Shri Bharatkumar P.Kapadia,, Surat v. The ACIT., Circle-2,, Surat

ITA 1121/AHD/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 112120514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ADWPK8341B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1121/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Shri Bharatkumar P.Kapadia,, Surat
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-2,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 23-07-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 12-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : A HMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HON'BLE S HRI N.S. SAINI A.M.) I.T.A. NOS. 1121 & 1122/AHD./2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 BHARATKUMAR PUNAMCHAND KAPADIA SURAT -VS.- ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PAN : ADWPK 8341 B) CIRCLE-2 SURA T (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAURAV BATHOM D. R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 24.02.2010 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS)-II SURAT CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1 49 833/- AND RS.87 932/- LEVIED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO PENALTY OF RS.1 49 833/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF ART SILK CLOTH AS WELL AS TRADING OF YA RN IN PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S. B.P. TEXTILES. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 11.09.2002 IN COURSE OF WHICH THE ASS ESSEE MADE A DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME THE BREAK-UP OF WHICH WAS AS UNDER :- (I) EXCESS STOCK OF YARN EXCESS STOCK OF GREY CLOTH RS.8 32 350 RS.15 67 806 RS.24 00 156 (II) UNACCOUNTED SALES RS.60 000 (III) UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION RS.3 04 183 RS.3 64 183 TOTAL DISCLOSURE. RS.27 64 339/- 2 ITA NOS .1121 & 1122/AHD/2010 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON 29.11.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.74 44 458/-. IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE COMMENTS OF THE AUDITORS IN THE AUDIT REPORT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED REGULAR STOCK RECORDS AND THAT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HA D BEEN COMPLIED FROM THE FINANCIAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE O BSERVATION OF THE AUDITORS WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT SUBSTANTIAL UNACCOUNTED STOCK HAD BEE N FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY ON 11.09.2002. THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED FOR THE POST- SURVEY PERIOD HAD FALLEN DRASTICALLY FROM THE GROSS PROFIT OF 17.03% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THE G.P. OF 14.47% IN THE YEAR BEFORE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ANA LYSIS OF THE BOOK RESULTS SHOWED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD WORKED OUT TO 25.8 9% WHILE G.P. FOR THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD WORKED OUT TO 11.94%. THESE WERE RESULTED WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLIED THE AVERAGE GP OF PREVIOUS YEAR OF 15.75% TO THE TURNOVER OF PO ST-SURVEY PERIOD. THIS RESULTED IN GP BEING WORKED OUT AT RS.39 32 614/- FROM WHICH HE REDUCED THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.29 81 296/- TO ARRIVE AT THE SUM OF RS.9 51 318/ - WHICH HE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3. IN REPLY TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILED REASONS FOR FALL IN G.P. IT WAS URGED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ESTIMATE THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNI SHED ANY CONCEALMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.1 49 833/-. 4. ON APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO BRING ALL MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH WAS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY TO THE COMPUTATION OF TO TAL INCOME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FURTHER HELD THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 BELOW THE SAID SECTION ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3 ITA NOS .1121 & 1122/AHD/2010 5. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5 ARE ALSO IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ABOVE. IN THIS YEAR ALSO I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROFI T RATIO OF 5.01% AS COMPARED TO 17.97% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND 17.03% IN THE YEAR B EFORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED THE A VERAGE GP OF LAST THREE YEARS WHICH WORKED OUT TO 17.50% AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.24 06 870 /-. ON APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.12 00 000/- VIDE ORDER DATED 08.09.2 008. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.3 78 000/- UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C). FOLLOWING HIS DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. BEING AGGRIE VED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE SHRI R.N. VEPARI LD. COUNSEL APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN RESPECT OF NOTIONAL ADDITION NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER P OINTED OUT THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 50%. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 6 IN ORDER DATED 08.09.2008 IN ITA NOS. 699/AHD/200 7 & 1550/AHD/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. THE COPY OF D ECISION IS PLACED ON PAGES 24 TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE REASONS OF FALL IN G.P. WERE DULY EXPLAINED. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONGWIT H VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POIN TED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE ADDITI ON MADE BY A.O. FOLLOWING ON ESTIMATED G.P. NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS.- RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) IS SQUARELY COVERED WI TH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI GAURAV BATHOM LD. D.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT IN THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD THERE I S A DRASTIC FALL IN G.P. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO R EJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN ESTIMATED INCOME. WHATEVER ESTIMATED INCOME IS UPHELD BY THE ITAT AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS RIGHTL Y LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND 4 ITA NOS .1121 & 1122/AHD/2010 CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CON FIRMING THE PENALTY FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BE UPHELD. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN QUANTUM APPE AL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS REDUCED TO 50% AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS CONTAINED IN PARA 6 ON PAGE 5 OF THE DECISION DATED 08.09.2008 IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 699/AHD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (SUPRA ) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 6. SHRI R.N. VEPARI LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REQUISITE DETAILS OF QUANTIT ATIVE CONSUMPTION OF YARN ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE AND THE DE TAILS OF SALES BEFORE THE AO. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIC ATION IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD GIVEN THE REASONS FOR FALL IN GP BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE COMPARED TO WHICH THE SELLI NG PRICE HAD INCREASED ONLY SLIGHTLY. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT GREY CLOTH MANUF ACTURING IN SURAT IS DONE BY A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL UNITS WHICH MAKES BUSINESS HI GHLY COMPETITIVE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T PRICE FLUCTUATIONS IN RAW MATERIAL RESULTED IN FLUCTUATION IN GROSS PROFIT MA RGIN. IT WAS ALSO ONE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STOCK DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS VALUED AT THE MARKET PRICE AND THIS COULD NOT BE SOLD AT A HIGHER MARGIN WHICH MEANS THAT THE PROFIT COULD NOT BE ENHANCED ON THE CONTRARY SHRI SUNIL R. DARSI LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NOTE OF THE AUDITORS TOGETHER WITH THE DETECTION OF STOCK DURING SURVEY HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DOING BUSINESS OUTS IDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DRA STIC FALL IN GP RATE IN POST SURVEY PERIOD AS COMPARED TO THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR THE EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FALL IN GP WAS ONLY GENERAL EXPLANATION WHICH HAS NO BASIS. WE FIND HAT THE AO CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES NOR STOCK REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED. THERE FORE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY PURCHASES SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL S. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY REJECTED BY TH E AO. AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SLIGHT FALL IN GP RATE WHICH HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THUS CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9 51 318/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS ON HIGHER SIDE. ACCORDINGLY WE REDUCE THE ADDITION TO RS.4 75 660/- THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.4 75 658/-. 8.1. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHATEVER EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS THEREFORE ON MERE DISALLOWANCE OF 5 ITA NOS .1121 & 1122/AHD/2010 EXPENSES OR ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT POST-SURVEY IS NO GROUND TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT 1961. 8.2. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE RECENT JUD GMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT MAKING INCORRECT C LAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HEAD-NOTES OF THE SAID DECISION READS AS UNDER :- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT THERE H AS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRA CE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS F OUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PEN ALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION THE PENALTY PROVISION CAN NOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUN T TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHIN G WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOC UMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PA RTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT P ENALTY THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FA LSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MER E MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . 9. ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN QUAN TUM APPEAL AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WERE M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALED INCOME. ADMITTEDLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF MAIN PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BE CAUSE MERE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM 6 ITA NOS .1121 & 1122/AHD/2010 WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THE ASSESSEE TO BE GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARABHAI CHEMICAL (P) LTD . [2002] 257 ITR 355 (GUJ.) HELD AS UNDER :- THE DEEMING FICTION THAT THE ADDED/ DISALLOWED AMO UNTS REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 WILL NOT APPLY IF THE EXPLANATION THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS WHICH HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS WAS (I) BONA FIDE AND (II) IF HE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN CASES WHERE EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BUT WAS REJECTED AS IT COU LD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WOULD ARISE NO PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THAT WAS ADDED OR DISALLOWED AND SUCH ASSESSEE CAN SHOW THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM WAS A BONA FIDE ONE AND THAT HE HAD DISCLOSED ALL F ACTS RELATING TO SUCH EXPLANATION AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME DUR ING THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AL L THE MATERIAL FACTS. WE THEREFORE BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN LEVYING THE PENALTY ON BOTH TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. WE THEREFORE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS. 10. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.07.201 0 SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23/ 07 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.