The ACIT, Circle-6,, Surat v. M/s. Shah Gems, Surat

ITA 2374/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 237420514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AASFS0549J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2374/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-6,, Surat
Respondent M/s. Shah Gems, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 16-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 16-03-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 01-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PHAUJA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO NO.335/AHD/2007 (A/O. ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:16.3.10 DRAFTED:16.3.10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6 SURAT ROOM NO.611 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT M/S. SHAH GEMS 2 ND FLOOR SHIV VISHNU SMRUTI MAHIDHARPURA SURAT PAN NO.AASFS0549J V/S. V/S. M/S. SHAH GEMS 2 ND FLOOR SHIV VISHNU SMRUTI MAHIDHARPURA SURAT PAN NO.AASFS0549J ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6 SURAT ROOM NO.611 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M.J. SHAH AR REVENUE BY:- SMT. NEETA SHAH SR-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO ) BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-IV SURAT IN APPEAL NO. CAS-IV/18/06-07 DATED 30-03-2007. THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-6 SURAT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28-03-2006 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 2 FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.23 74/AHD/2007. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 1 9 021/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S. A R GE MS (RS.2 29 294/-) AND M/S. PARIKH DIAMONDS (RS.2 89 727/-) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE TWO PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAID PURCHASES ISSUED NOTIC ES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO SIX PARTIES INCLUDING THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES. THE AO REQ UIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION BUT NO COMPLIANCE WA S MADE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO STATED THAT ALL THESE PARTIES WERE BROUGHT TO AO ON APPOINTED DATE BUT AO HAS NOT RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS AS HE WAS BUSY IN RE CORDING STATEMENTS OF OTHERS IN CONNECTION WITH SOME OTHER CASES. THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THESE PERSONS AFTERWARDS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ABOUT TWO PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH WAS ALSO CERTIFIED BY BANK AND THE PAYMENT IS GENUINE AND T HE PARTIES ARE GENUINE WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED. BUT AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECLARED THE PURCHASE MADE FROM ABOVE PARTIES AS BOGUS. AGGR IEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PAGE-2 AND 3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE DOCUMENT FILED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE ENTIRE PURCHASES AND HAVE ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS WHICH A RE AUTHENTICATED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN HIS REPORT. IT IS ALSO SEE N THAT PAYMENT TO FOUR OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WH EREAS IT IS MADE BY CASH TO ONLY TWO PARTIES WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND THE AO HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED IN RESPECT OF TH ESE TWO PARTIES. IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT THERE COULD BE NO SALES WITHOU T PURCHASES AND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PURCHASE OF RS.11 31 426/- HAS BEE N SOLD FOR RS.14 33 111/-. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEE N DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH P SONI 1 00 TT 892 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION MADE BECAUSE THE SUPPLIERS W ERE NOT PRODUCED FOR ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 3 EXAMINATION COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IF THE PURCHASES WERE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE SITUATION IS THE SAME IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO SINCE PURCHASES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO FO UR PARTIES BY A/C. PAYEE CHEQUES THE TWO CASH RECIPIENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFO RE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND THE SALE OF SUCH PURCHASES IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE SALE BILLS. THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE AO CAN BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AGGRIEVED REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US LD.SR-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SM T. NEETA SHAH STATED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE THE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION AND THE IDENTITY OF THESE PARTIES ARE N OT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ESTABLISHED. ACC ORDINGLY SHE STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBE LE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSAM PESTICIDES & AGRO CHEMICALS V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846 (GAUHATI) HAS MADE THE ADDITION RIGHTLY. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SURVEY ON THIS ASSESSEE M/S. SHAH GEMS WAS CONDUCTED ON 16-10- 2002 ALONG WITH ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. MODI DIAMONDS WAS ALSO COVERED. HE STATED THAT EXACTLY ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CA SE OF M/S. MODI DIAMONDS IN ITA NO.2373/AHD/2007 DATED 26-02-2010 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TRIBU NAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26-02-2010 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PARA-8 AND 8.1 WHICH READS AS:- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCHES IN THE CASE OF RAJESH P. SONI VS ACIT (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT P URCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN PROPERTY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTED BY AUTHENTICATED PURCHASE BILLS/VOUCHERS FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND SALES AGAINST THESE P URCHASES ARE NOT DOUBTED ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D MERELY BECAUSE SUPPLIERS COULD NOT BE LOCATED AND WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAM INATION. 8.1 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIALS POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES THROUGH ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES. ONE PURCHASE WAS MADE OUT OF CASH AND THE PARTY WAS PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REPLY BEFOR E THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THAT THE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO BUT THEIR STATEMENTS WERE NOT RECORDED AN D THEY WERE CALLED UPON ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 4 TO COME AGAIN. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE EXPLAINED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES EVERY TIME. SUCH REPLY IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 13. THE ABOVE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ASSE SSEE MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM ALL THE PARTIES AND ASSESSEE ALSO PR ODUCED THE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO BUT DUE TO ONE OR THE OTHER REASONS THE AO C OULD NOT RECORD THEIR STATEMENTS. THE BANK STATEMENT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS OF THE PURCHASES THROUGH ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE QUANTUM OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE SALES IF NO PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SALES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO AND PROFIT IS TAXED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED QUANTITATIV E DETAILS OF THE STOCK (PURCHASES) AS WELL AS PRODUCED THE STOCK REGISTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THESE FACTS CLEARLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE GENUINE PURCHASES IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDING AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE. 5. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL A ND EVEN THE PURCHASES ARE SUPPORTED BY BANK STATEMENT OF THE SELLERS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY IS NOT IN DOUBT. THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A BOGUS A ND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. MODI DIAMONDS (SUPRA) HAS HELD SO. THE ISSUE BEING COVERED WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ISSUE OF REVENU ES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.335/AHD/2007. 6. THE FIRST TWO ISSUES OF THE ASSESSEES CO RAISED BY WAY OF GROUND NO.I & II REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION OF PARTNERS U/S.40(B) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 40(B) OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS FIRST TWO ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY FIRST TWO ISSUES ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. COMING TO NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF GROUND NO.(III) REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF ASSORTMENT EXPENSES. FOR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.III:- (III). DISALLOWANCE OUT OF ASSORTMENT EXPENSES:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.1 16 250/- (75%) OUT OF ASSORTMENT EXPENSES OF ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 5 RS.1 55 000/- WHEN THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDIT ED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT AND THE AUDITOR HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE REMARK. 9. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN CO NO.334/AHD/2007 DATED 26-02-2010 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA-12 HAS ALLOWED THE ASSORTMENT EXPENSES AS UNDER:- 12.ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. THE AO DID NOT SAY THAT THE EXPENSES AR E NOT GENUINELY SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURCHASES. THE AO DISALLO WED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF SALARY IS UNREASONABLE . THE AO FORGOT TO NOTE THAT IT IS FOR THE BUSINESSMAN TO CONSIDER AS TO HO W MUCH EMPLOYEES THEY HAVE TO EMPLOY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALARY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES. SI NCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SALARY IS PAID WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE TO SU STAIN ANY ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO.3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. MODI DIAMONDS (SUPRA) WE ALLOW THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CO. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE CO OF ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.(IV) IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF MANAGER. FOR THIS AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.(IV):- (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF MANAGER:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE SALARY OF MANAGER WHEN T HE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 11. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURT HER STATED THAT EXACTLY ON SAME FACTS THE TRIBUNAL IN CO.334/AHD/207 IN THE CASE OF M/S. MODI DIAMONDS ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 6 ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA- 13 AS UNDER:- 13. ON GROUND NO.4 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADDITI ON OF RS.59 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAID TO THE MANAGER. THE AO CONS IDERING THE SMALL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT AND OBSERVED THAT THE MANAGER WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND THERE WAS NO ST ATUTORY DEDUCTION LIKE P.F. AND E. S. I. ETC. THEREFORE RS.59 000/- WAS D ISALLOWED BEING ENTIRE SALARY PAID TO THE MANGER. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT P. F. AND E.S.I. ETC. THE GENUIN E PAYMENT TO THE MANAGER IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO AND THAT THE SALARY OF TH E MANAGER WAS NOT TAXABLE. THEREFORE HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE PERMANENT AC COUNT NUMBER ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT AOS ACTION OF DISALLOWIN G THE CLAIM ON THE ABOVE REASON IS NOT IN ORDER. HOWEVER AT THE END OF THE ORDER IN OPERATIVE PORTION THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT DISALLOWANCE IS THER EFORE DIRECTED TO BE DISALLOWED. THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION (SUPRA) WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CO IS ALLOWED. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS CO OF ASSESSEE IS BY WAY OF GROUND NO.(V) REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CONVEYANCE OFFICE AND TRAVELING. F OR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND NO.(V) AS UNDER:- (V) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CONVEYANCE OFFICE & TRAVE LING:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30 840/- BEING 25% OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS WRO NGLY MADE AS THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY ARE AUDITED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT AND THE AUDITOR HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE REMARKS. 13. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN I N CO NO.334/AHD/2007 DATED 26- 02-2010 VIDE PARA-16 AS UNDER:- 16. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PART ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JU STIFIED. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY VERIFIABLE BI LLS/VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF HUGE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES IN THE HEADS MENTIONED A BOVE. THE SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE US BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRO DUCE THE VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONS IDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE RIGH TLY SUSTAINED THE PART ADDITION OF 25% OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. WE AC CORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ITA NO.2374/AHD/2007 & CO 335/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 ACIT CIR-6 SRT V. M/S. SHAH GEMS PAGE 7 ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN CO. NO.334/AHD/2007 (SUPRA) WE DISMISS THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CO. 14. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND TH AT OF ASSESSEES CO IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/03/2010 SD/- SD/- (A.N.PHAUJA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED : 16/03/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD