS ORDER DATED 28/12/2005ON AN INCOME OF RS.18 92 175/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1 32 240/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH RETURN WAS FILED ON 13.9.2004. THE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1) BUT SUBSEQ UENTLY INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH ACTION CARRIED O UT IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA C.A. SURAT. ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO NOTICED THAT CLOSING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2003 WAS SH OWN AT RS.1 37 417/- WHEREAS OPENING CAPITAL WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE A S ON 1.4.2003 AT RS.18 37 417/- RESULTING IN ENHANCEMENT OF CAPITAL BY RS.17 LACS. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE HAS MADE FOLLOWING INVESTMENTS AGAINST WHICH CAPITAL OF RS.18 37 417/- IS ADJUSTED. THESE INVESTMENTS WERE AS UNDER :- SL.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY/PARTICULARS OF INVESTMENT AMOUNT 1 PARASWANATH CONSTRUCTION (FLAT) 45 000/- 2 PRARTHANA BUILDERS (ROW HOUSE) 4 50 000/- 3 PPF A/C 70 000/- 4 BUSINESS RECEIVABLES 11 03 700/- 5 STOCK IN TRADE 29 830/- 6 BANK ACCOUNT 1 17 566/- 7 CASH ON HAND 1 26 933/- TOTAL 19 43 029/- 3. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT THE SUM OF RS.17 LACS INCLUDED SAVINGS OF PAST YEARS AND UNACCOUNTED INCO ME EARNED OUT OF TRADING ACTIVITIES OF TEXTILE BUSINESS OF THE CURRE NT FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THIS REGARD FOLLOWING PARA FROM ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 22.12.2005 IS AS UNDER: SIR SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS INCLUDES INCOME SURREN DERED FOR TAXATION IN THIS LETTER RS.17 00 000/- AS WELL AS INCOME DECLARED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED AND ALSO THE ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 SAVINGS OUT OF PAST YEARS INCOME SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL AS AT 1 ST APRIL 2003 ETC. AS PER POINT NO.9: SIR THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF R S.17 00 000/- BETWEEN OPENING CAPITAL OF ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND CLOSING BALANCE O F CAPITAL OF ASST. YEAR 2003-04. SIR THIS DIFFERENCE OF RS.17 00 000/- REPRESENTS UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED OUT OF TRADING ACTIVITY OF TEXTILE BUSINESS OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNTING YEAR I.E. F.Y. 2003-04 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2004-05. HENCE YOUR ASSESSEE SURRENDERS THIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.17 00 000/- FOR TAXATION FOR THE FY 20 03-04 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2004- 05 AND HE IS WILLING TO PAY DUE TAXES ON THE SAID I NCOME AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR BY YOUR HONOUR. SIR MY CLIENT ACCEPTS HIS MISTAKE AND APOLOGIZES FOR THE SAME. KINDLY CONSIDER THE MATTER SYMPATHETICALLY AND OBLIGE. 4. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO HOWEVER WAS NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.17 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION BECAME FINAL. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDE RED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.17 LACS THEREFORE NO PENALTY BE LEVI ED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAID THE INCOME T AX THEREOF AND ASSESSEE HAS CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND DI D NOT HAVE ANY GUILTY MIND. THE AO WAS HOWEVER NOT SATISFIED. HE HELD T HAT IT IS NOT MERELY A MISTAKE BUT A COOL MINDED PLAN EXECUTED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO BRING HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE BOOKS WITHOUT PAYING THE DUE INCOME-TAX. ONCE IT WAS DISCOVERED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT FROM HIM THE N ONLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22.12.2005 THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO SUR RENDER THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.17 LACS. IN ADDITION TO THIS IT WAS EX PLAINED THAT SUCH UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY AND OTHER INVESTMENTS. ONCE POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS COMPARED TO THE CLOSING BALANCE IN ASST. YEAR 2003-04 ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO SURRENDER THROUGH HIS LETTER DATED 22.12.2005. ACCORDINGLY THE AO LEVIED MINIMUM LEVIA BLE PENALTY OF ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 4 RS.5 61 000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY . HE HELD THAT (I) THE MALA FIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY ESTA BLISHED IN THE SENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.17 0 0 000/- AND ITS INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ETC. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF SIMPLE MISTAKE OR OVER-SIGHT. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAD WILL-FULLY SOUGHT TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED INCOME BY INCREASING THE OP ENING CAPITAL OF THE CURRENT YEAR. (III) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RETURN. (IV) AO HAD DETECTED THE CONCEALMENT BY POINTING OU T THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF ASST. YEAR 2003-04 A ND OPENING BALANCE FOR CAPITAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05. (V) THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE N OT APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE AS THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THE CASE OF CHEAP CYCLE STORES VS. CIT (2005) 1 96 CTR 173 (ALL) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN AFTER FINDING OUT A MISTAKE IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND ORDER SHEET OF AO DI D NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C.J. RATHNASWAMI (1997) 140 CTR 143 (MAD) THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED ONLY FOR THE ADDITION BUT HAD N OT AGREED THAT ADDITION WAS HIS CONCEALED INCOME AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE IN COME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 5 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M.P. NARAYANAN (2000) 244 IT R 528 (MAD) THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED CASH CREDIT AS INCOME AND FIL ED THE REVISED RETURN WHICH WAS REGULARIZED BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 AND THEREAFTER RE-ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED ON THE REVISE D RETURN. PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE COURT HELD THAT GIVEN THE FACTS IT COU LD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN. THERE WAS NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CON CEALMENT. THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT INVOKED THE EXPLANATION TO SECTI ON 271(1)(C). THE BURDEN WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRIES WITH THE CREDITORS. (VI) FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPLAN ATION 1 (B)IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE FA CTS AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) FI NALLY HELD AS UNDER :- 6.8 ROUNDING UP THE DISCUSSION ABOVE IT IS SEEN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY AND WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION MANIPULATED THE OPEN ING CAPITAL BALANCE FOR THE YEAR WHEREBY IT WAS INCREASED BY A SUM OF RS.17 LACS AS COMPARED TO THE CLOSING CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THIS WAS DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE F ACTUM OF CONCEALED INCOME AND IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO STATED THAT SUCH INCOM E HAD BEEN INVESTED IN PROPERTY ETC. THEREFORE IT WAS CLEARLY A CASE OF CONCEALED INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION AND HAD IN FACT ACCEPTED THE FACTUM OF CONCEALMENT. PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT WAS THEREFORE CLEARLY LEVIABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND EVEN IF THE ADDITION OF RS.17 LACS IS TO BE TREATED AS AN AGREED ADDITION AS HELD BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN SUCH A CASE ALSO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS EXIGI BLE. ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 6 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON SUCH VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE. SHE REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SHRI SARADHA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (P) LTD. (2006) 286 ITR 499 (MAD). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERELY FOR MAKING A WRONG CL AIM PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCT S 322 ITR 158 (SC). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGED TRADE LIA BILITIES REPRESENTED BY THE CAPITAL IS NOT GENUINE AS HELD IN VARIOUS CASES RELATING TO SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT HE HA S BEEN BUILDING UP BOGUS CAPITAL. ONCE THE CAPITAL BUILT UP IS TREATED AS BOGUS NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON AN INCOME OF RS.1 32 240/-. ITS CLOSING C APITAL AS ON 31.3.2003 WAS RS.1 37 417/- WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIS OP ENING CAPITAL AS ON 1.4.2003 AT RS.18 37 417/- FURTHER SHOWED INVESTME NTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS RECEIVABLES OF RS.19 43 029/- AS EXHIBITED ABOVE. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IT WAS CLEARLY ADM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22.12.2005 THAT RS.17 LACS RE PRESENTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED OUT OF TRADING ACTIVITIES OF TEXTILE BUSINESS OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNTING YEAR I.E. F.Y.2003-04 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND HENCE HE SURRENDERED THIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 17 LACS FOR TAXATION. ONCE IT WAS ADMITTED THAT RS.17 LACS REPRESENTED HI S UNACCOUNTED INCOME ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 7 EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND NO RETRACTION OR NO EVIDENCE COUNTERING THE ABOVE ADMI SSION HAS BEEN FILED THE QUESTION OF TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW AND HOLDING THAT SUM OF RS.17 LACS EVEN THOUGH ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT DID NOT REPRESENT CONCEALED INCOME DID NOT ARISE. EVEN IN A CASE WHE RE AN AMOUNT IS DECLARED AS INCOME UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF THERE IS O PTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUT UP CORRECT FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG AUTHORITIES OR EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SO AS TO CLARIFY T HE FACTS. UNLESS CONTRARY MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES THE STA ND TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT FOUND REBUTTED IN TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE NOW IGNORED. IN THE CASES REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REPEATED BEFORE US THOUGH ADDITION WAS ACCEPTED BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT SUCH ADDITION REPRESENTED UNA CCOUNTED INCOME. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS A CLEAR ADMISSION THAT RS.17 LACS ENHANCED IN THE CAPITAL A/C REPRESENTED ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VERY ELABORATELY AND CONVINCINGLY BROUGH T THE EFFECT OF MAIN PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND ALSO EXPLANATION -1 THEREOF. 8. WHERE ASSESSEE ADMITS THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTS HIS INCOME NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT TH E AMOUNT REPRESENTED CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW IS SUPPO RTED BY THE DECISIONS OF HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE WESTERN AUTOM OBILES (INDIA) VS. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (BOM) AND THAT HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KRISHNA & CO. (1979) 120 ITR 144 (MAD). IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. S.S.K.G. ARTHANAR ISWAMY CHETTIAR (1982) 136 ITR145 (MAD) THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) CONT EMPLATES CONCEALMENT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER SECT ION 139 ALONE AND PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO THAT CO NCEALMENT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HON. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 8 SULEMANJI GANIBHAI VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 373 (M.P .) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OCCURS WHEN RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED. AN ASSESSEE INCURS PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN HE CONCEALS PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHES INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. CONCEALMENT IMPLIES INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF TRUT H OR FACT KNOWN TO THE INJURY OR PREJUDICE OF ANOTHER. WHEN THERE IS A DUT Y TO DISCLOSE AND SUCH DISCLOSURE IS NOT MADE THEN IT IS CONCEALMENT OR FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LAW PROVIDED A DUTY ON THE A SSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS NECESSA RY FOR ASSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME. BUT WHERE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY OR OTHE RWISE DOES NOT DISCLOSE ALL THE FACTS OR DISCLOSES INACCURATE PAR TICULARS WHICH IF ACCEPTED WOULD HAVE LEAD TO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME AND UNDER ASSESSMENT OF TAX IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY W OULD BE JUSTIFIED. 9. THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND MENTION ED IN PARA 6.8 OF HIS ORDER REMAINED UNREBUTTED AND HIS FINDING THER EFORE IS REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR ARGUM ENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY FILED A RETURN ON 13.9.2004 SHOWING CON CEALED INCOME OF RS.17 LACS BY WAY OF ENHANCEMENT OF OPENING CAPITAL BY THAT AMOUNT WITHOUT PAYING TAXES THEREON. THIS WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS REPRESENTIN G HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. NO FURTHER PROOF IS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTE D BY THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULA RS OF HIS INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS NOR IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SUCH FINDING OF LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS R EBUTTED. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1017/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 9 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/8/2010 SD/- SD/- (MUMUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD DATED : 6/8/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD