Anjani Synthetics Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1459/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 145920514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCA2789E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1459/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Anjani Synthetics Pvt.Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-02-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND A. N. PAHUJA AM) ITA NO.1459/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 ANJANI SYNTHETICS LTD. 202 KAIVANA NR. PANCHWATI CIRCLE AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD-15 VS THE D. C. I. T. CIRCLE-1 JITENDRA CHAMBERS NR. R. B. I. AHMEDABAD PA NO. AABCA 2789 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI GAURAV NAHTA AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. DHANISTA SR. DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-VI AHMEDABAD DATED 19 TH JANUARY 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS VI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19/01/2009 FOR A. Y. 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18 42 527/- OUT O F DEPRECIATION BEING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 62 565/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE FACTS ON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED NEW PLANT AND MACHINERIES AMOUNTING TO RS .1 77 92 784/- AND HAS CLAIMED NORMAL DEPRECIATION @ 25% AND FURTHER ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 15% HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PER SECTION 32 (1) (IIA) O F THE IT ACT TOTALING TO RS.49 13 407/-. THE CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT CERTIFIED THAT THE SAME DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE. THE AO NOTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE BECOMES ERRONEOUS SINCE IT HAS TO Q UANTIFY THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ONLY. THE AO NOTED THAT ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNTED TO RS.18 42 572/- AND THE RES T IS NORMAL DEPRECIATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED HOT AIR STENTER MACHINE WHICH HAS INCREAS ED ITS INSTALLED CAPACITY BY 10% THEREFORE ENTITLED FOR HIGHER DEPR ECIATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED 3 STENTER MACHINES AN D THE 4 TH ONE INCREASED THE CAPACITY. THE AO CONSIDERING THE FACT S NOTED THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 32 (1) (IIA) OF THE IT ACT REQUIRE AN INCREASE OF 10% OF INSTALLED CAPACITY AND THE INSTALLED CAPA CITY REFERS TO THE PROCESS WHICH TURNS THE RAW MATERIALS INTO FINISHED GOODS. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IT CLEARLY HAD EXISTING SURPLUS OF INSTALLED CAPACITY HENCE PURCHASE OF STENTER MACHINE DID NOT ADD INSTA LLED CAPACITY THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE RESULTED AN INCREASE IN OUT-PU T. IN SUCH A CASE AN INCREASE IN OUT-PUT IS NOT CO-TERMINUS WITH AN I NCREASE IN INSTALLED CAPACITY. FURTHER THE DIRECTORS REPORT STATES THA T INSTALLED CAPACITY OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 3 ADDED RS.18 42 527/- TO THE INCOME. ADDITION WAS CH ALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GROSS BLOCK OF ASSET WERE PUT TO USE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES AND INCREASED THE INSTALLED C APACITY THEREFORE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDE RING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CONFIRM THE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS AT PAGES 5 TO 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FIRST OF ALL IT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO CONSIDER THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION WHICH A RE AS UNDER: IN ORDER TO AVAIL DEPRECIATION THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED: (A) ASSET MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE; (B) IT MUST BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION; AND (C) IT SHOULD BE USED DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. FIRST OF ALL ASSET MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSET IS OWNED BY HIM OR ASSESSEE IS THE CO-OWNER OF THE ASSET. IT IS ONLY T HE OWNER OF THE ASSETS WHO IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON THEM. SECONDLY ASSET MUST BE USED FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION PROFESSION. THE ASSET IN RESPECT OF WHI CH DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED MUST HAVE BEEN USED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 4 THIRDLY ASSET MUST BE USED DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ONLY IF TH E ASSET IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION A T LEAST FOR SOMETIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER FRO M THE A. Y. 1992-93 WHERE AN ASSET IS ACQUIRED AND PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT IS ACQUIRED DEPRECIATION THERE ON SHALL BE ALLOWED @ 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE ACCORDING TO THE PERC ENTAGE PRESCRIBED IN RESPECT OF BLOCK OF ASSET COMPRISING SUCH ASSET. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (1) (IIA) READS AS U NDER: (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR (OTHE R THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT) WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INS TALLED AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2002 BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY AR TICLE OR THING A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO FIFTEEN PER CENT O F ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II) PROVIDED THAT SUCH FURTHER DEDUCTION OF FIFTEEN PER CENT SHALL BE ALLOWED TO (A) A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DURING ANY PREVIOU S YEAR IN WHICH SUCH UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTUR E OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 OR (B) ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING EXISTING BEFORE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT ACHIEVES THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BY WAY OF INCREA SE IN INSTALLED CAPACITY BY NOT LESS THAN TEN PERCENT: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 5 (A) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT WHICH BEFORE ITS INSTIL LATION BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED EITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE INDIA BY ANY OTHER PERSON; OR (B) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT INSTALLED IN ANY OFFICE PREMISES OR ANY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING ACCOMMODATION IN THE NATURE OF A GUEST HOUSE; OR (C) ANY OFFICE APPLIANCES OR ROAD TRANSPORT VEHICLE S; OR (D) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT THE WHOLE OF THE ACTUAL COST OF WHICH IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE) IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF ANY ONE PREVIOU S YEAR WHEN THE AFORESAID IS CONSIDERED WITH THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION THE FACT EMERGES THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS.1 77 92 784/- AND HAS CLAIMED NORMA L DEPRECIATION @25% AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N @15% HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PER SECTION 32(1) (IIA) OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 TOTALING TO RS.49 13 407/-. CONSEQUENTLY ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNTS TO RS.18 42 527 ( I.E. RS.67 74 249 X 15% + 1 10 18 53 5 X 7.5% I.E. RS.10 16 137 + RS.8 26 390/-). WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE CONSIDERED VIS--VIS THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE NORMAL DEPRECIATIO N IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT FULFILLS THE SA ME THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE NORMAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.30 70 880/-. HOWEVER WHE N THE USE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS CONSIDERED WI TH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN QUESTION IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE CONDITIONS L AID DOWN IN SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 REQU IRES AN ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 6 INCREASE OF 10% OF INSTALLED CAPACITY (I.E. THE PRO CESSES WHICH TURN THE RAW MATERIAL INTO FINISHED GOODS). T HE APPELLANT CLEARLY HAS THE EXISTING SURPLUS OF INSTA LLED CAPACITY VIS--VIS THE STENTER THEREBY THE PURCHA SE OF THE STENTER DOES NOT ADD INSTALLED CAPACITY AT ALL. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE DIRECTORS REPORT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF THE CURRENT AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR ARE NOT ASCERTAINABLE. CONSEQUENTLY THE INSTALLED CA PACITY OF THE INTRINSIC MACHINES HAS NOT CHANGED. IN THE GIVE N FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CANN OT BE ALLOWED. WITH THE RESULT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS CONFIRMED ON THESE GROUNDS (I.E. GROUNDS NO.2 & 3). 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SU BMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE DIRECTORS REPORT MADE A WRONG STATEMEN T THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED ENHA NCEMENT IN THE CAPACITY THEREFORE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. HE WAS HOWEVER UNABLE TO SHOW THE CAPACITY OF THE MACHINERY IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND AS TO HOW T HE CAPACITY HAS INCREASED. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF MADHU INDUSTRIES 132 TTJ 233 IN WHICH I T WAS HELD AS UNDER: CONCLUSION: ASSESSEE COMPANYS INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MADE-UPS HAVING INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY I.E. MORE THAN 25 PE R CENT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED THE CAPACITY OF BED SHEETS FROM 15.60 LAKHS TO 20 LAKHS BASED ON NUMBER OF SEWING MACHINES INSTALLED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER S. 32(1) (IIA) WAS ALLOWABLE; AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ON THE GROUN D THAT BY ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 7 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER PRODUCT NAMELY TOWEL S AND CALCULATING THE COMBINED CAPACITY OF BOTH THE PRODU CTS THE INCREASE IN COMBINED INSTALLED CAPACITY FELL SH ORT OF 25 PER CENT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL DID NOT DISPUTE THE DIRECTORS REPORT WHICH STATES THAT THE INSTALL ED CAPACITY OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. IT WOULD THEREFORE SHOW THAT THE MANAGEMENT WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE INSTALLED CAPACITY HAS NOT BEEN ENHANCED EVEN IF SOME PLANT A ND MACHINERIES WERE PURCHASED. THE DIRECTORS REPORT IS VIRTUALLY AN ADMISSION OF THE FACT WHICH CAN NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE AO EVEN ON MERIT NOTED THAT EVEN IN CASE OF INCREASE IN OUT-PUT IS NOT CO-TERMINUS WITH AN INCR EASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY. SUCH FINDINGS OF THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN REB UTTED THROUGH ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ONCE THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF THE CU RRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WOULD SHOW THAT INSTALLE D CAPACITY HAS NOT BEEN ENHANCED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RE CORD WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS INSTALLED CAPACIT Y HAS INCREASED AT ANY POINT OF TIME AS COMPARED WITH THE EARLIER Y EARS. EVEN THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PO INT OUT WHAT WAS ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 8 THE CAPACITY OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES IN EARLIE R YEARS. THEREFORE NO COMPARISON COULD BE MADE. THE DECISION CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MADHU INDUS TRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE CLEAR LY DISTINGUISHABLE AND FURTHER IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO EVIDENCE H AS BEEN BROUGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE PROPER TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 62 565/- OUT OF INTEREST E XPENSES. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 DISALLOWED THE INTEREST. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 BEING THE FACTS IDENTICAL . 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS DECIDED BY ITAT AHMEDABAD A BEN CH IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 IN ITA NO.2407 /AHD/2005 AND ITA NO.163/AHD/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 07-05-2010 AND SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-05-2010 IS FILED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE ABOVE FACT. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACT WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DAT ED 07-05-2010 HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 9 13. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT NO INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN T HE SHARES OF GROUP COMPANIES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER APPEAL. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IF THERE WAS ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF OTHE R COMPANIES. ON IDENTICAL FACTS WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO.2960/AHD/2004. THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA) THEREFORE CLEARLY APPLIES BECAUSE THE CONSISTENCY SHALL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES . THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GODA VARI CORPORATION LTD. 156 ITR 835 (MP) ALSO HELD THAT THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDIC ATA DO NOT APPLY THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD APPLY. SINCE IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT FACTS ARE SAME AS CONSIDER ED IN EARLIER YEAR THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASON FOR DECISION IN ITA NO.2960/AHD/2004 WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTI RE ADDITION. FURTHER BY FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE THE SAME ORDER DATED 07-05-2010. IT WO ULD SHOW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07-05-2010. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDI TION. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 10. ON OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. ITA NO. 1459/AHD/2009 AND ANJANI SUNTHETICS LTD. VS DCIT CIR-1 AHMEDABAD 10 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25-02-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 25-02-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD