M/s. Khazana Jewellers,, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(2),, Baroda

ITA 2515/AHD/2008 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 251520514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN ACUPP3427A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2515/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Khazana Jewellers,, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(2),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 14-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 14-06-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 07-07-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING:27.08.10 DRAFTED ON : 27.08.10 ITA NO.2515/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 KHAZANA JEWELLERS PROP. SHRI DIBAKAR PURKIT A/1-2 BIHARI APARTMENTS NR. WELCOME HOTEL R.C.DUTT ROAD BARODA. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 BARODA. PAN/GIR NO. : ACUPP3427A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. AARTIBEN N. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN SR. D.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)-II BARODA DATED 01.04.2008. 2. THE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDE R:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 32 346/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR (18 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS) BY ADOPTING THE GP ON LABOUR @ 34.84 % INSTEAD OF 18.17% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. - 2 - 2 402/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR (2 2 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS) BY ADOPTING THE GP ON LABOUR @ 58.4 % INSTEAD OF 20 % DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY OP ERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.10.2 001. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY IT WAS FOUND THAT GROSS P ROFIT ON LABOUR CHARGES IN JEWELLERY ITEMS OF DIAMOND WITH 18 CT. G OLD COMES TO 34.84% WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF 18.17% ON LABOUR CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 18 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR CHARGES ON 18 CT. GOLD STUDDED WITH DIAMOND AND STONE AT 34.84%. THIS FACT IS VERIFIABLE WITH TAG PRICE ON DIAMOND FOUND AT THE T IME OF SURVEY. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARD ING GOLD AND DIAMOND AND NOT REGARDING LABOUR CHARGES PAID/CHARG ED ON MAKING OF ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKE N GROSS PROFIT ON 18 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS AT 34.84% AND WORKE D OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3 32 346/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ACCE PTED GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR CHARGES ON 22 CT. GOLD STUDDED WIT H DIAMOND AND STONE AT 58.4%. THIS FACT IS VERIFIABLE WITH TA G PRICE ON DIAMOND FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE EXPLANATIO N FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING GOLD AND DIAMOND AND N OT REGARDING LABOUR CHARGES PAID/CHARGED ON MAKING OF ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN GROSS PROFIT ON 22 CT. AT 58.4% AND WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2 402/-. IN TH IS WAY HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.3 32 346/- AND RS.2 402/- TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. - 3 - 4. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING FILED COPY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE M/S. KHAZANA JEWELLERS PROP. DIBAKAR PURKIT BARODA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN ITA.NO.1532/AHD/2006 AND IN THE CAS E OF M/S. KHAZANA JEWELLERS IN ITA NOS.1533 & 1534/AHD/2006 I N THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2002-03 AND SUBMITTED THA T IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS D ELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. FOLLOWING THE SAME THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE PRE SENT YEAR ALSO. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED W ITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A SURVEY CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 30.10.2001 AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS EARNING GROSS PROFI T RATE ON LABOUR CHARGES ON JEWELLERY ITEMS OF 18 CT. GOLD OR NAMENTS AT 34.8% JEWELLERY ITEMS MADE ON 22 CT. GOLD ITEMS 58 .4%. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR CHARGES ON JEWELLERY ITEMS M ADE WITH 18 CT. GOLD @ 18.17% AND JEWELLERY MADE WITH 22 CT. GO LD @ 20%. HE THEREFORE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS PROFIT RATE - 4 - AMOUNTING TO RS.3 32 346/- AND RS.2 402/- RESPECTIV ELY. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF THE M/S. KHAZANA JEWELLERS PROP. DIBAKAR PU RKIT BARODA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN ITA.NO.1532/AHD/2006 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. KHAZANA JEWELLERS IN ITA NOS.1533 & 1534/AHD/2006 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 200 2-03 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER DA TED 18.12.2009 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING AS UN DER:- 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A SURVEY CARRIED OUT CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISE S OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 30-10-2001 AND IN T HE STATEMENT RECORDED THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS EARNING GROSS PROFIT RATE ON LABOUR CHARGES ON JEWE LLERY ITEMS OF 18 CARAT GOLD AT 34.8% JEWELLERY ITEM MAD E OF STONE WITH GOLD 34.2% AND ON GOLD ITEMS 58.4%. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT ON LABOUR CHARGES ON JEWELLERY I TEM MADE WITH 18 CARAT GOLD AND DIAMOND AT THE RATE OF 22.78% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE THEREFORE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS PROFIT RATE WHICH AMO UNTED TO RS.73 150/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMIL ARLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROS S PROFIT RATE ON LABOUR CHARGES ON JEWELLERY MADE OUT OF 18 CARAT GOLD WITH DIAMOND AT THE RATE OF 20.44% AND G ROSS PROFIT RATE ON JEWELLERY MADE WITH 22 CARAT GOLD AT THE RATE OF 25%. THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS PROFIT RA TE WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.40 268/- AND RS.3073/- RESPECTIVELY TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LABOUR CHARGES ON MAKING OF 18 CARAT GOLD ORNAMENTS WITH DIAMOND AT THE RATE OF 27.15%. THEREFORE HE MADE THE ADDITION FOR DIFFERE NCE IN GROSS PROFIT RATE WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.1 18 003/- T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS ON WHICH THE ADD ITIONS WERE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEA RNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT - 5 - THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE SHOWN ON THE TAG ATTACHED T O THE JEWELLERY AT A HIGHER FIGURE AND IN FACT THE ASSESS EE ALLOWED DISCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF TH E PURCHASE MADE BY THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT BY MARKING THE LABOUR CHARGES AT A HIGHER RATE ON THE TAG ATTA CHED TO THE JEWELLERY HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE BARGAIN W ITH THE CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS THE ACTUA L LABOUR CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MERELY RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 9 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR MARKING THE LABOUR CHARGES AT A HIGHER RATE ON THE TAG ATTACHED TO THE JEWELLERY WHICH WAS THAT IT HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO BARGAIN THE PRICE OF JEWELLERY WITH ITS CUSTOMERS. THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FURTHER NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SINGLE RUPEE MORE THAN THE LABOUR CH ARGES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. I N ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE A DDITIONS MADE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. HENCE WE SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.73 150/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 RS.40 268/- AND RS.3073/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND RS.1 18 003/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE YEARS U NDER CONSIDERATION. 8. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES POINTE D OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE ABOV E QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS FILE D APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUM RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE QUOTED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DELETE T HE ADDITION - 6 - OF RS.3 32 346/- AND RS.2 402/- AND ALLOW THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY EXPENSES OF RS.31 000/- PAID TO SHRI SHREEKANT B. HATHI. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR RS.31 000/- AS SALARY PAID TO SHRI SH REEKANT B. HATHI BROTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE A SSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT N O SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY SHRI SHREEKANT AND THAT HE WAS DOI NG HIS BUSINESS SEPARATELY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR RS.31 000/-. 11. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER. 12. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 2 001-02 AND 2002-03. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILA R ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 - 7 - WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY PAID TO SHRI SHREEKANT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 15 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.12 000/- CL AIMED AS SALARY EXPENDITURE PAID TO SRIKANT BADAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT RENDERED ANY SERVICES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SHRI SRIKANT BADAL WAS DOING INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND HE WAS PAYING HIM LABOUR CHARGES FOR MAKING OF ORNAMENTS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIR MED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN ABSEN CE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD. 16 BEFORE US ALSO NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT MR. SRIKANT BADAL HAD RENDERED ANY SERVICES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 08 038/- BEING INTEREST PAYABLE TO SMT. VIMLABEN. 15. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID INTEREST OF RS.19 838/- TO VIMLABEN FR OM THE BOOKS OF KHAZANA JEWELERS AND RS.88 200/- FROM THE BOOKS OF DIAMOND SETTERS. IN HER STATEMENT SMT. VIMLABEN ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO SHRI DIBAKAR PURKIT BUT NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. - 8 - SINCE NO INTEREST WAS GIVEN TO VIMLABEN AND AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE ST ATEMENT OF SMT. VIMLABEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWED INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.1 08 038/-. 16. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 17. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 18.12.2009 PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 2 001-02 AND 2002-03. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.1 08 038/-PAID TO SMT. VIMLABEN. IN HER STATEMENT SMT. VIMLABEN ADMI TTED OF HAVING ADVANCED THE LOAN BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE FAC T OF HAVING RECEIVED THE INTEREST ON THE SAME. THEREFORE THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 08 038/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME U P BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND TH E TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 17 GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF - 9 - INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.10 211/-. THE BRIEF FACT S OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF SMT. VIMLABEN RECORDED U/S 131 AFTER THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE ADMITTED OF GIVIN G LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAVE RE CEIVED ANY INTEREST ON THE LOAN ADVANCED BY HER. THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT SMT. VIMLABEN HAS DENIED IN HER STATEMENT OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY INTE REST FROM THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOAN GIVEN BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SINGED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 31 ST 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)-II BARODA. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. - 10 - BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30.08.2010 -------------- -- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 30.08.2010 ---- ------------ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 30.08.2010 --------- ------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 30.08.2010 --------- ------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 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 ---------------- --- -------------