The ITO, TDS, Ward-1,, Baroda v. M/s. Prashant Hydrocarbons Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 1687/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 168720514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ETHAN1250S
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1687/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, TDS, Ward-1,, Baroda
Respondent M/s. Prashant Hydrocarbons Pvt.Ltd., Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 19-12-2008
Date Of Final Hearing 12-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-07-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 25-04-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT AND MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-2004] ITO TDS WARD-1 BARODA. VS. M/S.PRASHANT HYDROCARBONS P. LTD. 4/B GURUKRUPA SHOPPING CENTRE RAMA KAKA ROAD CHHANI BARODA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI BARODA DATED 5.02.2007 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE AO UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMAND RAISED BY TH E AO U/S.201(1)/(1A) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE NOT ATTRACTED AS THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD S TRANSPORT CHARGES FOR EACH TRIP WERE LESS THAN RS.20 000/- WI THOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 194C(3)(I) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUID PETROLEUM PRODUCTIONS FOR VARIOUS PARTIES. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2 81 16 275/- TOWARDS FREIGHT CHARGES TO DIFFERENT TRUCK OWNERS. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT MAKE TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ON SUCH TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT IT HAD NOT ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -2- MADE ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS.20 000/- IN ANY SI NGLE TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS. TH E ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF GOODS TRANSPORTED BY THE DIFFERENT TRANSPORTERS AND THAT AO NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF 31 PARTIES THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS WAS CONTINUOUS FOR VARIOUS PERIODS OF THE YEAR AND SINCE THE TRANS PORTATION CHARGES EXCEEDS RS.20 000/- IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRUCK OWNERS THE AO RELYING ON CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8.8.1995 HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD COMMITTED DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) AND RAISED DEMAND OF RS.6 19 964/-. 4. IN FIRST APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CIRCULAR NO.715 DELETED THE DEMAND WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A FACT THAT SECTION 194C WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2004 WHEREBY ALL THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF SUBCONTRACTORS ARE TO BE AGG REGATED AND IN CASE SUCH AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR IS MORE THAN RS.20 000/- TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. IT WOULD IMPLICITLY MEAN T HAT PRIOR TO 1.10.2004 SUCH AGGREGATION WAS NOT INTENDED SAVE FO R SITUATIONS COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 8.8.1995. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS SOUGHT TO AGGREGATE THE VARIOUS TRANSAC TIONS RELYING ON CIRCULAR NO. 715. QUESTION NO. 9 OF SAID CIRCULA R READS AS UNDER: 'QUESTION 9 : IN THE CASE OF PAYMENTS TO TRANSPORTE RS CAN EACH GR BE SAID TO BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT EVEN THO UGH PAYMENTS FOR SEVERAL GRS ARE MADE UNDER ONE BILL? ANSWER : NORMALLY EACH GR CAN BE SAID TO BE A SEPA RATE CONTRACT IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED AT ONE TIME. BUT IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED CONTINUOUSLY IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OR QUANTITY EACH GR WILL NOT BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT AND ALL GRS RELATING TO THAT PERIOD OR QUANTITY WILL BE AGGREGATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TDS. ' ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -3- 5.1. IT IS SPECIFICALLY STIPULATED IN THE CIRCULAR THAT IF GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED CONTINUOUSLY IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OR QUANTITY ALL GRS RELATING WOULD BE AGGRE GATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO SUCH CONTRAC T WAS CLAIMED TO BE ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT. NEITHER THE AS SESSING OFFICER COULD REFER TO ANY SPECIFIC CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OR QUANTITY. BY AGGREGATING THE VARIOUS PAYMENTS TO SU BCONTRACTORS MONTH-WISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPLICITLY SUG GESTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CONTRACT FOR SPECIFIC PERIOD. IT I S SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CONTRACT AND THAT THERE WERE MORE T HAN 1250 SUCH SUBCONTRACTORS/TRANSPORTERS WHO WERE HIRED FOR APPE LLANTS BUSINESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CONTRACT IN MY VIEW THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CLUBBING ALL SUCH SUBCONTRAC T RECEIPTS AND PRESUMING THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD. THE DEMAND OF RS.6 19 964/- U/S.201(1)/(1A) IS THEREFOR E DELETED. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES PAID TO THE TRANSPORTERS WAS TO BE CLUBBED AS THE TRUCK OWNERS WERE ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CONTINUOUS B ASIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT A CONTRACT O RAL OR OTHERWISE. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAVIN G COMMITTED DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1)/(1A) THE AO WAS RIGHT IN RAIS ING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND WHICH DESERVES TO BE UPHELD AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CANCELING THE DEMAND BE REVERSED. 6. WE HAVE HEAD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTA TION OF LIQUID PETROLEUM PRODUCTS HIRED TANKERS PER TRIP BASIS AND ON COMPLE TION OF THE TRIP THE PAYMENT IS MADE. THERE IS NO FURTHER LIABILITY EITH ER ON THE PART OF THE ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -4- TRANSPORTER OR ON THE ASSESSEE FOR FURTHER TRANSPOR TATION OF THE GOODS. THE AO AGGREGATED ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRANSPOR TERS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT FOR SPECIFIC PERIOD WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CA SE THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OT HER HAND THERE WERE MORE THAN 150 TRANSPORTERS WHO WERE HIRED BY THE AS SESSEE AND EACH HIRING IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AOS ACTION OF CLUBBING ALL T HE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID TO TRUCK OWNERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS LIABILITY. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRASHANT H. SHAH VS. ACIT IN IT A NO.17/AHD/2011 CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE O RDER DATED 8-7-2011 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSE RVATIONS: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. W E HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US IN THE L IGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS ALSO THE CASE LAW CITED. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER WE MAY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT HAD UNDERGONE CERTAIN VI TAL CHANGES IN THE RECENT PAST. THE MAIN PURPOSE OF INTRODUC TION OF THIS SECTION IN THE ACT IS TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO CONTRACTORS AND SUB- CONTRACTORS IN CERTAIN CASES. INCOME TAX IS DEDU CTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM INCOME COMPRISED IN PAYMENTS MADE BY TH E PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION. AS PER THE OR IGINAL SECTION 194C(1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM T O ANY CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE O F A CONTRACT IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT 2% TDS. HOWEVER AS PER SECTION 194C(2) ANY PERSON BEING A CONTRACTOR RE SPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY SUB-CONTRACTOR IN PURSUAN CE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT A NY WORK IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX @ 1% AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT. SUB SECTION (2) HAS LATER ON MADE A PROVISION ACCORDIN G TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF WHOSE TOTAL SALES EXCEEDS THE MONITORY ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -5- LIMIT PRESCRIBES U/S.44AB SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO A SUB-CONTRACTOR. IT I S FURTHER IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT VIDE AN AMENDMENT WITH EF FECT FROM 1/6/2007 AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF HAVE ALSO BEEN INDUCT ED VIDE SUB-CLAUSE (K) IN SECTION 194C(1) OF THE IT ACT. A T THIS JUNCTURE IT IS WORTH TO HOLD THAT AS FAR AS THE AY IN HAND IS CONCERNED I.E. AY 2007-08 THIS LATEST AMENDMENT OF SECTION 194C(1)(K) OF THE ACT BEING INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/06/2007 HAS NO APPLICABILITY. WE THEREFORE H OLD THAT IF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD MADE AN ENDEAVOUR TO INV OKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR THE INFRINGEMEN T OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT BY HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL GOT COVERED BY SUB-SEC TION(1) THEN ACCORDING TO US IT WAS AN INCORRECT APPLICATI ON OF LAW. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION 2007-08 THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE(K) OF 194C(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE BEING INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1.6.2007 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL IS CONSEQUENTLY OUT OF THE CLUT CHES OF THIS CLAUSE. 7.1. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ISSUE CONFINES TO THE RESIDUAL SUB-SECTION I.E. THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION(2) OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE PECULIARITY OF THIS CASE IS THAT A CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO M/S.PET RONET LNG LTD. NEW DELHI FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK OF PERIPHERAL AND APPROACH ROADS AT LNG TERMINAL DAHEJ. THEREAFTER THE SAID CONTRACTOR HAD ENTERED INTO A SUB-CONTRACT WITH M/S .A.N.S. CONSTRUCTION LTD. WHO IN TURN HAD ENTERED INTO AN ANOTHER SUB- CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE WORK TO BE CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE PERTAINED TO CONSTRUCTION O F PERIPHERAL APPROACH ROADS. TO CARRY OUT THE ABOVE WORK THE A SSESSEE HAD TO PURCHASE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL VIZ. SAND G RAVELS ETC. IN ORDER TO BRING THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT DAHEJ THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE SERVICE S OF SEVERAL TRANSPORTERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORT CHARGES. THE VIEW OF THE AO WAS THAT ON PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES THE ASSESSEE BEING A SUB- CONTRACTOR WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AS ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -6- PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THA T ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD BE A SUB-CONTRACTOR M/S.A.N.S. CONSTRUCTION LTD. BUT VIS--VIS TRANSPORTERS THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT ACTED AS A SUB-CONTRACTOR BUT ONLY AS A CONTRAC TOR. AS PER ASSESSEES CONTENTION IT WAS A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIP AL ARRANGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS SO NOT COV ERED BY ANY OF THE SAID CONTRACTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUBM ISSION THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8/08/1995 [215 ITR (STATUTE 12)] WHEREIN THE CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE PROVISIONS REGARDING TAX DEDUCTIO N AT SOURCE HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AND THEREIN ONE OF THE QUESTION S WAS ABOUT THE PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTS AND THE CLARIFICATION WAS AS UNDER:- QUESTION 9: IN CASE OF PAYMENTS TO TRANSPORTS CA N EACH GR BE SAID TO BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT EVEN THOUGH PAYM ENTS FOR SEVERAL GRS ARE MADE UNDER ONE BILL? ANSWER : NORMALLY EACH GR CAN BE SAID TO BE A SEPA RATE CONTRACT IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED AT ONE TIME. BUT IF THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED CONTINUOUSLY IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF QUANTITY EACH GR WILL NOT BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT AND ALL GRS RELATING TO THAT PERI OD OR QUANTITY WILL BE AGGREGATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TDS. 8. IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT IF WE EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN HAND THEN IN TERMS OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(2) OF THE ACT CONDITIONS TO BE SATI SFIED ARE (I) THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE A CONTRACTOR (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A SUB-CONTRACTOR (III) THAT THE SUB-CONTRACTOR SHOULD CARRY OUT ANY PART OF THE WOR K UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR AND (IV) THAT THE PAYM ENT SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE WORK DONE. IN A CASE WHEN A CON TRACT IS ASSIGNED GENERALLY THE CLAUSES ARE STRINGENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE ACTS AN D DEFAULTS COMMITTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL WHEN THE M /S.A.N.S. CONSTRUCTION LTD. HAD GRANTED SUB-CONTRACT DATED 30 /1/2006 TO M/S.SAKHI CONSTRUCTION ( PROP. APPELLANT) THEN VIDE CLAUSE (1) THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DEPLOY HIS OWN RESOURCES IN TER MS OF ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -7- MANPOWER & MACHINERY. FURTHER VIDE CLAUSE (2) ASSES SEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY LEGAL OR FINAN CIAL LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEMNIFIED THE FIRST PARTY I.E. M/S.A.N.S. CONSTRUCTION LTD. AGAINST ANY LEGAL OR FINANCIAL LI ABILITY IF ARISE IN FUTURE PERTAINING TO THE SAID CONTRACT. ASSESSEE WAS MADE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE JO B. THESE CLAUSES THEREFORE SUGGESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS AS ALSO FOR TH E DEFAULTS IF COMMITTED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LORRY OWNERS OR THE TRANSPORTERS WHO HAD BEEN GIVEN TRANSPORTATION CHA RGES HAVE NOT BEEN FASTENED WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE LIABIL ITIES MEANING THEREBY THE TRANSPORTERS WERE NOT THE PART OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD AN INDEPENDENT ARRAN GEMENT WITH THEM. IN OTHER WORDS PECULIARITY OF THIS CA SE IS THAT THE SUB-CONTRACT WHICH WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS ASSESSEE WA S NOT FURTHER SUB-CONTRACTED TO THE LORRY OWNERS. IN A SUB- CONTRACT A PRUDENT CONTRACTOR GENERALLY INCLUDE TH E CLAUSES OF LIABILITY WHICH WERE UNDERTAKEN BY HIM WHILE ACCEPT ING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK FROM THE MAIN CONTRACTOR. W E MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT A CONDITION OF PASSING OF THE LIAB ILITY CAN NOT EXHAUSTIVE AND CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE THE ONLY CRI TERIA TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS AN EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT O R SUB- CONTRACT. THE CATALOG OF CRITERION MUST INCLUDE C ERTAIN OTHER CLAUSES AS WELL YET IN THIS CASE THIS CRITERIA CAN BE DETERMINATIVE CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF WORK ASSIG NED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSPORTERS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT HE HAPPENED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SOME MATERIAL TO AL LEGE THAT THERE EXISTED A SPECIFIC CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE TRANSPORTERS. WHETHER THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED IN PURSUANCE OF ANY SUB-CONTRACT SO AS TO APPLY THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC.194C(2)? NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. S O IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE LORRY OWNERS HAVE UNDERTAK EN ANY PART OF THE IMPUGNED SUB-CONTRACT WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE RISK ASSOCIATED VIDELICET THIS ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF TRANSFER OR PASS-OVER OF ANY CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY TO TRANSPORTERS AS A SUB-CONTRACTOR THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DED UCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PRESCRIBED U/S.194C(2) OF THE IT A CT. ITA NO.1687/AHD/2007 -8- CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT WERE INCORRECTLY INVOKED HENCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE HEREBY REVERSED. GROUND IS ALLOWED . THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO T HE ABOVE CASE THEREFORE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY 2011 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 22-07-2011 C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR ITAT AHMEDABAD