M/s. Paras Industries, Mumbai v. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle,, Bharuch

ITA 2112/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 211220514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AADFP6933C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2112/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Paras Industries, Mumbai
Respondent The ACIT., Bharuch Circle,, Bharuch
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 23-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 21-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 21-07-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2007
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 B BB B BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :21-7-10 DRAFTED ON:21-7-10 ITA NO. 2112 /AHD/ 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2003-04 M/S. PARAS INDUSTRIES PLOT NO.4935 GIDC ESTATE ANKLESHWAR. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHARUCH CIRCLE INCOME TAX OFFICE BHARUCH. PAN/GIR NO. : AADFP 6933 C (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN RESPO NDENT BY: SHRI K.MADHUSUDAN SR. D.R. 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 :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI BARODA DATED 13-2-2007. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL :- 3. GROUNDNO.1 READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOW ING P.F. AND ESIC CONTRIBUTION OF `.6 19 309/- UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE ANNEXURE 3 ATTACHED WITH THE AU DIT REPORT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF P.F. OF RS.5 41 806 BEYOND THE DUE DATES AS PER THE CHAR T AS UNDER :- SR. NO MONTH TOTAL CONTRIBUTION IN P.F. DU E DATE OF DEPOSITION DATE ON WHICH DEPOSITED. NO. OF DAYS DELAYED. - 2 - 1 APRIL 02 51922 15 - 5 - 02 8 - 5 - 02 3 2. MAY 02 49904 15 - 6 - 02 28 - 9 - 02 105 3. JUNE 02 51848 15 - 7 - 02 28 - 9 - 02 75 4. JULY 02 55740 15 - 8 - 02 17 - 12 - 02 124 5. AUGUST 02 58755 1 5 - 9 - 02 17 - 12 - 02 93 6. SEPTEMBER 2002 48131 15 - 10 - 02 19 - 12 - 02 65 7. OCTOBER 02 49498 15 - 11 - 02 19 - 12 - 02 34 8. NOVEMBER 02 50138 15 - 12 - 02 13 - 02 - 03 60 9. DECEMBER 02 49749 15 - 01 - 03 17 - 02 - 03 33 10 JANUARY 03 76121 15 - 02 - 03 25 - 02 - 03 10 11 TOTAL 541806 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE DELAYED PAYMENT OF ESI CONTR IBUTION OF RS.57 582/- PAID IN BANK AT ANKLESHWAR AND RS.16 92 1/- PAID AT BANK AT MUMBAI. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF PF AND ESI UPTO THE DUE DATE I.E. RESPECTIVELY WITHIN 15 DAYS AND 21 DAYS OF THE SUCCEEDING MONTH THEREFORE THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWA BLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B (B) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 2(24)(X) R.W.S.36(I)(VA). THEREFORE HE DIS ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.6 16 309/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER 6. BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING AGREED T HAT THE DEDUCTION FOR PF AND ESI CONTRIBUTION IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE IF PAID WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED FOR FIL ING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AL OM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD T HAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : FIRSTLY S. 43B (MAIN SECTION) WHICH STO OD INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 1983 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 1984 EXPRESSL Y COMMENCES WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE THE UNDERLYING OBJECT B EING TO DISALLOW DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED MERELY BY MAKING A BOOK ENTRY BA SED ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. AT THE SAME TIME S. 43B (MAIN - 3 - SECTION) MADE IT MANDATORY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GR ANT DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER S. 28 IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TAX DUTY CESS ETC. IS ACTUALLY PAID. HOWEVER PARLIAMENT T OOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT ACCOUNTING YEAR OF A COMPANY DID NOT ALWAYS TALLY WITH THE DUE DATES UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT MU NICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (OCTROI) AND OTHER TAX LAWS. THEREF ORE BY WAY OF FIRST PROVISO TO S. 43B AN INCENTIVE/RELAXATION WA S SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF TAX DUTY CESS OR FEE BY EXPLI CITLY STATING THAT IF SUCH TAX DUTY CESS OR FEE IS PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN UNDER THE IT ACT (DUE DATE) THE ASSESSEE(S) THEN WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION. HOWEVER THIS RELAXATION/INC ENTIVE WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO TAX DUTY CESS AND FEE. IT DID NOT APPLY TO CONTRIBUTIONS TO LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS. THE REASON A PPEARS TO BE THAT THE EMPLOYER(S) SHOULD NOT SIT ON THE COLLECTE D CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRIVE THE WORKMEN OF THE RIGHTFUL BENEFITS UN DER SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATIONS BY DELAYING PAYMENT OF CONTRIB UTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS. HOWEVER THE SECOND PROVISO RESULTED IN IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS WHICH RESULTED IN THE ENAC TMENT OF FINANCE ACT 2003 DELETING THE SECOND PROVISO AND BRINGING ABOUT UNIFORMITY IN THE FIRST PROVISO BY EQUATING TAX DU TY CESS AND FEE WITH CONTRIBUTIONS TO WELFARE FUNDS. ONCE THIS UNIF ORMITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE FIRST PROVISO THEN THE FINANCE ACT 2003 WHICH IS MADE APPLICABLE BY THE PARLIAMENT ONLY W.E.F. 1ST A PRIL 2004 WOULD BECOME CURATIVE IN NATURE; HENCE IT WOULD AP PLY RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 1988. IT IS IMPOR TANT TO NOTE ONCE AGAIN THAT BY FINANCE ACT 2003 NOT ONLY THE SECO ND PROVISO IS DELETED BUT EVEN THE FIRST PROVISO IS SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED BY BRINGING ABOUT AN UNIFORMITY IN TAX DUTY CESS AND FEE ON THE ONE HAND VIS-A-VIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO WELFARE FUNDS OF EM PLOYEE(S) ON THE OTHER. THIS IS ONE MORE REASON WHY IT IS HELD THAT THE FINANCE ACT 2003 IS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. ACCORDINGLY F INANCE ACT 2003 WILL OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 1988 (WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO STOOD INSERTED). HARDSHIP AND THE INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE(S) IF THE CONTENTIO N OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT FINANCE ACT 2003 TO THE ABOVE - 4 - EXTENT OPERATED PROSPECTIVELY. TAKE AN EXAMPLE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RESPONDENTS HAVE DEPOSITED THE CONTRIBUTI ONS WITH THE R.P.F.C. AFTER 31ST MARCH (END OF ACCOUNTING YEAR) BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURNS UNDER THE IT ACT AND THE DATE OF PAY MENT FALLS AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND AC T THEY WILL BE DENIED DEDUCTION FOR ALL TIMES. IN VIEW OF THE SECO ND PROVISO WHICH STOOD ON THE STATUTE BOOK AT THE RELEVANT TIME EAC H OF SUCH ASSESSEE(S) WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDE R S. 43B FOR ALL TIMES. THEY WOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION EVE N IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT IN WHICH THEY PAY THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS WHEREAS A DEFAULTER WHO FAILS TO PAY THE CONTRIBUT ION TO THE WELFARE FUND RIGHT UPTO 1ST APRIL 2004 AND WHO PA YS THE CONTRIBUTION AFTER 1ST APRIL 2004 WOULD GET THE B ENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER S. 43B. THEREFORE FINANCE ACT 200 3 TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE SHOULD BE READ AS RETROSPECTIVE. I T WOULD THEREFORE OPERATE FROM 1ST APRIL 1988 WHEN THE F IRST PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED. IT IS TRUE THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS EXPL ICITLY STATED THAT FINANCE ACT 2003 WILL OPERATE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 2 004. HOWEVER THE MATTER INVOLVES THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED ON THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE ACT 2003. FOR THE AFORESTATE D REASONS FINANCE ACT 2003 TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE I S CURATIVE IN NATURE HENCE IT IS RETROSPECTIVE AND IT WOULD OPE RATE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 1988 (WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO CAME TO BE INSE RTED). THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AN D DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR CO NTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI IF PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RE TURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.2 AND 3 READS AS UNDER :- 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ADDING `.1 00 000/- AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST THEREON BEING LOAN RECEIVED FROM MR.AAKASH ACHHITLYA UNDER SECTIO N 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ADDING `.1 00 000/-AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST THEREON BEING - 5 - LOAN RECEIVED FROM MR.VARSHA ACHHITLYA UNDER SECTIO N 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE Y EAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSO NS:- 1. AAKASH SHYAMLAL ACHHITLYA `.1 00 000 2. SMT.VARSHA SHYAMLAL ACHHITLYA `.1 00 00 0 THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SAID PERS ONS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITORS ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE Y HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE DEPO SITORS ALONG WITH BANK PASS BOOK AND THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THEM NOR FILE D ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUCH AS BANK PASS BOOK COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME IF ASSESSED TO TAX AND EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. IN SPITE OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT. THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE A DDITION OF ABOVE DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDITS. 9. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE DETAIL S ABOUT THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF AAKASH SHYAMLAL ACHHITLYA AND S MT.VARSHA SHYAMLAL ACHITLYA IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK ID CARD ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF PARAS INDUSTRIES AND AFFIDA VIT ARE FILED IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE DEPOSITORS AT PAGE NOS.1 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPENDING A CERTIFICATE TO THE PAPER BOOK HAS CERTI FIED THAT THE - 6 - ABOVE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREFORE ARGUE D THAT IN SPITE OF PROVIDING FULL DETAILS ABOUT THE DEPOSITORS AND THEIR SOURCE OF MAKING THE DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ABOVE TWO DEPOSITS AS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE AC T AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. SINCE THE DEPOSITS ARE DULY PR OVED AS REGARDS THE INGREDIENTS OF THE CASH CREDITS SUCH AS IDENTIF Y CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 11. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO DETAILS WHICH ARE NOW FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FA CT HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER. THEREFORE THESE PAPERS WERE NEVER BE FORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE CANNOT BE CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT THIS STAGE. 12. IN THE REJOINDER TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAPERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE T IME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED DEPOSITS OF `.1 LAKH EACH FROM AAKASH SHAY AMLAL ACHHITLYA AND SMT.VARSHA SHYAMLAL ACHHITLYA. THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS AND FILE EVIDENCES REGARDING THE SOURCE OF MAKING THE - 7 - DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE US COPIES OF BANK PASS BOOK ID CARD ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE DEPOSITORS IN THE PAPER BOOK AT P AGE NOS.1 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HAS CERTIFIED THAT THESE WERE FI LED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN THEIR ORDERS THAT NO DOCUMENTS WERE F ILED BEFORE THEM TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITO RS. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS IDENTITY A ND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSITS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT KEEPING IN VIEW THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER B OOK OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE US AS PER LAW. THE ASSES SEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF TH E DEPOSITS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED UP ON TO DO SO. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 OF THE APP EAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER:- 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 15. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANC ED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE O N THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE US. THEREFORE THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 16. GROUND NO.5 READS AS UNDER :- - 8 - THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTE REST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 17. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D WERE BROUGHT ON THE SDTATUTE W.E.F. 1-6-2003 AND THEREFORE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. 18. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE W E FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE DEL HI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER V S. EKTA PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (2008) 113 ITD 719(DEL)(SB) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT SEC. 234D INSERTED IN THE IT ACT 1961 BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003 W.E.F. 1ST JUNE 2003 BEING SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT HENCE APPLICAB LE FROM ASST. YR. 2004-05 ONLY; INTEREST UNDER S. 234D IS CHARGEABLE FROM ASST. YR. 2004-05 ONLY AND IT COULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN THOUGH REGULAR ASSESSMENTS FOR SUCH EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE FRAMED AFTER 1ST JUNE 2003 OR REFUND IS GRANTED FOR THOSE YEARS AFTER THE SAID DATE. THEREF ORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT O N RD JULY 2010 SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2010 PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. C IT(APPEALS)-VI BARODA 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD - 9 - DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 20-7-10 --------------- ---- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 20-7-10 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 22-7-10 ------------ ------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 22-7-10 ------------------- JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S ---------------- -- ------------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- --- ----------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- --- ------------------