The DCITSabarkantha Circle, Himatnagar v. Santro Tiles Ltd.,,

ITA 3120/AHD/2008 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 312020514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAHCS3818C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3120/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant The DCITSabarkantha Circle, Himatnagar
Respondent Santro Tiles Ltd.,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 02-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA JM AND SHRI A N PAHUJA AM ITA NO.3120/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2006-07) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SABARKANTHA CIRCLE 2 ND FLOOR BEHIND MEHTA PETROL PUMP AMBALAL COMPLEX HIMATNAGAR. V/S M/S SANTRO TILES LIMITED DALPUR TAL: PRANTIJ DISTRICT: SABARKANTHA PAN: AAHCS 3818 C [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI R K DHANESTA DR RESPONDENT BY:- NONE O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 20- 06-2008 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-X AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43 40 397/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GR OSS PROFIT. 2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 26 279/- (CORRECT AMOUNT RS.1 31 162) BEING THE P.F. CONTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYEES BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B INSTEAD SECTION 36(I)(VA). 3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4 IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT . 2. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON 28.2.2011[AD ON RECORD]. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE F INDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPE AL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 2 3. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT E-RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME FILED ON 22-12-2006 BY THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURING GLAZED TILES WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] ON 8-10-2007 .DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED GROSS PROFIT[GP ] @ 18.98% ON SALES OF RS.8 65 13 683/- AS AGAINST GP @ 29.25% ON SALES OF RS.5 34 58 805/- IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. TO A QUERY BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COMPARATIVE DETAILS OF INCREASE / DECREASE IN SALES AND OTHER EXPENSES. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT M AJOR INCREASE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON RAW MATERIAL ELECTRI CITY POWER & FUEL AS ALSO INWARD TRANSPORTATION. SINCE DIFFERENC E IN INCREASE IN EXPENSES WAS ABOUT 10.05% GP DECLINED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS--VIS THE PRECEDING YEAR THE ASS ESSEE POINTED OUT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AVERAGE SELLING PRICE OF THE GOODS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS RS.80/- PER BOX AS AGAINS T RS.104/- PER BOX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E INCREASE OF ABOUT 28%.. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT OTHER SIMILAR MANUFACTURERS WERE SH OWING GP VARYING BETWEEN 22% TO 28% AS DETAILED HEREUNDER:- NAME OF THE PARTIES SALES G.P. (1) SONATTA CERAMICS PVT. LTD. 9 89 28 251 22.18% (2) VRN CERAMICS 8 91 84 000 24.28% (3) CENTURY TILES LTD. 18 48 38 000 2 3.4% (4) GLADDER CERAMICS 8 41 33 066 22 .19% SINCE THE WASTAGE WHILE MANUFACTURING WAS MORE AS C OMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINT AIN STOCK REGISTER WHILE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT UNDERTOOK SEARCH AND DETECTED UNACCOUNTED SALES THE AO APPLIED THE GP @ 24% ON GROSS SALES OF RS.8 65 13 682/- RESULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS.43 40 397/-. ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 3 4. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. CAREFULLY AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN A CHART OF PURCHASE OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS AND AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AT PAGE-111 OF THE PAPER BOO K SHOWING THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN AVERAGE RATE OF PURCHASE OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS. THERE WAS INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION RATE AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR AS PER RANDOM DETAILS GIVEN IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE A .R. HEREINABOVE. THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED HEAVY WASTAGE OF RAW MATERIA LS BECAUSE OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW PRODUCTS I.E. GLAZED TILES OF N EW SIZES OF 18 X 18 INCHES AND 24 X 24 INCHES DURING THE YEAR. IT HAS BEEN SUB MITTED BY THE A.R. THAT THERE HAS BEEN FALL IN THE G.P. RATE OF THE FOUR PA RTIES ALSO WHOSE G.P. RATE HAS BEEN COMPARED BY THE A.O. AS COMPARED TO THE PR ECEDING YEAR THERE HAS BEEN FALL IN G.P. BY ABOUT 8 TO 10% IN THOSE FO UR CASES. FOR EXAMPLE IN CASE OF SONATA CERAMICS PVT. LTD. THE G.P. WAS 29% IN A.Y.2004-05 WHICH HAS COME DOWN TO 22% IN A.Y.2005-06. SIMILARL Y IN THE CASE OF CENTURY TILES LTD. THE G.P. HAS FALLEN FROM 32% TO 23%. LIKEWISE IN OTHER TWO CASES ALSO THERE HAS BEEN FALL IN G.P. I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT BEF ORE MAKING ESTIMATE OF G.P. THERE ARE COURT DECISIONS SAYING THAT ONLY FOR FALL IN G.P. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CAN NOT BE REJECTED. THE A.O. HAS NOT FOUN D ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SIMPLY FOR F ALL IN G.P. THE A.O. HAS MADE G.P. ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPLY FI LED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE NOT PROPER. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR FALL IN G.P. AS TO BE DUE TO INCREASE IN FUEL RATE RAW MATERIALS AND TRANSPORT COST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE G.P . ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR WHIL E CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS O F THE AO. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LEARNED DR DID NOT POINT OU T ANY DEFECTS NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DR AND GONE THROUGH THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE P URCHASES OR SALES AND EVEN IN THE EXPENSES. THERE IS NO FINDING OR OPINION EIT HER THAT THE RECORDS WERE ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 4 INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE OR THAT THE METHOD APPLIED WAS SUCH THAT THE INCOME COULD NOT BE DEDUCED FROM THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS BOOKS CAN NOT BE REJECTED UNLESS INGREDIENTS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT ARE FULFILLED. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE ARE NO DEFECTS AT ALL IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR THERE I S A FINDING OR OPINION EITHER THAT THE RECORDS WERE INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE OR THAT T HE METHOD APPLIED WAS SUCH THAT THE INCOME COULD NOT BE DEDUCED FROM THE ACCOU NTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT NO DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS NOR ANY SUCH DEFECTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THE LD. DR DID NOT REFER US TO ANY MATERIAL CONTROVERTING THE AFOR ESAID FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A).IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR REJECTING THE BOOK RES ULTS AND MAKING ANY TRADING ADDITION. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMITBHAI GUNWANTBHAI 129 ITR 573 HELD THAT IF THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE BOOKS THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO REV ENUE TO CONTEND THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIES IS NOT THE REAL STATE OF AFFAI RS. SECONDLY EVEN IF FOR SOME REASON THE BOOKS ARE REJECTED IT IS NOT OPEN TO TH E AO TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS OR ON PURE GUESS WORK. THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE APPARENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IS NOT THE REAL ONE IS VERY HEAVY ON THE DEPARTMENT [BEDI & CO. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 144 ITR 352(KARN) AFFIRMED BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN 230 ITR 580]. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US T O DOUBT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT NOR WAS ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO ESTABLISH THAT PURCHASES WERE INFLATED OR RECEIPTS SUPPRESSED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT [ VIKRAM PLASTICS 239 ITR 161(GUJ) AND ESTIMATING THE PROFIT S. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 26 2 79/- [ACTUALLY STATED TO BE RS.1 31 162/-] ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED D EPOSIT OF ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 5 EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS P.F. THE AO DISALLO WED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 26 279/- ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEESCONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT. 8. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE DISA LLOWANCE THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN PAID BY 21-04-2006 I.E. BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. 9 THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST TH E AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR SUPP ORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND GONE THROUGH T HE FACTS OF THE CASE .AS REGARDS EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION TOWARDS PF WE FIND THAT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCHES HAVE BEEN CON SISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. P.M.ELECTRONICS LTD. 220 CTR 635 (DELHI) WHEREIN RELYING UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT LTD. 213 CTR (SC) 268 THE HONBLE COURT CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN NEXUS COMPUTER (P) LTD. 219 CTR(MAD) 54 IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND PAYMENTS MADE A FTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ACT AND RULES M ADE THEREUNDER AND BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF IN COME UNDER SUB SEC. 1 OF SEC. 139 OF THE ACT ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER S.36(1)(VA) REA D WITH SEC. 2(24(X) AND SEC. 43B OF THE ACT. 10.1 HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTRU SIONS LTD 319 ITR 306 (SC) HELD THAT THE OMISSION OF THE SECOND PROVISO T O SECTION 43B OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2003 OPERATED RETROSPECTIVELY IS WI TH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1 1988 AND NOT PROSPECTIVELY FROM APRIL 1 2004.HONBLE COURT OBSERVED THAT EARLIER UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT 1989 THE ASSESSEES WERE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ONLY IF THE CO NTRIBUTION STOOD CREDITED ON OR ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 6 BEFORE THE DUE DATE GIVEN IN THE PROVIDENT FUNDS AC T. THIS CREATED FURTHER DIFFICULTIES AND ON A REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE FI NANCE MINISTRY ONE MORE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2003. THOUG H THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1 2004 THE AMENDMENT WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1 1988.IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT WHEN A PROVISO IN A SECTION IS INSERTED TO REM EDY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND TO MAKE THE SECTION WORKABLE THE PROVISO WHICH SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMISSION THEREIN IS REQUIRED TO BE READ RETROSPECTI VELY IN OPERATION PARTICULARLY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SECTION AS A WHOLE. 10.2 HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECI SION IN CIT VS. ANZ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P LTD. 318 ITR 123 WHILE FOLLOWING THEIR EARLIER DECISION IN CIT VS. SABARI ENTERPRISES 298 ITR 141(KAR.) CONCLUDED THA T DEPOSITS MADE BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BELATEDLY A ND CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI & PF UNDER THE RELEVANT ENACTMENTS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 36(1)(VA) READ WITH SEC. 2(24)(X) IN VIEW OF P ROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B OF THE ACT. 10.3 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ANOTHER DECISIO N DATED 23.12.2009 IN CIT VS. AIMIL LTD.(DELHI)IN ITA NO. 1063/2008 OBSERVED THAT SEC. 2(24)(X) PROVIDES THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM EMPLOYEES TOWA RDS PF CONTRIBUTIONS ETC SHALL BE INCOME. S. 36 (1) (VA) PROVIDES THAT IF SUCH SUMS ARE CONTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE PF LEGISLATION THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION. THE SECOND PROVISO TO S. 43B (B) PROVIDED THAT ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND SHALL BE ALLO WED AS A DEDUCTION ONLY IF PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. AFTER THE OMISSION OF THE SECOND PROVISO W.E.F 1.4.2004 THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF S. 43B CAN BE EXTENDED TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AS W ELL WHICH ARE PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE PF LAW BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE F OR FILING THE RETURN HELD THAT (I) THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT A DISTINCTIO N IS TO BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUT ION AND THAT EMPLOYEES ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 7 CONTRIBUTION BEING IN THE NATURE OF TRUST MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IF NOT PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE PF ETC LAW THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS THAT EM PLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS TREATED AS INCOME U/S 2 (24) (X) ON RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION U/S 36 (1) (VA) ON MAKING DEPOSIT WITH THE CONCERNE D AUTHORITIES. S. 43B (B) STIPULATES THAT SUCH DEDUCTION WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT; (II) THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN ACTUAL PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE IS ANSWERED BY VINAY CEMENTS 213 CTR 268 WHERE THE DELETION OF THE SECOND PROVI SO TO S. 43B W.E.F 1.4.2004 WAS HELD APPLICABLE TO EARLIER YEARS AS WELL. AS THE DELETION OF THE 2ND PROVISO IS RETROSPECTIVE THE CASE HAS TO BE GO VERNED BY THE FIRST PROVISO. DHARMENDRA SHARMA 297 ITR 320 (DEL) & P.M. ELECTRONICS 313 ITR 161 (DELHI) FOLLOWED; (III) IF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS NOT DEPOSIT ED BY THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS AND IS DEPOSITED LATE THE EMPLOYER NOT ONLY PAYS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT BUT CAN INCUR PENALTIES ALSO FO R WHICH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ARE MADE IN THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT AS WELL AS THE ESI A CT. THEREFORE THE ACT PERMITS THE EMPLOYER TO MAKE THE DEPOSIT WITH SOME DELAYS SUBJECT TO THE AFORESAID CONSEQUENCES. INSOFAR AS THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS CONCERNED THE ASS ESSEE CAN GET THE BENEFIT IF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT IS MADE B EFORE THE RETURN IS FILED AS PER THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN VINAY CEMENT . 10.4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE HAVE NO HESIT ATION IN HOLDING THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF MADE BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ADMISSIBLE. THEREFORE WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY GROUN D NO.2 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 IN THE APPEAL BEING MERE PRA YER AND GENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJU DICATION AND ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 22-03-2011 SD/- SD/- (T K SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22-03-2011 ITA N O.3120/AHD/2008 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S SANTRO TILES LIMITED DALPUR TAL: PRANTIJ DISTRICT: SABARKANTHA 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SABARKANTHA C IRCLE 2 ND FLOOR BEHIND MEHTA PETROL PUMP AMBALAL COMPLEX HIMATNAGAR. 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-X AHMEDABAD 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-A AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD