The ITO, Ward-5(3),, Baroda v. Shri Thakurbhai P.Chokshui, Baroda

ITA 1564/AHD/2008 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 156420514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABHC4527P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1564/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-5(3),, Baroda
Respondent Shri Thakurbhai P.Chokshui, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI G. D. AGARWAL VP AND BHAVNESH SAINI JM) ITA NO.1564/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 1998-99 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (3) RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA VS SHRI THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI C/O. DAMODARDAS M. CHOKSI M. G. ROAD BARODA PA NO. AABHC 4527 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 (IN ITA NO.1564/AHD/2008: A.Y.: 1998-99) SHRI THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI C/O. DAMODARDAS M. CHOKSI M. G. ROAD BARODA VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (3) RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA PA NO. AABHC 4527 P (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R. K. DHANISTA DR ASSESSEE BY NONE O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V BARODA DATED 27-02-2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 2 2. THE REVENUE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL CHALLENGE D THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7 71 300/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED SOURCES OF INCOME U/S 69A OF THE IT ACT. 3. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REJECTING GROUNDS NO.1 2 AND 3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T U/S 147/148 OF THE IT ACT AND RAISING THE ISSUE THAT IMPUGNED A DDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT PROVIDING THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIE D UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FURTHER IMPUGNED ADDITION IS MADE WI THOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THE A/D CARD DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IS ON RECORD. HOWEVER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICES OF THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT IS THEREFORE PROCEEDED EX -PARTE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL REVENUE CHALLENGED T HE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7 71 300/- MADE BY THE AO TREATING T HE SALE RECEIPT OF DIAMONDS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO AT PARA 5 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.7 71 300/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF LOOSE DIAMONDS WHICH WAS PART OF JWELLERY AND CASH DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT SUCH SALE WAS MADE TO M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS A ND SALE OF ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 3 DIAMONDS WAS BOGUS AS SAME WAS MADE TO THE FIRMS OF SHARMA & JOHRI GROUP WHO ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT HAD IND ULGED IN HAWALA RACKET AND AS SUCH M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS WAS CONCERN WHICH OPERATES FOR PURCHASE OF NON EXISTENT ASSETS ONLY. IT WAS FU RTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF AN Y DETAILS/DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE DIA MONDS DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997 EXCEPT THE STATEMENTS FILED WITH D ECLARATION FORM. IT WAS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THERE WAS NO ACT UAL SALE OF DIAMONDS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANAGED TO PROCURE TH E DEMAND DRAFT/CHEQUE BY GIVING UNACCOUNTED CASH SUCH AMOUN T IS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. 7. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DIAMONDS WERE PART OF THE J WELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS ISS UED BY PARTY COPY OF DRAFT RECEIVED FROM M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS CO PY OF BANK PASS BOOK DECLARATION MADE UNDER VDIS 1997 SHOWING DIAM OND JWELLERY CERTIFICATE U/S 68(2) ISSUED BY THE CIT ACCEPTING T HE DECLARATION TO PROVE THAT SALE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF D IAMONDS UNDER VDIS 1997 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONTRARY TO STAND AND INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBM ITTED A COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31-02-2005 PASSED IN TH E CASE OF SHARMA & JOHRI GROUPS INCLUDING THE AFORESAID FIRM WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HAWALA COMMISSION INCOME IN THE BLOCK ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 4 ASSESSMENT WAS DELETED. APART FROM ABOVE THE ASSES SEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CIT(A)-XXV MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUNJLATA S. SHAH IN APPELLATE ORDER NO. CIT(A)/XXV/ 25(3)(2)/43/05-06 DATED 13-10-2005 WHEREIN AFTER LONG DISCUSSION THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESS EE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED BY ITAT MUMBAI BENCH K IN ITA NO.128/MUM/2006 VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 31-07-2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH B IN CASE OF UTTAMCHAND P. JAIN VS ITO 103 ITD 1 (TM) WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS A ND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD DELETED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDI NGS IN PARA 6.3 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIO N MADE BY APPELLANT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION APPELLANT HAS SOLD LOOSE DIAMOND DEC LARED IN VDIS (1997) TO GALAXY EXPORTS WHICH IS TREATED B Y AO AS NON GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBM ITTED PROOF FOR PURCHASE BILL ISSUED BY THIRD PARTY AND C OPY OF BANK PASSBOOK WHEREIN SALE PROCEEDS OF AFORESAID LO OSE DIAMONDS DECLARED IN VDIS (97) WERE DEPOSITED. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 68 (2) O F VDIS IS IN MY OPINION A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE ACCEPT ANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE DECLARATION MADE BY APPELLANT AND PERUSAL OF THE DECLARATION AND THE CERTIFICATE CLEA RLY SHOWS THAT DIAMOND JWELLERY HELD BY THE APPELLANT WHICH W AS DECLARED AS ASSET ACQUIRED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOM E. ONCE AN ASSET IS DECLARED UNDER VDIS AND THE DECLARATION IS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER THE ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 5 ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION AND IN MY OPINION THE AO WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN QUESTIONING THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION. THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF NITIN P. SHAH ALIAS MODI VS DCIT 276 ITR 411 WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THA T IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO GO BEHIND THE CERTIFICATE ISS UED BY CIT AND BY IGNORING THE SAME ASSESSED ANY INCOME WHICH HAS ALREADY BORN TAX UNDER VDIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE F INDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF SHARMA AND JOHARI GROUP IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WHEREIN T HE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HAWALA COMMISSION WERE DELETED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. APART FROM THE ABOVE I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF CIT(A) XXV MUMBAI DATED 25/10/2005 IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUNJLATA S. SHAH WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS SOLD JWELLERY TO AFORESAID GALAXY EXPORT AND AFTER CONSI DERING THE ENTIRE FACTS MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) HAS DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION AND SUCH DECISION WAS FURTHER CONF IRMED BY HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31 ST JULY 2007 IN ITA NO.128/MUM/2006 FOR A. Y. 1998-99 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE. IN SAID CAS E HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT IN SAID CASE CI T(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN COMING TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VDIS AUTHORITY. THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALSO ARISEN IN THE CASE OF UTTAMCHAND P. JAIN VS. ITO 103 ITD 1 (MUM) (TM) WHEREIN ITAT MUMBAI B BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: . ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED IN BUSINESS PREMISES OF V WHEREIN V HAD GIVEN STATEMENT THAT ALL TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMONDS APPEARING IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN D WERE FICTITIOUS TRANSACTION S ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED. AS ON ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 6 SCRUTINY RECORDS IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT SOURCE OF WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE SALE OF DIAMONDS DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997 TO D THOUGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132 V RETRACTED FROM HIS STATEMENT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BY STATING THAT PURCHASES MADE BY HIM WERE TRUE AND WERE TOTALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON EARLI ER STATEMENT OF V AND ADDED THAT AMOUNT AS ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COMMISSIONER UPHELD THE ADDITIONS WHETHER SINCE DIAMONDS WERE DECLARED BY ASSESSEE UNDER VDIS THEY WERE SOLD UNDER SALES BILLS TO D WHO WAS IDENTIFIED PERSON AND HAD CONFIRMED TRANSACTION SOURCE OF PAYMENT WAS BANK ACCOUNT OF PURCHASER AND THERE WERE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SOURCE OF THAT MONEY WAS ASSESSEE IT COULD BE SAID THAT SOURCE OF AMOUNT FOUND CREDITED IN ASSESSEES BOOKS STOOD EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HELD YES. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF UTTAMCHA ND JAINI CITED ABOVE ONE OF THE PARTIES THERE ALSO WA S M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AFORESAID DECISIONS THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RS.7 71 300 TREATING SALE PROCEEDS OF DIAMONDS AS INCOME FOR UNEXPLAINED SOURCE IS DELETED. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 9. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE EXISTENC E OF THE SOLD GOODS WHICH WERE DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 7 THE ALLEGED SALE IS THE MANAGED SALE BY THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED. 10. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEAR NED DR AND PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE. THE AO NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED CERTAIN JWELLERY AND CASH UND ER VDIS 1997 AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE DECLARATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED 42.85 CT. LOOSE DIAMONDS VALUED AT RS. 1 98 825/- WHICH WAS LATTER ON SOLD TO M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS ON 20-01-1998 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.7 71 300/-. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED TH ROUGH DEMAND DRAFT DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE AO H OWEVER RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CA SE OF SHARMA & JOHRI GROUP TO WHICH M/S. GALAXY EXPORTS IS ALSO RE LATED. SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED THE DIAMONDS IT WAS DECLARED UNDER VDIS 1997 AND THE SAME WERE SOLD FOR WHICH SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEE N RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECLARATION UNDER VDIS 1997 ITSE LF IS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE MATTER AND NO FURTHER ENQUIRY COULD BE MADE ON SUCH A MATTER. THEREFORE DECLARATION OF THE DIAMONDS UNDE R VDIS 1997 CLEARLY PROVES EXISTENCE OF THE ASSETS AND POSSESSI ON OF THE DIAMONDS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO COULD NOT QUESTION THE MATTER WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT BARODA WHIL E ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE UNDER THE VDIS 1997. THE AO MERELY REL IED UPON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT M/S. G ALAXY EXPORTS WAS OPERATED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR NON-EXISTENCE PURPOSES BUT NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE FROM M/S. ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 8 GALAXY EXPORTS. SINCE NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTE D FROM THE CONCERNED PARTY TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE DIAMO NDS; NOTHING COULD BE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ONCE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF SHARMA & JOHRI GROUP NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE MADE IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE CONNECTED MATTER ADDITION HA S BEEN DELETED THEREFORE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. THE AO TREATED THE SALE OF DIAMONDS TO M/ S. GALAXY EXPORTS AS HAWALA/SHAM TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT ANY JUS TIFICATION AND BASIS. ON THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED THE DIAMONDS AND SOLD THE SAME FOR CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF S ALE OF THE DIAMONDS THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER A PPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 12. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND PASSING THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING COPIES OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENTS AND WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER THAT ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 9 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN REOPENED BY THE AO AFTER RECORDING PROPER SATISFACTION AND REASONS AND THE A O WAS SATISFIED THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE BASED UPON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION. SIMILARLY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO INSPECT THE RECORD AVAILAB LE WITH THE DEPARTMENT BUT THE ASSESSEE NEVER AVAILED OF ANY O PPORTUNITY. THE ORDER OF THE AO ALSO SHOWS THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED AFTER GIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AS SESSEE FILED PROPER REPLY BEFORE THE AO. THESE FACTS WERE SUFFIC IENT TO HOLD THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS JUSTIFIED AND THAT A SSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED BY GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO INSPEC T THE RECORD OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED ALL THESE THREE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A). MOREOVER ONLY ONE ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS.7 71 300 /- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AND CONFIRMED BY US. THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO DIS CUSS FURTHER THE ISSUES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ACADEMIC IN NATURE NOW. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.1564 AND C. O. NO.141/AHD/2008 THAKURBHAI P. CHOKSHI 10 13. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-01-2011 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 07 -01-2011 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