The ITO, Ward-6(4),, Ahmedabad v. Krishnakant N. Bhavsar,, Ahmedabad

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL A M INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD-6(4) C.U.SHAH BUILDING ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. V/S . KRISHNAKANT N. BHAVSAR C/O SHREE AMBICA TEX. PRINT 239 SAIJPUR-GOPALPUR ROAD NAROL AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI M. C. PANDIT SR. DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI SAKAR SHARMA AR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RAISING FOL LOWING GROUNDS :- (1) THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.4 29 116/- ON A CCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES/JOB WORK RECEIPTS. (2) THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.52 898/- ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO HANUMAN R. PRASA D. (3) THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.5 01 000/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. ITA NO.1290/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR :2003-04 2 (4) THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1 70 072/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES. (5) THE LD. CIT(A) XII AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.9 000/- UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE AO. (7) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XII AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RE STORED. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS R UNNING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S AMBICA TEXPRINT AS A PROPRIETORY CONCER N ENGAGED IN TEXTILE PROCESSING. 3. FIRST GROUND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING COMPLETE RECORD OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES. IT HAS DEBITED EXPENSES WIT HOUT JUSTIFICATION. THE SHORTAGE OF MANUFACTURED CLOTH AS REFLECTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT DID NOT MATCH WITH THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WERE ALSO FOUND ON HIGHER SIDE WHEN COMPAR ED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS. HE NOTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.30 32 686/- AS ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. THE BILLS W ERE RAISED IN THE NAMES OF TWO CONCERNS NAMELY M/S AMBICATEX PRINTS (P) L TD. AND M/S SHRI RAJESHWARI FABRI TEX. BOTH THESE CONCERNS HAVE COMM ON FACTORY PREMISES. ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS WERE NOT IN THE N AME OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FACTORY PREMISES WAS TAKEN ON LE ASE FROM THESE TWO CONCERNS IN WHOSE NAMES ELECTRIC CONNECTIONS WERE I NSTALLED. THE AO FOUND THAT IN VARIOUS MONTHS ELECTRICITY CONSUMED W AS DISPROPORTIONATE 3 TO THE OUTPUT GIVEN. HE WORKED OUT FOLLOWING DATA T O SHOW HOW PRODUCTION VARIED IN DIFFERENT MONTHS AND WAS NOT C OMMENSURATE WITH THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMED:- MONTH UNITS IN SRFT UNITS IN ATTPL TOTAL UNITS PRODUCTION RATIO PER UNIT 4/2002 29917 29795 50622 173844 3.43 5/2002 47977 19386 67363 324766 4.82 6/2002 36978 26318 63296 444231 7.01 7/2002 34695 25415 60110 473627 7.88 8/2002 36237 28681 64918 358398 5.52 9/2002 37306 28088 65394 466174 7.13 10/2002 33208 24607 57815 638584 11.04 11/2002 37997 24794 62791 561126 8.94 12/2002 40098 21965 62063 592112 9.54 1/2003 36721 21967 58688 346491 5.90 2/2003 31661 18400 50061 622599 12.44 3/2003 28046 17658 45704 460473 10.07 TOTAL 430841 277984 708825 5462425 7.71 HE NOTED FROM THE ABOVE THAT IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUA RY 2003 THERE WAS A PRODUCTION 12.44 MTRS PER UNIT WHEREAS THE MINIMUM PRODUCTION IS AT 3.43 MTRS. PER UNIT. THE RAW MATERIAL IS ONLY GREY CLOTH AND SAME PROCESSING IS DONE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR I.E. BLEACHI NG DYEING AND PRINTING. FROM THIS HE CONCLUDED THAT PRODUCTION IS MADE OUTS IDE THE BOOKS AND SOLD OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. HE WORKED OUT THE EXCESS PR ODUCTION AS UNDER :- MONTH & YEAR TOTAL UNITS CONSUMED PRODUCTION SHOWN RATIO PER UNIT PRODUCTION @ AVERAGE RATION (IN MTRS). 4/2002 50622 173844 3.434159061 390295.6 21645.60 4 5/2005 67363 324766 4.821133263 519368.7 194602.70 6/2002 63296 444231 7.018310794 488012.2 43781.16 8/2002 64918 358398 5.520780061 500517.8 142119.80 9/2002 65394 466174 7.128696822 504187.7 38013.74 1/2003 58688 346491 5.9039497 452484.5 105993.50 TOTAL 50061 622599 12.4368071 546156.50 TOTAL SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION WAS WORKED OUT BY THE A O AT 5 46 157 MTRS. HE ALLOWED 10% MARGIN TO OTHER FACTORS LIKE GREY CL OTH WEATHER CONDITIONS CONSUMPTION OF COLOUR AND CHEMICAL COMB INATION AND DETERMINED SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AT 49154 MTRS. TAK ING AVERAGE SALE PRICE AT RS.8.73 PER MTR. SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS W AS CALCULATED AT RS.4 29 116/-. HE ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED THIS ADDITIO N TO THE DECLARED INCOME. HE ALSO NOTED THAT BY MAKING THIS ADDITION THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 12.20% WOULD ONLY INCREASE TO 13.66% % WHEREAS IN THE EARLIER YEAR GP RATE DECLARED WAS AT 17.81%. BUT LD . CIT(A) HELD THAT ENTIRE ADDITION IS BASED ON ARITHMETIC CALCULATION HOLDING THE PRODUCTION @ 7.71 MTR. PER UNIT OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMED. HE HE LD THAT AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS. NO OTHER DEFECTS ARE FOUND IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE IS NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE FOR MAKING ADDITION. THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL INCLUDING COLOURS AND CHEM ICALS ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS. THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED BY THE AUDITORS. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECES SARY THAT THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC WORDS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THA T AO IS REJECTING THE BOOKS AND INVOKING SECTION 145. IF REJECTION OF BOO KS ARE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE BODY OF THE ORDER THEN IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT AO DID NOT RELY ON THE BOOKS AND HE ACQUIRED JURISDICTION TO ESTIMATE THE PROFITS. FROM THE READING OF THE ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT PROFITS FROM THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY 5 THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY DETERMINED BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF VARIOUS RAW MAT ERIALS. FURTHER SHORTAGES SHOWN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ARE NOT EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIATION IN PRODUCTION AS PER ELECTRICITY CONS UMED HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON THAT PRODUCT ION WOULD VARY SO MUCH IN VARIOUS MONTHS IF IT IS COMPARED WITH ELECT RICITY CONSUMED. THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH VARIATION IN THE PRODUCTION BOOKS WOULD BE STILL RELIABLE. IF ADDIT ION SO PROPOSED BY THE AO IS UPHELD THUS INCREASE IN GP RATE WOULD BE ONLY 1.46% MAKING THE GP RATE TO 13.66% WHICH IS STILL QUITE REASONABLE A S COMPARED TO THE GP RATE SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS COULD NOT BE REJECTED AS NO DE FECTS ARE FOUND WHEN ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING EXCISE RECORDS AS WELL AS A CCOUNTS ARE AUDIT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AO HAD SUFFICIENT REASONS TO REJECT THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE IS USING SEVERAL RAW MATERIALS COLOURS AND CHEMICALS OF WHICH THERE IS NO QUANTITATIVE RECORD. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY WHY THE PRODUCTION IS VARYIN G IN DIFFERENT MONTHS AS COMPARED TO ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION. WE CANNOT IGNO RE THIS IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PRODUCTION. IF THERE IS SUCH LARGE VARIAT ION IN CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AND OUTPUT AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO THE N THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GIVE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. MERELY MAINTAINING EX CISE RECORD DOES NOT PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO THIS VARIATIO N AS NOTED BY THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS AND AO S ESTIMATION OF PROFITS. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT ADDITION IS MARGINAL AND IT INCREASES THE GP RATE TO 13.66% WHICH IS STILL LOWE R AS COMPARED TO GP RATE SHOWN IN PREVIOUS YEAR AT 17.81%. ACCORDINGLY WE RESTORE THE 6 ADDITION IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT MADE BY THE AO. THI S GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.2. IT RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.52 898/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO ONE S HRI HANUMAN R. PRASAD. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID TO ONE SHRI HANUMAN R. PRASAD FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES. THE AO ASKED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THAT PERSON. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAIL IN REGARD TO THE PARTIES FOR WHOM SHRI HANUMAN R. PRASAD HAS REN DERED SERVICES AND THE AMOUNT ON WHICH COMMISSION WAS GIVEN TO HIM. SI NCE COMMISSION PAID TO SHRI HANUMAN R. PRASAD WAS WITHOUT ANY SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.52 898/- WAS MADE. LD. CIT(A) DELETE D THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT A COMMISSION OF RS.83 173/- WAS PAID TO SHRI HANUMAN R. PRASAD AND TDS WAS ALSO MADE ON THAT AMOUNT/-. ONCE TDS WAS MADE IT CONFIRMED THE NATURE OF EXPENSES. 8. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THEREFORE EXPENDITURE OF COMMI SSION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 9. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ALLOWANCES WAS MAD E IN THE PAST YEARS AND FACTS REMAINING THE SAME THERE IS NO CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE THIS YEAR. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. EVEN IF SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE AND ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS THEN SUCH ALLOWANCES WERE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED DURING THOSE YEARS. T HE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AND FOR CLAIMIN G ALLOWANCE THIS YEAR 7 ASSESSEE HAS TO INDEPENDENTLY FURNISH EVIDENCE OF S ERVICES RENDERED THIS YEAR. SINCE IN THE CURRENT YEAR NO EVIDENCE OF SERV ICES RENDERED HAS BEEN FURNISHED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWE D. THE FACT THAT TDS HAS BEEN MADE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE ON THE ALLOWABIL ITY OF EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF EXPENDITURE IS TO BE NECESSARILY ESTABLISHED EVERY YEAR FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. AS A SSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE OF SERVICES HAVING RENDERED THE ADDITION WAS INCORRECTLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). THIS ADDITION IS RESTORED AND THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.3. IT RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE OF RS.5 01 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISS ION EXPENSES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.5 01 000/- AS COMMISSION EXPENDITURE THROUGH JOURNAL ENTRIES. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED SALES OF OWN G REY CLOTH OF RS.59 92 367/-. JOB WORK INCOME IS SHOWN AT RS.2 38 29 877/-. FOR PROCURING JOB WORK ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION OR DALALI WHICH IS REGULARLY DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE AO FINDING T HAT THERE ARE NO SERVICES RENDERED DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE LD. CI T(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT CONFIRMATION FROM THE RESP ECTIVE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED SIMILAR TYPE OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLO WED IN EARLIER YEARS TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON THESE EXPENSES. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PRINCIPLE OF R ES JUDICATA WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE HERE. SECONDLY EVERY YEAR ASSESSEE HA S TO SUBMIT AN EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED. MERELY BECAUSE TDS H AS BEEN MADE OR SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS T HE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED THIS YEAR ALSO. 8 13. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE REASONS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN AND CLARIFY AS TO FOR WHICH CLIENTS THE AGENTS HAVE RENDERED SERVICES AND PROVIDED JOB WORK TO THE ASSESSEE. THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF TH OSE CLIENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED AND SUCH CLIENTS ARE REQUIR ED TO CONFIRM THAT SUCH JOB WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E COMMISSION AGENTS. IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD IT CANNOT BE PRESUME D MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED IN EARLI ER YEARS OR THAT TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON SUCH PAYMENT THAT PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT IS SHOWN HAD RENDERED SERVICES TO THE ASSES SEE IN PROCURING JOB WORK. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO.4. IT RELATES TO BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES. THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED ON REPAIR OF FACTORY BUILDI NG. THE AO NOTED THAT BUILDING IN WHICH THE REPAIRS ARE CARRIED OUT ARE I N THE NAME OF SHRI AMBICA PRINT (P) LTD. AND OTHERS. THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2002 AND JANUARY 2003 BUT CORRESPONDING LABOUR EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED IN THESE MONTHS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IS ONLY CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E. AO THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED I S OF CAPITAL NATURE. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AFTER V ERIFYING THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED THAT THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF REPAIRS OF FACTORY BUILDING 9 PLASTERING REPAIRING OR WASHING TANKS REPAIRING O F WALLS REPAIRING OF FOUNDATION OF MACHINERY REPAIRING OF TREATMENT PLA NT ETC. FURTHER ONCE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE BUILDING IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED A PERMANENT ASSET. LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED O N THE DECISION OF HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNACHA ND CHELLARAM (P) LTD. (1980) 16 CTR (MAD) 248. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF EXPEN DITURE AS DESCRIBED BY LD. CIT(A) AND WHICH REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY REV ENUE WE HOLD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS OF REVENUE IN NATURE. FURT HER THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE FACTORY BUILDING THEREFORE EXPEN DITURE SO INCURRED WOULD NOT RESULT INTO ANY ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS REJE CTED. 17. GROUND NO.5. IT RELATES TO ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO IN THE ORDER STATED THAT AS SESSEE DID NOT CHARGE ANY RENT FROM THE EMPLOYEES FOR PROVIDING HOUSES TO THEM. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THIS WOULD ENABLE THEM TO ATTEND FACTO RY PREMISES EARLY AND TO DEVOTE MORE TIME TO OFFICE WORK ON DUTY. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE OFFERED INCOME UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON ESTIMATED MARKET RENT CHARGEABLE FROM THE EMPLOYEES. HE ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET RATE AT RS.9 0 00/- AND TAXED IT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE HOUSE TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR OCCUPATION AND FOR DEVOTING MORE TIME ON DUTY. HE DID NOT RECOVER ANY AMOUNT FROM THE EMPLOYEES SALARY FOR S TAYING THEREIN. 10 NOTHING HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM THEM. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A). THE REASONS ARE THAT GIVING HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE STAYING THEIR WITHOUT GIVING RENT IS A BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE ONCE RENT IS NOT CHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY AO CANNOT TREAT THE MARKET RENT AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE HOUSE PROPERTY IS GIVEN WITHOUT RENT TO AN UN CONCERNED PERSON. IT IS GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATIO N AND THEREFORE NO DEEMED HOUSE RENT CAN BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 23(1 ). WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THIS GROUND OF REVENUE. 19. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED : 7/5/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 7/5/2010