Suryodaya Market Creators Pvt. Ltd.,, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-4(3)., Baroda

ITA 2912/AHD/2006 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 291220514 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AAECS9182J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2912/AHD/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Suryodaya Market Creators Pvt. Ltd.,, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-4(3)., Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 08-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 17-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 17-12-2009
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 26-12-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND N. S. SAINI AM ) ITA NO.2912/AHD/2006 A. Y.: 2001-02 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. C-24 SAHAYOG SOCIETY GORWA REFINERY ROAD BARODA PA NO. AAECS 9182 J VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI D. K. PARIKH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. C. PANDIT DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III BARODA DATED 6 TH OCTOBER 2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY HE DID NOT PRESS THE SAME. HE HAS ALSO NOT PRESSED GROUND NO.4 OF THE AP PEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND P ERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CHALL ENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.12 80 733/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WH ICH CONSISTS OF ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 2 ADDITION OF RS.5 97 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPIT AL AND RS.6 83 733/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE AO NO TED THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE SHARE CAPITAL AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES HAD INCREASED TO THE ABOVE AMOUNTS. THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN THIS REGARD AND PRO VE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS. NO DETAIL WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. ONLY NAME OF ON E PERSON SHRI KIRAN MULAY WAS FURNISHED AND EVEN IN THIS CASE CONFIRMAT ION WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE REMAINING UNSECURED LOANS WERE STATE D TO BE FROM MEMBERS OF CYBER CAF AND NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE NOT PRODUCED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO TREATED THESE AMO UNTS TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT DETAILS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BE EN MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND DETAILS ON RECORD. THE L EARNED CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO WHO HAS REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM 3 SHAREHOLDE RS AND FURNISHED COPY OF DRIVING LICENCE BY WAY OF PROOF OF IDENTITY . NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCE TO PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS OR TO ESTABLISH GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIR MED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 97 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASED SHARE CAPITAL . AS REGARDS UNEXPLAINED LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES IN A S UM OF RS.6 83 733/- IS CONCERNED THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT MAJOR P ORTION OF RS.4 50 000/- IS STATED TO BE DEPOSITS FROM THE MEM BERS DURING THE YEAR. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE RS.1 000/- OR LESS IN EACH CASE THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE OTHER T WO ITEMS OF ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 3 RS.2 18 000/- AND RS.15 733/- ARE STATED TO BE LOAN S FROM SHRI KIRAN MULAY AND AMOUNT PAYABLE TO STAFF RESPECTIVELY. IN THE CASE OF SHRI KIRAN MULAY COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS PERMAN ENT ACCOUNT NUMBER HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE EVIDENCES NOTED THAT AT THE BEST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE T O ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED TO E STABLISH CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . AS REGARDS SMALL DEPOSITS ARE CONCERNED THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED TH AT MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN FROM LARGE NUMBERS OF PERSONS WOU LD NOT RELIEVE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BURDEN OF DISCHARGING ITS ONUS TO PROVE ALL THE 3 INGREDIENTS. ACCORDINGLY ENTIRE ADDITION WAS CONFI RMED. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS AND THEIR C ONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. COPIES OF TH E SAME ARE FILED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 75 76 AND 77 WHICH BEARS DATED 18 -3-2002 IN WHICH THEY HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE SHARE APP LICATION MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE HAS SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT E VIDENCES WERE ALSO PRODUCED ON RECORD TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY. HE HAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS MADE BY THE DIRECT ORS AND THE SHARE APPLICANTS EXIST THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGE D INITIAL ONUS TO PROVE GENUINE SHARE CAPITAL. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE ADDITION OF THAT AMOUNT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE REC ENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. 216 CTR 195 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE NAME S ARE GIVEN TO THE AO THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PRO CEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW BUT IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 4 AS REGARDS THE OTHER ADDITION OF RS.6 83 733/- TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFER TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.81 WHICH IS T HE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KIRAN MULAY TO SHOW THA T HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IS GIVEN AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS GIVEN IN SMALL AMOUNT AND THE CREDITOR HAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE GIVEN THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE STAFF IS NOT CASH CREDIT FOR WHICH NO ADDITION SHOU LD BE MADE. OTHERS ARE SMALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS FOR WHICH D ETAILS ARE FILED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 82 ONWARDS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHA RE APPLICANTS AND IN OTHER CASES OF THE LOANS EVEN THE IDENTITY AND CRED ITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED . THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTLY BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLE ADED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT AS REGARDS SHARE CAPITAL INCREA SE SUFFICIENT MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THE ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND NOTED THAT SO FA R AS INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CON FIRMATION LETTERS FROM 3 SHAREHOLDERS AND FURNISHED EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE IR IDENTITY. IT WOULD THEREFORE SHOW THAT CONFIRMATIONS OF THE SHAREHOLD ERS WERE FILED ON RECORD AND PAPER BOOK PAGES 75 76 AND 77 SHOWS THA T THESE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO BEARING DATED 18-3-2002. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED ON 26 TH DECEMBER 2003. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 5 REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TO SHOW THAT THE 3 SHAREHOLD ERS WHO HAVE DEPOSITED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITH THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ITSELF. HENCE THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ARE APPEARING IN THE RECORD OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES SUCH DIRECTORS CANNOT BE NO N-EXISTENT. THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE SHARE APP LICATION MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF INCREASE IN THE SHARE CAPITA L. THIS FACT IS CONFIRMED BY THEM IN THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. THEREFORE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RECENT JU DGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMEN T IS IN RESPECT OF BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS BUT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT A SSESSEE THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE DIRECTORS. THEREFORE THIS JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE. WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED DR BECAUSE FOR AN EXISTENT DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY NO DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN AS IS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED DR. SUCH IS NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.5.9 7 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL. AS A RESULT PART OF THI S GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7.1 SO FAR AS UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.6 83 733/- IS C ONCERNED THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI K IRAN MULAY WHO HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.2 18 000/ - ON DIFFERENT DATES. HE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN WHOSE CASE WE HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE DEPOSIT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON GUJARA T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS ROHINI BUILDERS [2002] 256ITR 360 ( GUJ) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (GAUHATI). SINCE NO CONFIRMATION WAS ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 6 FILED BEFORE THE AO AND NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED THEREFORE IT WOULD BE PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE SHRI KIRAN MULAY IN RESPECT OF HIS CREDITWORTHINESS FOR GIVING SEPARATE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BECAUSE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE W OULD HAVE BEARING ON THE AFORESAID DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS RE GARDS ADDITION OF RS.2.18 LACS OF GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE BY SH RI KIRAN MULAY ARE SET ASIDE AND WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DECIDE THE SAME BY EXAMINING SHRI KIRAN MULAY ON OATH BY GIVING SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE STAFF NO S PECIFIC FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS CASH CREDIT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE- DECIDE THE SAME BY GIVING SPECIFIC FINDINGS BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 FOR THE REST OF THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY RS. 4 50 000/- BEING DEPOSIT FROM MEMBERS DURING THE YEAR THE FACT REMA IN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO AS W ELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). MAY BE THE AMOUNT WAS SMALL AND MIG HT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY SEVERAL DEPOSITORS/MEMBERS BUT SUCH T HING WOULD NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHARGING ITS INITIAL O NUS TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON THI S COUNT BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL MEMBERS/DEPOSITORS. WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM THEIR ORDERS. AS A RESULT PART OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 9. AS A RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO .2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 7 10. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A O TO TAX RS.31 54 124 BEING FEE FROM MEMBERS ATTRIBUTING THE SAME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST ACTUAL FEE ATTRIBUTED AND SHOWN BY YOUR APPELLANT OF RS.16 39 662. YOUR A PPELLANT SUBMITS THAT FEE AS SHOWN BY YOUR APPELLANT BEING I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED A ND PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BE HELD PROPER AND AO BE DIRECTED TO TAX THE SAME AS DECLARED. THE CIT (A) WHILE GIVING FINDING HAS OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT YOUR AP PELLANT HAS STARTED BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE ATTRIBUT ING THE RECEIPTS FOR 12 MONTHS BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS INCORRE CT. IT BE HELD SO NOW. 11. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF AO IN CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FEES RECEIVE D DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.83 48 911/- AS INCOME OF THE CURREN T YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF RUNNING CYBER CAF AT SURAT AND RECEIVED GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.83 48 941/-FROM MEMBERS OF CYBER CAF. THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED ONLY RS.16 39 662/- AS RECE IPTS PERTAINING TO THE CURRENT YEAR AND BALANCE RS.67 09 279/- AS INCO ME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THIS WAS ON THE GROUND THAT MEMBER SHIP FEES RECEIVED WAS FOR 5 YEARS 3 YEARS 2 YEARS AND 1 YEAR FROM D IFFERENT MEMBERS. ONLY THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CURRENT YEAR WAS CON SIDERED AS TAXABLE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR. THE AO HOWEVER TOOK THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE FEES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR IT FORMS PART OF TAXABLE INCOME ON RECEIPT BASIS. THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.83 48 911/- WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 12. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING . ACCORDI NGLY MEMBERSHIP FEES RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF CURRENT YEAR ONLY SHOUL D BE TAKEN AS REVENUE RECEIPT. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON WHICH IT WAS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY THERE FORE ADDITION IS ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 8 UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND R EPORT FROM THE AO ON THIS POINT. SAME IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-CO MPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME ON THE BASIS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TH E FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A .R AND THE REPORT OF THE A.O. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED REPRESENTS RECEIPTS TAXABLE AS INCO ME IN THE CURRENT YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE MAJORI TY OF THE RECEIPTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES SINCE THEY W ERE RECEIVED IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDE D OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE A.O HAS CON SIDERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS TAXABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE Y ARE BUSINESS RECEIPTS WHICH OUGHT TO BE TAXED ON CASH B ASIS. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT WHAT CAN BE TAXED UNDER THE INCOME-T AX ACT IS 'INCOME'. ONLY THOSE RECEIPTS WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF THE TERM 'INCOME' CAN BE CO NSIDERED AS TAXABLE RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNN ING A CYBER CAFE. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT AFTER TAK ING MEMBERSHIP FEE FROM THE PATRONS THE ASSESSEE IS OBL IGED TO ALLOW ACCESS TO INTER-NET SERVICES FOR A FIXED NUMBER OF HOURS EVERY YEAR SOME OF THE MEMBERS HAVE CONTRACTED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF M ORE THAN 1 YEAR. HOWEVER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR USING SUCH SERVICES OVER A PERIOD OF 1 TO 5 YEARS HAS BEEN PAI D IN LUMP SUM. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPORTIONED THE AMOUNT ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE FIRST YEAR AS TAXABLE RECEIPTS OF THE YEAR AND TREATED THE REMAINDER US ADVANCES. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-T AX ACT THE BASIS OF CHARGE IS TO BE FOUND IN SECTION 4 WHI CH MANDATES THAT INCOME-TAX AT THE PRESCRIBED RULES SHALL BE CH ARGED IN RESPECT OF THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 5 THEN ELABORATES THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME: IT IS PR OVIDED THEREIN THAT '' TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 5 THEN ELABORATES THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME. IT IS PROVIDE D THEREIN THAT TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OF PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED WH ICH (A) IS RECEIVED OR IS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA IN SUCH YEAR BY OR ON BEHALF OF SUCH PERSON OR ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 9 (B) ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE TO HIM IN INDIA DURING SUCH YEAR; OR (C) ACCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM OUTSIDE INDIA DU RING SUCH YEAR. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME' INCLUDES ''INCOME' FROM WH ATEVER SOURCE. 'INCOME' HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2(24). THE DEFINITION IS AN INCLUSIVE ONE AND LISTS OUT 23 ITE MS WHICH HAVE BEEN DECLARED EXPRESSLY TO BE RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME WHICH ARC TAXABLE UNDER [HE ACT. SINCE THE D EFINITION IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION THERE IS SCOPE FOR SOME OT HER RECEIPTS ALSO TO BE HELD AS RECEIPTS TAXABLE AS INCOME. HOWE VER FOR SUCH RECEIPTS TO BE HELD TAXABLE THEY MUST INHIBIT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 'INCOME'. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY TH E COURTS THAT ALL RECEIPTS ARE NOT ASSESSABLE TO TAX. IN MEHBOOB PRODUCTIONS PR. LTD V CIT 106 ITR 758 THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT 'ALL RECEIPTS BY AN ASSESSEE CANNOT NECESSARILY BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME -TAX AND THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS INCO ME OR NOT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT AND THE TRITE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE RELEVANT TAXING PROVISION.'* SIMILARL Y THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN LAL CHAND GOPAL DA S V. CIT 48 ITR 324 THAT 'THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES CANNOT ASSESS ALL RECEIPTS; THEY CAN ASSESS ONLY THOSE RECEIPTS THAT AMOUNT TO 'INCOME'. THEREFORE BEFORE THEY ASSESS A RECEIPT THEY MUST FIND THAT TO BE INCOME AND THEY CANNOT FIND SO UNL ESS THEY HAW SOME MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THEIR FINDING.' IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT MEMBERSHI P CANTS AND OTHER DETAILED RECORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF EACH MEMBER. IT IS ALSO RIOT DISPUTED THAT MEMBERSH IP IN MANY CASES WAS FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR A ND IN SOME CASES EXTENDING UPTO 5 YEARS. HENCE I AM INCL INED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PART OF THE RECEIPTS COMPRISED IN THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.83 48 940/- WERE IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES TOWARDS PROVISION OF FUTURE SERVICES. ALTHOUGH THEY WERE IN THE NATURE OF REV ENUE RECEIPTS ONLY THOSE RECEIPTS RELATABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR. 4.3 HAVING HELD THAT SOME PORTION OF THE RECEIPT WA S IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMIN E THE PRINCIPLE TO BE ALLOWED REGARDING RECOGNITION OF RE VENUE FOR TAXATION PURPOSE. IN THIS REGARD IT IS PERTINEN T AND USEFUL TO REFER TO THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-9 ISSUED BY THE ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 10 INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. THE A SSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS ACCOUNT S IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 211 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE COMPANIES ACT ENJOINS UPON COMPANIES TO FOLLOW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS PRESCRIBED TINDER THAT ACT AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ACCOUNTING STANDARD ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE LO FOLLOW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD PRESCRIBED BY THE LCAI THE AS-9 DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT OF REVENUE RECOGNI TION. IN PARA-12 OF THE STANDARD WHICH DEALS WITH TRANSACTI ONS INVOLVING RENDERING OF SERVICES AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IT HAS BEEN S UNDER: 'IN A TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE RENDERING OF SERVIC ES PERFORMANCE SHOULD BE MEASURED EITHER UNDER THE COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD OR UNDER THE PROPORTIONATE COMPLETION METHOD WHICHEVER RELATES THE REVENUE TO THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED. SUCH PERFORMANCE SHOULD HE REGARDED AS BEING ACHIEVED WHEN NO SIGNIF ICANT UNCERTAINTY EXISTS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT WILL BE RENDERINGTHE SERVICE.' 4.4 THE TERMS PROPORTIONATE COMPLETION METHOD AND COMPLETED SERVICES METHOD I IN THE STANDARD HAVE BE EN DEFINED IN PARA- 7 AS UNDER: '(I) PROPORTIONATE COMPLETION METHOD - PERFORMANCE CONSISTS OF THE EXECUTION OF MORE THAN ONE ACT. REVENUE IS RECO GNIZED PROPORTIONATELY BY REFERENCE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH ACT. THE REVENUE RECOGNIZED UNDER THIS METHOD WOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF CONTRACT VALUE ASSOCIAT ED COSTS NUMBER OF ACTS OR OTHER SUITABLE BASIS- FOR PRACTIC AL PURPOSES WHEN SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY AN INDETERMINATE NUMB ER OF ACTS OVER A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME REVENUE IS REC OGNIZED ON A STRAIGHT LINE BASIS OVER THE SPECIFIC D PERIOD UNL ESS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME OTHER METHOD BETTER REPRESENTS T HE PATTERN OF PERFORMANCE. (II) COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD - PERFORMANC E CONSISTS OF THE EXECUTION OF A SINGLE ACT. ALTERNAT IVELY SERVICES ARE PERFORMED IN MORE THAN SINGLE ACT AND THE SERVICES YET TO BE PERFORMED ARE SO SIGNIFICANT IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION TAKEN AS A WHOLE THAT PERFORMANCE C ANNOT BE DEEMED TO HOVE BEEN COMPLETED UNTIL THE EXECUTIO N OF THOSE ACTS. THE COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD I S ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 11 RELEVANT TO THESE PATTERNS OF PERFORMANCE AND ACCOR DINGLY REVENUE IS RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SOLE OR FINAL ACT FA KES PLACE AND THE SERVICE BECOMES CHARGEABLE. ' 4.5 IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE PERFORMANCE CONSIS TS IN THE EXECUTION OF MORE THAN ONE ACT IN AS MUCH AS THE S ERVICES IS TO BE REGULARLY PROVIDED NOT ALL AT ONCE BUT OVER A PERIOD. THE PERIOD OVER WHICH THE SERVICES ARC TO BE PROVIDED I S SUB- DIVIDED INTO FINANCIAL YEARS OR ACCOUNTING PERIODS. THEREFORE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPORTIONA TE COMPLETION METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION WOULD BE A PPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN SUCH CASE REVENUE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED ON A STRAIGHT LINE METHOD OVER THE SPECI FIC PERIOD. THUS WHERE THE RECEIPT RELATES LO A 5 YEAR CONTRACT THE RECE IPT OF SUCH ACCOUNT IS TO BE DIVIDED ON STRAIGHT LINE BASIS INTO 5 PORTIONS. ONE PORTION I E 1/5 TH WOULD BE TAXABLE IN EACH OF THE 5 YEARS. SIMILARLY THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF THREE YEARS CONTRACT WOULD BE TAXABLE IN THREE EQUAL PARTS OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD. 1.6 FROM THE RECORDS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O AND VE RIFIED BY HIM IT EMERGES THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.81 76 300/- PERTAINS TO MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR 5 YEARS 3 YEARS AND 2 YEARS.. THEREFORE THE BALANCE RECEIPT OF RS.1 72 641/- ( T OTAL RECEIPTS: RS 83 48 941 RS.81 76 300) PERTAINS TO THE MEMBER SHIP FOR ONE YEAR PERIOD I E THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE MEMBERSHIP FEE RECEIVED FOR 5 YEARS ETC WOULD ALSO CONTAIN A PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT RELATABLE TO THE RELEVANT PREV IOUS YEAR. THIS WOULD BE 1/5' TH OF THE MOUNT OF RS.30 90 Q0O/~. SIMILARLY L/3' D OF RS.10 78 000/-AND L / 2 OF RS.40 08 300/- WOULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE FOLLOWING POSITION EMERGES: RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 1 ST YEAR I.E. AY 2001-02 RS.31 54 124 6 18 000+3 59 333 +30 04 150+1 72 641 RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 2 ND YEAR RS.29 81 483 6 18 000 + 3 59 333 + 20 04 150+ SUBSEQUENT RECEIPTS RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 3 RD YEAR RS.9 77 333 6 18 000+3 59 333 +SUBSEQUENT RECEIPTS RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 4 TH YEAR RS.6 18 000 + SUBSEQUENT RECEIPTS RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 5 TH YEAR RS.83 48 940 +SUBSEQUENT RECEIPTS ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 12 4.7 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE IN ITS PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.61 36 964/-. THE BREAK -UP OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS AS UNDER; (I) INTERNET LEASING CHARGES RS 2 33 928/- (II) STAFF WELFARE RS 2 08 710/- (III) SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES RS. 17 69 511/- (IV) POSTAGE AND TELEPHONE RS 1 93 951/- (V) COMMISSION RS .20 47 0 88/- (VI) AUDITOR'S REMUNERATION RS. 7 350/- (VII) DIRECTORS REMUNERATION RS. 81 OQ0/- (VIII) SALARY RS 3 61 273/- (IX) OFFICE EXPENSES RS.L2 00 120/- (X) LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES RS. 28 300/- (XI) SECURITY EXPENSES RS. 5 733/- RS.61 36 964/- 4.8 FROM THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES IT IS SEEN THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES LIKE SALES PROMOTION COMMISSION AND OFFIC E EXPENSES OTHER THAN SALARY ELECTRICITY ETC. APPEAR TO BE RELATABLE TO THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR SU BSEQUENT YEARS ALSO. THE FEES PAID FOR (SAY 5 YEARS PERIOD) HAS BEEN HELD TAXABLE OVER THE 5 YEARS. SIMILARLY IN RESPEC T OF THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE THERETO BENEFIT DERIVED FROM (SAY) SALES PROMOTION AND COMMISSION EXPENSES WOULD FLOW OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD. THE EXPENSES SHOULD ALSO BE LINKED TO THE INCOME EARNED BY LAYING OUT THE SAID EXPENSES. THEREFORE THE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES COMMISSION EXPENSES AND OFFICE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS 17 69 511/- RS 20 47 088/ - AND RS.2 00 120/- (RS.40 16 719 IN AGGREGATE) SHOULD AL SO BE EQUALLY SPREAD OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD @RS.8 03 345/ - IN A YEAR. THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS.21 20 245/-BE ING IN THE NATURE OF INTER-NET LEASING CHARGES POSTAGE T ELEPHONE AUDITOR'S REMUNERATION SALARY ETC. WOULD BE PROPER LY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CURRENT YEAR THUS OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.61 36 964/- RS.29 23 589/- (RS.21 20 245/- + RS.8 03 345/-) ARE HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE IN THE CURR ENT YEAR AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.21 20 245/- IS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A. O . IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME. ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 13 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). HE HAS FILED SOME DETAILS GIVEN IN THE SYNOPSIS IN WHICH IT IS HIGHLI GHTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE STARTED ITS BUSINESS IN AUGUST 2000 THERE FORE INCOME SHOULD BE COMPUTED FOR 8 MONTHS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT PROPORTIONATE BENEFIT MAY ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. 14. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 15. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARDS FINAL ACTION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO TAX THE PROPORTIONATE RECEIPT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R IN QUESTION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE STARTED ITS BUSINESS IN AUGUST 2000 AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE AO HA S ALSO MENTIONED AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IT IS RELEVANT TO EXAMINE THE POINT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COULD BE ENTITLED FOR FURTHER PROPORTIONAT E DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS STARTED IN AUGUST 2000. SINCE THE FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PRINCIPLE ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUCH BENEFIT SHALL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS STARTED IN AUGUST 2000 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR IN QUESTION. WE ACCORDINGLY RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE AO AS IS DIRECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH PROPOSITION OF CONS IDERING OF THE BUSINESS IN AUGUST 2000 WHILE RE-COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. AS A RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 14 16. ON GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT D ECIDING GROUND NO.7 REGARDING ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NO T DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS RAISED BEFORE HIM I N GROUND NO.7. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 148 IN WHICH THE AO HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE O F DEPRECIATION MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND OF DEPRECIATION IS TAKEN CARE OF BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE COMPUTING TA XABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO NOTED THA T IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT INITIALLY ONLY LEDGER AND CASH BOOK WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIS PREDECESSOR WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE LATER PROCEEDING S BEFORE THE AO EVEN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS WAS PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT BOOKS AND VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN LOST IN TRANSIT. THE AO COMPUTED THE INCOME BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT BEING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. THE AO NOTED THAT S INCE IN THE CYBER CAF BUSINESS THE PROFIT MARGIN IS VERY HIGH THER EFORE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY DETERMINING 40% OF THE TOT AL RECEIPTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT IT WOULD TAKE CARE OF GRANT OF DEPRECIATION AND REMUNE RATION TO THE DIRECTORS ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AO ON THE SAME REASONING. THE ABOVE FACTS THEREFORE WOULD S HOW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THE RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THE REFORE BOOK RESULTS ITA NO. 2912/AHD/2006 SURYODAYA MARKET CREATORS PVT. LTD. 15 WAS REJECTED AND BUSINESS INCOME WAS COMPUTED U/S 1 44 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BEING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. WHILE COMPU TING THE INCOME THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION AND SALARY IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE AO FOR THE SAME REASONING IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFOR E THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF GROUND NO.7 REGARDING AL LOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE REJECTED. GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-01-2010 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 08-01-2010 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 //TRUE COPY// D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD