The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda v. M/s. Polymech Plast Machines Pvt.Ltd.,, Baroda

ITA 1515/AHD/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 151520514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCP2461N
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1515/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-4,, Baroda
Respondent M/s. Polymech Plast Machines Pvt.Ltd.,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 18-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-08-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH C CC C BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING:10-8-2010 DRAFTED ON: 10-8-2010 ITA NO. 1515 - 1516/ AHD/ 2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 AND 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 AAYAKAR BHAVAN NR. RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA. VS. M/S. POLYMECH PLAST MACHINE LTD. 775-776 GIDC ESTATE MAKARPURA BARODA. PAN/GIR NO. : AABCP 2461 N (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESP ONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRIK. M.MAHESH SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III BARODA DA TED 31-12-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DELETE ADDITION OF `.11 68 100/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 AND OF `.10 35 894/-FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 MAD E UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY O N CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN CASE OF SHYAM BIDI WORKS 108 ITD 489 WHICH DOES NOT TAK E INTO ACCOUNT VITAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B AND GOES CO NTRARY TO THE RATIO OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. C.I.T. 266 IT R 99(SC) DESPITE THE EXCISE DUTY HAVING BEEN ACCRUED ON THE MANUFACT URE OF GOODS AS SETTLED IN THE CASE OF MCDOWELL & CO. VS. CTO 154 ITR 148 (SC) AND ALL OVERHEADS INCLUDING EXCISE DUTY BE ING INCLUDIBLE IN THE VALUATION OF FINISHED GOODS AS SE TTLED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. 188 ITR 44 (SC). - 2 - 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER :- 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE PAPERS/DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. IT WAS THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE 6 NOS. OF 150TC MACHINES WAS COMP LETED TO THE EXTENT OF 99% AS THE TESTING OF THE MACHINE WAS COMPLETED BUT AS PER THE AGREED TERMS WITH THE CUSTOMER THE MACHINE WAS DELIVERED ONLY AFTER CERTAIN MODIFICATION AS SU GGESTED BY THE CUSTOMER DURING TESTING OF THE SAID MACHINES. T HIS IS NOT CORRECT. IN A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA GENDIGATE BRANCH BARODA FOR EX TENSION OF L/G AND OTHER PAPERS/DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IT WAS SE EN THAT THE MACHINES WERE TO BE LIFTED AFTER THE MODIFICATI ON AS SUGGESTED BY THE PURCHASER ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2003. BUT DUE TO SOME CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCH ASER THE SAME DID NOT MATERIALIZE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I T CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE MACHINES WERE COMPLETED ONLY TO THE E XTENT OF 99%. NO PURCHASER WILL TAKE DELIVERY OF ANY MACHINE WHEN IT IS NOT COMPLETE. SINCE THE MACHINES WERE COMPLETE IN A LL RESPECTS THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SH OW IT AS WORK- IN-PROGRESS. AS THE 6 NOS. OF 150 ITC MACHINES WERE COMPLETE AND READY FOR DISPATCH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN A S CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO SO. THEREFORE THE S AME IS INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A (B) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T THE VALUATION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTO RY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE FURTHER ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX DUTY CE SS OR FEE (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF ITS LOC ATION AND CONDITION AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION. IN THE INSTA NT CASE BY NOT SHOWING 6 NOS. OF TC MACHINES AMOUNTING TO `.1 08 0 0 000/- IN THE CLOSING STOCK THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ADDED THE EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE ON THESE MACHINES AND THEREBY UNDERSTA TED ITS CLOSING STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF `.17 28 000/-.SINCE THE SAME IS INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK THE EXCISE DUTY PAYA BLE ON THAT MACHINES SHOULD ALSO BE ADDED. IT IS ALSO TO MENTIO N HERE THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE EXCISE DUTY EVEN O N OR BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IS ALSO NOT ALLOWABLE. THE REFORE THE EXCISE DUTY AMOUNTING TO ` 17 28 000/- ON 6 NOS. TC MACHINES IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MACHINES WERE REJECTED BY - 3 - THE CUSTOMER WERE LYING WITH THE COMPANY AS ON 31-3 -2004 AS WIP. THE SAID MACHINES WERE SHOWN AS WIP FOR WANT OF MOD IFICATION AND OTHER TECHNICAL CHANGES AS SUGGESTED BY THE CUSTOME RS. HENCE IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS FINISHED GOODS ON WHICH DUTY CA N BE LEVIED. HOWEVER AS PER EXCISE ACT 1944 EXCISE DUTY IS LEV IED ON REMOVAL OF GOODS FROM FACTORY PREMISES OR ANY OTHER PLACE OF P RODUCTION OR MANUFACTURING. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAME WERE NOT SHOWN IN TR-1 NOR ANY EXCISE RECORD AS ON 31-3-2004 . THE MACHINES WERE LYING IN THE COMPANY WERE OFFERED FOR LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS FINISHED GOODS AND DUE TO WHICH THERE WOULD BE REVENUE LEAKAGE OR EVASION OF TAX ON THIS COUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER :- 6.2. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERATION TO THE F ACTS AND SUBMISSION. FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE RE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE MACHINES WERE COMPLETE IN ALL RESPEC T AND CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS WORK IN PROGRESS. HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THESE MACHINES WERE LYING IN THE BONDED PREMISES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO REFE RRED TO A DECISION OF ITAT ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF SHYAM BIDI WO RKS 108 ITD 489 WHICH WAS APPARENTLY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. ACCORDING TO THIS DECISION VALUE OF GOODS LY ING IN A BONDED WAREHOUSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO REFERRED TO VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN GOODS ARE KEP T IN BONDED WARE HOUSE AS APPROVED BY CCE EXCIDE DUTY WILL BE CHARGED ONLY WHEN THE GOODS ARE REMOVED FROM THE SAID WAREH OUSE. SINCE THE FACTS OF APPELLANTS CASE ARE RIGHTLY COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT ALLAHABAD THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS UPHELD. 6. FOR THE SAME REASON ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCIS E DUTY OF `.10 35 894/- WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 W HICH WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSING - 4 - OFFICER TREATED THE MACHINES WHICH WERE SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS FINISHED GOODS AND MADE ADDITIO N TO THE CLOSING STOCK ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY OF `.11 68 100/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND `.10 35 894/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SHYAM BIDI WORKS VS. ACIT (2007) 108 ITD 489 (ALL) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY ON GOODS KEPT IN BONDED WAREHOUSE UNTIL IT IS REMOVED THEREF ROM AND THEREFORE EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN VALUATIO N OF CLOSING STOCK TILL STOCK IS REMOVED FROM THE BONDED WAREHOUSE. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 9. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NARMADA CH EMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (2010) 39 DTR (GUJ) 120 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- IF ONE READS S. 3(1) OF THE EXCISE ACT IN ISOLATIO N IT APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT THE CHARGE IS LEVIED IN S. 3 AND THE LIABILITY STANDS INCURRED UPON MANUFACTURE OF EXCISABLE GOODS AT THE RATES SET OUT IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT 1985. HOWEVER THOUGH THE OPENING PORTION OF SUB-S. (1) S TATES THAT THERE SHALL BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED THERE IS NO OT HER PROVISIONS FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAID SECTION AND THE MANNER O F COLLECTION AS WELL AS LEVY ARE FOUND IN THE RULES AS PRESCRIBE D. IT MAY INDICATE THAT S. 4 WOULD BE A STANDALONE PROVISION BUT WHEN ONE READS THE SAID PROVISION IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE LEVY IS INCOMPLETE IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE EX CISE ACT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE THE LIABILITY TO PAY D UTY LEVIED UPON THE MANUFACTURE OF EXCISABLE GOODS TILL SUCH GOODS ARE REMOVED FROM THE FACTORY PREMISES OR A BONDED WARE HOUSE. THE TEST TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE LIABILITY H AD BEEN - 5 - INCURRED OR NOT WOULD BE AS TO WHETHER A CORRESPOND ING RIGHT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE EXCISE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE S UCH A LIABILITY. MERE PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT. THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE LEVY UNDER S. 3 OF THE EXCISE ACT YET NEITHER THE RATE NOR THE VALUE WOUL D BE DETERMINABLE TILL THE POINT OF TIME OF REMOVAL OF T HE EXCISABLE GOODS FROM THE FACTORY PREMISES AND HENCE THE SCHEM E ITSELF INDICATES THAT SO FAR AS AN ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED HE INCURS LIABILITY TO PAY EXCISE DUTY ONLY UPON BOTH THE EVE NTS TAKING PLACE NAMELY MANUFACTURE OF EXCISABLE GOODS AND RE MOVAL OF EXCISABLE GOODS. THIS POSITION HAS TO BE NECESSARIL Y ADOPTED CONSIDERING THAT THE DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE IS LEVI ED AND COLLECTED ON AN AD VALOREM BASIS. IN OTHER WORDS U NLESS AND UNTIL THE VALUE IS KNOWN THE LEVY AND THE COLLECTI ON WOULD NOT BE CORRECT AND VALID. THE DUTY IS LEVIABLE AND IS A CTUALLY IMPOSED ON THE TRANSACTION VALUE DEFINED IN SUB-S. (3)(D) OF S. 4 OF THE EXCISE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE THAT UNDER THE EXCISE ACT THE DUTY HAS BE COME DUE AND PAYABLE ONLY BY OPERATION OF S. 3 SIMPLICITER. IF S. 3 OF EXCISE ACT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE ONLY CHARGING SE CTION AND S. 4 OF THE EXCISE ACT IS CONSIDERED AS ONLY A PROVISI ON FOR ASSESSMENT THE CHARGE LEVIED BY S. 3 OF THE EXCISE ACT CANNOT BE BROUGHT HOME. SECS. 3 AND 4 HAVE TO BE READ TOGE THER TO BRING THE CHARGE HOME. THE CHARGE IS PARTIALLY EMBE DDED IN BOTH THE PROVISIONS. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT ONE FINDS VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN RELATION TO DISPUTES RAISED ON THE BAS IS OF A PARTICULAR CUT-OFF DATE SAY 28TH FEBRUARY OR 1ST M ARCH QUA THE GOODS ALREADY MANUFACTURED AND LYING IN STOCK UPTO 28TH FEBRUARY WHICH BECOME AMENABLE TO DUTY OF CENTRAL E XCISE ONLY UPON THE POINT OF TIME OF REMOVAL NAMELY AFT ER 1ST MARCH. THEREFORE TO READ PROVISIONS OF S. 3 OF THE EXCISE ACT TO BE A COMPLETE PROVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHARGIN G DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE WOULD NOT BE A FULLY CORRECT PROPOSI TION OF LAW. UNDER A TAXING STATUTE WHEN A CHARGE IS FASTENED T HE PURPOSE IS TO COLLECT TAX. A LEVY IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF IM POSING A TAX OR - 6 - A DUTY BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED AND FOR THE PURPOS ES OF COLLECTION OF SUCH IMPOST. A STATE CANNOT BE INTERE STED IN A LEVY WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN INFLOW OF REVENUE TO THE EXCHEQUER. THE POSITION IN LAW IS THEREFORE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE THE PROVISIONS OF EXCISE ACT READ WITH RULES THERE UNDE R EVOLVE A SELF-CONTAINED SCHEME UPON A CONJOINT READING OF SS . 3 AND 4 OF THE EXCISE ACT WITH RR. 9 AND 9A OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE RULES. THEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT NAMELY IT ACT THE POSITION IN LAW CANNOT BE DIFFERENT. AN INTERPRETATION OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE IN CONFLICT WITH A NOTHER STATUTE UNLESS AND UNTIL SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED SO BY THE OT HER STATUTE. THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY CONTRARY INTERPRET ATION I.E. WHAT IS CONTRARY TO THE POSITION PREVAILING UNDER T HE EXCISE LAW. THE POINT OF TIME OF REMOVAL OF EXCISABLE GOOD S IS THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE LIABILITY TO PAY CENTRAL EXC ISE DUTY IS INCURRED RESULTING IN CORRESPONDING RIGHT UNDER LAW IN THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE STEPS TO EFFECT RECOVERY IF THE LIABILITY IS NOT DISCHARGED. TILL THAT POINT OF TIM E LIABILITY TO PAY DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE CANNOT BE STATED TO HAVE BEE N INCURRED IN LAW AS THE SAME IS NOT DUE AND PAYABLE. IF THE DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE IS NOT DUE AND PAYABL E IT CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A COST IN RELATION TO THE RAW MATER IALS. SUCH DUTY ALSO CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A COST QUA THE FIN ISHED GOODS APPEARING IN THE CLOSING STOCK BECAUSE ADMITT EDLY ON THE SAID DAY (PRESUMPTION BEING THAT SUCH GOODS ARE EXCISABLE GOODS) NO EXCISE DUTY IS DUE AND PAYABLE AT THE SAI D STAGE AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXCISE ACT THE LEVY IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS AND UNTIL SS. 3 AND 4 OF THE EXCISE ACT OPER ATE TOGETHER. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SAID STATUTE WHICH IS TH E ONLY STATUTE UNDER WHICH DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCISE CAN BE LEVIED AN D COLLECTED THE CHARGE IS NOT FASTENED IN LAW IT CA NNOT BE STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CHARGEABLE INCOME SUCH A CHARGE GETS FASTENED QUA THE FINISHED GOODS APPEARING AS PART OF CLOSING STOCK. TO STATE SO WOULD RESULT INTO AN - 7 - ANOMALOUS SITUATION UNDER THE TWO STATUTES THE EXC ISE ACT AND THE IT ACT LEADING TO CONTRARY POSITIONS UNDER BOTH THE STATUTES. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE EVEN ON APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES THE ADDITION SOUGHT TO B E MADE BY REVENUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLA CED ON PROVISIONS OF S. 145A WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FI NANCE (NO. 2) ACT 1998 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 1999. THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR BEING 1997-98 THE SAID PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. THOUG H THE BILL PROPOSED RETROSPECTIVE INSERTION ULTIMATELY THE SEC TION HAS COME ON THE STATUTE BOOK ONLY FROM 1ST APRIL 1999. WHAT IS MORE MATERIAL IS THAT THE SAME RELATES TO INCLUSION IN THE VALUE OF INVENTORY THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX DUTY ETC. PAID OR LIABILITY INCURRED FOR THE SAME UNDER ANY LAW IN FORCE. MEANI NG THEREBY SUCH TAX DUTY ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY PAID OR SHOULD BE ACTUALLY DUE AND PAYABLE UNDER THE LAW APPLICABL E TO SUCH TAX DUTY ETC. IN FORCE. OTHERWISE EVEN S. 145A WI LL ALSO NOT CARRY CASE OF REVENUE ANY FURTHER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN EXCLUDING THE EXCISE DUTY AT TH E TIME OF VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD.CIT VS. ENGLISH ELECTRIC CO. OF INDIA LTD. (2000) 161 CTR (MAD) 235 : (2000) 243 ITR 512 (MAD) AND CIT VS. DYNAVISION LTD. (2004) 192 CTR (MAD) 476 : (2004) 267 ITR 600 (MAD) CONCURRED WITH. 10. READING OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT SHOWS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE SAID DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR B OTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISMISSED. - 8 - ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHA ( T.K. SHA ( T.K. SHA ( T.K. SHARMA ) RMA ) RMA ) RMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010 PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III BARODA. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10-8-2010 ---- --------------- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 10-8-2010 ------------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 10-8-2010 - ------------------ JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 10-8-2010 ------------------ JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 18-8-2010 -------------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 18-8-2010 -------------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18-8-2010 -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- ---------------------