The ACIT,(OSD)-,Range-4,, Ahmedabad v. Karnavati Club Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2983/AHD/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 298320514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACK7865Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2983/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT,(OSD)-,Range-4,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Karnavati Club Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 05-02-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 06-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 06/01/2010 DRAFTED ON: 20/01/2010 ITA NO.2983/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE ACIT(OSD)-I RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. S.G. HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 7865 Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND CO NO.269/AHD/2009 - A.Y. 2006-07 ( IN ITA NO.2983/AHD/2009) KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. THE ACIT(OSD)-I AHMEDABAD RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K.PARIKH C.A. REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL CIT-D.R. O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VIII AHMEDABAD DATED 02/07/2009 PASSE D FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 62 88 500/- BEING ENTRANCE FEE S RECEIVED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT S OF THE CASE. ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. IN RESPONSE TO THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS FILE D CROSS OBJECTION WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) PRESENTS THIS CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GRO UNDS. 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE GROUND OF DEDUCTION OF AMOUNT OF RS.5 25 000/- BEING 1/5 TH DEFERRED EXPENSES BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION MADE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AND CONSISTENCY AND THE CASE L AWS CITED BEFORE HIM AS PER PARA 5.1 OF THE ORDER THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) O UGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL. IT BE HELD SO NOW AND TH E ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 42 000/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEN A VA LID REVISED RETURN WAS FILED AND PROOF OF FILING THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED TH E THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN IGNORING THE REVISED RETURN A ND STARTING THE COMPUTATION AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN. IT BE SO HELD N OW AND THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKI NG DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 94 505/- BEING LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS BY NOT C ONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FOR WHICH PROOF OF FILING THE SAME W AS FURNISHED. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISAPPROVED T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IGNORED THE REVISED RETURN A ND STARTED COMPUTED AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND THE ADDITION BE DELETED. ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - 4. THE LEARNED C.IT.(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWING RS.4 82 930/- BEING PAYMENT OF GRATUITY BY NOT APPR ECIATING THE SUBMISSION REPRODUCED AT PARA 8.3 OF HIS ORDER. TH E LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE PAY MENT OF GRATUITY PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN BE ALLOWED. I T BE SO HELD. ALTERNATIVELY THE LEARNED C.IT.(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE SAME ON PAYMENT BASI S IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND THE SAME BE NOW DIRE CTED AS PRAYED. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER A ND/OR TO AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 3.1. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEA L IS WHETHER ENTRANCE FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CLUB ARE CAPITAL RE CEIPT AND NOT REVENUE RECEIPT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ENTRANCE FEES AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. ON BEING ASKED IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ENTRANCE FEES IS A ONE TIME FEE AND IS CHARGED FOR ENROLMENT AS MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE CENT RE. THESE FEES ARE NOT REFUNDABLE. THESE FEES WERE PAID TO ACQUIRE T HE RIGHT TO AVAIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. W.I.A.A. CLUB LTD. 136 ITR 569(BOM) WHEREI N ENTRANCE FEES WERE HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS IN HOLDING THAT ENTRANCE FEES ARE REVEN UE RECEIPT:- (1) SUMMER TRUCK OPERATORS UNION VS. ITO 259 ITR 7 49 (RAJ) (2)WANKANER JAIN SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY VS. ITO 260 ITR 241 (MAD) (3) CIT VS. BANKIPUR CLUB LTD. 226 ITR 97 (SC) (4) SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD. VS. CIT 171 ITR 504 (G UJ) (5) SHRI NIRMAL COMMERICAL LIMTIED VS. CIT 193 ITR 694 (BOM) 5. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.9.3 & 9.4 ARE AS UNDER:- 9.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE IN THE A.YRS. 1993-94 95-96 & 96-97 HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28.2.2006 IN ITA NOS.1060/AHD/1999 2681 & 2683/AHD/2000. FURTHER THE HON'BLE ITAT AH MEDABAD FOLLOWING THE SAME DECISION DELETED THE SIMILAR ADD ITION IN THE A.Y.1994- 95 IN ITA NO.2682/AHD/2000 DATED 28.6.2006. THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE DECISION FOR THESE YEARS WHILE DELETING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRANCE FEES HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE A ND THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS IN DETAIL. THE DECISION SO RENDERED BY HO N'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD ADEQUATELY COVERS ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAI SED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IS AS UNDER : '9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE LEARNED A.R. OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS RESTRICTED HIS PLEADINGS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO ENTRANCE FEES AND LIF E MEMBERSHIP ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - FEES ON THE GROUND THAT IF THE RELIEF TO THAT EXTEN T IS HELD CORRECTLY GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) THEN THERE WILL BE NO TAX EFF ECT. 10. IN OUR OPINION KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFOREMENTIO NED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIN ERS BUSINESS SERVICES P. LTD (SUPRA) THESE TWO ITEMS HAVE TO BE TREATED TO BE NON-TAXABLE AND RELIEF HAS TO BE UPHELD ATLEAST TO THAT EXTENT. THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.A.O AND THE LD.D.R. IN THE CASE OF SHREE NIRMAL COMMERC IAL LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IN THE SAID CASE THE O BJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCLUDED INTER ALIA THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE OR TO OBTAIN LAND OR LEASE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND TO BUI LD AND CONSTRUCT HOUSES. IN PURSUANCE OF THE OBJECTS THE COMPANY OBTAINED A LEASE OF A PIECE OF LAND BELONGING TO TH E GOVERNMENT OR MAHARASHTRA WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS WHICH COULD BE USED AS COMMERCIAL PREMISE S. IN ORDER TO RAISE FINANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THE COMPANY DEVISED A SCHEME. UNDER THE SCHEME THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE C OMPANY WERE TO ENTER INTO A STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT WIT H THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WOULD CONFER ON THEM THE RIG HT 'OCCUPATION OF SPECIFIED FLOOR SPACE IN THE BUILDIN G EITHER BY THEMSELVES OR BY THEIR NOMINEE. AS PER THE AGREEMEN T THE MEMBERS HAD TO MAKE NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS WITH TH E COMPANY. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENTS THE ME MBERS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES AND MADE THE REQUISITE DEPOSITS WERE ALLOTTED SPECIFIED FLOOR AREA IN THE BUILDING ON A PROPORTIONATE BASIS. IN ADDITION TO THE DEPOSITS RE QUIRED FROM THE MEMBERS WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY COMPENSATION AT SUCH RATES AS THE DIRECTORS MIGHT DETERMINE FROM TIME TO TIME. MO ST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY WHO HAD BEEN ALLOTTED FLOOR SPACE WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TRANSFERRED THE RIGHT OF OCCUPATION TO THEIR NOMINEES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE MA NNER IN WHICH THE NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS WERE TAKEN FROM T HE SHAREHOLDERS THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE ALLOTTED FLOOR SPACE AREA WHICH THEY WERE NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO OCCUPY BUT WER E ALSO ENTITLED TO & ASSIGN TO OTHER S ON PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND TO TRANSFER THEIR OCCUPANCY RIGHTS BY SALE OF S HARES AND THE WHOLE TRANSACTIONS WAS IN REALITY A SALE OF FL OOR SPACE BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS. 11. AS AGAINST THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE A RE THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER OR SALE INVOLVED IN CHARGING ENTRANC E FEES OR LIFE ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - MEMBERSHIP FEES AND THESE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE COMPAR ED TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THE RECEIPTS CONSIDERED IN THE AF ORE- MENTIONED DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHREE NIRMAL COMM ERCIAL LTD. (SUPRA). 12. THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINERS BUSINESS SERVICES P. LT D (SUPRA) AS IN THE SAID CASE THE ENTRANCE FEE WAS CHARGED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR ENROLMENT OF ITS CUSTOMERS AS MEMBERS OF 'EXECUTIVE CENTRE'. THE ENTRANCE FEE WAS A ONE-TIME FEE AND ONLY MEMBERS WERE ELIGIBLE TO AVAIL OF ; THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN THE 'EXECUTIVE CENTRE' AND THE ENTRANCE FEE WAS NON - REFUNDABLE FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C IT V. W.I.A.A. CLUB LTD. 136 ITR-569 IT IS HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT THE ENTRANCE FEES WERE PAID TO THE CLUB IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO AVAIL THE SERVICES AND FACILIT IES EXTENDED BY THE CLUB AND THEREFORE THE RECEIPTS CONSTITUTED CA PITAL RECEIPTS. 13. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION ACCEPTING THE ARGU MENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRAN CE FEES AND LIFE MEMBERSHIP FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS MEMBERS WAS NOT A REVENUE OR TRADING RECEIPT AND T HEREFORE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME WE HOL D THAT THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED B Y THE LD.CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER TO THAT EXTENT.' 9.4. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD AS TO ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O . IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO IN THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE SAME WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. CROSS OBJECTION NO.269/AHD/2009 BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE LEARNED AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SERIOUSLY PRESS GROUND NOS.2 & 3. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BELATED. THEREF ORE SUBSEQUENT RETURN FILED COULD NOT BE TREATED AS REVISED RETURN AND T HEREFORE SAME HAS TO BE IGNORED. SINCE THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED IN TIME WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD . THUS GROUND NOS.2 & 3 RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RS .5 25 000/- BEING 1/5 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.26 25 000/- ON REPAIRS AND RENEWAL OF MARRIAGE HALL IN EARLIER YEA RS. IT HAD CLAIMED 1/5 TH OF SUCH AN EXPENDITURE THIS YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT PERTAINED TO EARLIE R YEARS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LEAR NED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS SO ALSO ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR SUCH CLAIM HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY REVENUE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THIS CLAIM THIS YEAR ALSO. 11. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES WE RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HE WILL CLARIFY WHETHER THE C LAIM OF RS.5 26 000/- BEING 1/5 TH WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06/2004-0 5/2003- 04/2002-03. IF IT IS SO THEN THE CLAIM WOULD BE ALLOWED THIS YEAR ALSO AND IF NOT THEN ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS T O BE CONFIRMED. AS A RESULT THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. LAST GROUND RELATES TO CLAIM OF GRATUITY. IT IS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FIL ING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PER S ECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY ON ACTUAL P AYMENT BASIS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT ON 29/06/2006. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME GROUND. ITA NO .2983/AHD/09 & CO NO.269/AHD/2009 ACIT(OSD-I VS. KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE RESTORE THE MAT TER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE CLAIM IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALSO. IF NOT THE CLAIM SH OULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 AS PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THIS GROUND IS ALSO ALLOWED BUT FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05/02/ 2010. SD/- SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( D.C.AGR AWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 05 / 02 /2010 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT.2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED.4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VIII AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH.6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD