Sun Finlease(Guj) Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 3995/AHD/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 399520514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AACCS1443G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3995/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant Sun Finlease(Guj) Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-04-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 31-10-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 [ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05] SUN FINLEASE (GUJARAT) LTD. -VS- INCOME TAX OF FICER A/05 SMITA TOWER WC-8(2) AHMEDABAD OPP. BHAIRAVI PUBLIC PARK B/S NEELDEEP ROW HOUSE AHMEDABAD-380 052 PAN NO.AACCS1443G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :SMT. NEETA SHAH SR-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SUNIL H T ALATI AR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. C IT(A) XIV/WD .8(2) /256/2006-07 DATED 19-07-2007. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO WARD- 8(2) AHMEDABAD U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-12-2006 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSAC TION IN SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.34 52 877/- SETOFF AGAINST OTHER INCOMES/GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANAT ION TO SEC. 73 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING 3 GROUNDS :- (1) THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE SHARES WERE SHAM TRANSACTIONS AND WERE COLOURABLE DEVICE TO AVOID PA YING TAX ON THE PROFIT ON ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 SUN FINLEASE (G) LTD. V. ITO WC-8(2) ABD PAGE 2 SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS. THEREBY DISALLOWED LOSS OF RS .34 52 87/- TO BE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME/GAINS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF RS.34 52 877/- BEING LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF MERIT CREDIT CORPORATION BEING GENUINE LOSS THE SAME OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME/GAINS OF THE APPELLANT. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND THE SAID LOSS BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED AS CLAI MED. (2) THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PROVISIONS OF EXPLA NATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE I.T. ACT IS APPLICABLE TO APPLICANT COMPANY. THE LE ARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCOMPANYING THAT U NDER BOTH THE EXCEPTIONS TO SAID EXPLANATION THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMP ANY WAS SAVED AND THAT NET LOSS WAS CORRECTLY DEDUCTED AGAINST OTHER INCOM E-GAINS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT BE SO HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF APPELLANT COMPANY. (3) THE LEARNED C.I.T(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INVE STMENT OF APPELLANT COMPANY IN MUTUAL FUND WAS NOT INVESTMENT AND WAS BUSINESS PROFIT TO NEGATE ALL THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C.I.T(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT INCO ME EARNED FROM INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCT ING THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF MERIOT CREDIT CORPORATION. THE LEARNED C. I.T.(APPEALS) BE DIRECTED TO HOLD SO NOW. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES GATHERED FROM ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LD. SR-DR ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS EARNED PROFIT OF RS.33 49 808/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING OF MUTUAL FUNDS ALONG WITH PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING OF SH ARES AT RS.5 24 300/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED LOS S OF RS.35 37 761/- ON TRADING OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE RESULTED INTO LOSS OF RS.30 33 461/- ON SALE OF SHARES AND CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE SET OFF AGAINST P ROFIT ON TRADING OF MUTUAL FUNDS. THIS LOSS ARISING FROM TRADING OF SHARES IS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF MERIT CREDIT CORPORATION AMOUNTING TO RS.34 52 877/ - WHICH IS AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVING SAME OFFICE ADDRESS . THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 26 TH DEC03 TO 23 RD FEB04 AS DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SHARES WERE SOLD ON 23-03-2004. THE A O REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF DMAT ACCOUNT CONTRACT NOTES NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T SUBMIT THESE DETAILS. BUT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF SALE BILLS ISSUED BY S HARE BROKER I.E. TALATI ASSOCIATES AND THESE SALE BILLS DO NOT INDICATE THE NAME OF PU RCHASING PARTY CHEQUES NO. OR ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 SUN FINLEASE (G) LTD. V. ITO WC-8(2) ABD PAGE 3 BROKERAGE CHARGED. THESE SHARES WERE NOT TRADED THR OUGH ANY STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY INFORMED THE AO THAT THESE S HARES WERE PURCHASED BY ONE NARENDRA L PARMAR AND THIS TRANSACTION IS OFF MARKE T TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE SHRI NARENDRA L PARMAR BUT HE COU LD NOT PRODUCE. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LOSS IN TRADING BY HOLDING SAME AS NOT GENUINE LOSS AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF DMAT ACCOUN T CONTRACT NOTES NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TE SE SHARES AND COULD NOT FOUND SHRI NARENDRA L PARMAR CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO B E A PURCHASER. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE EXPLANATION SE C.73 IS APPLICABLE AND EVEN IF THE CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN GENUINE THE LOSS WOULD N OT HAVE BEEN SPECULATION LOSS AND THUS NOT ENTITLE TO BE SET OFF WITH THE BUSINES S PROFIT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE ACTION OF THE AO BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN PARA-2.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S AS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON SHARES TRANSACTIONS IS NOT GENUINE. THE APPELLANT D ID NOT PRODUCE THE PURCHASER THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT DONE THR OUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE DMA T ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF DELIVERY OF SHARES. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT EVEN REPORTED TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON SHARES TRADING WA S NOT GENUINE AND DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF SUCH LOSS. THE ACTION OF A O IN THIS RESPECT IS CONFIRMED AND HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF AR GUMENT IT IS SAID THAT THE LOSS IS GENUINE EVEN THAN THE EXPLANATION TO SEE.73 IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS PEACE AS AS THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY EAR NED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.53938/- WHICH IS A VERY MEGRE INCOME AND THE LO AN GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS ONLY 4843091/-. HENCE IN T HE CASE OF THE APPELLANT GROSS TOTAL INCOME DOES NOT CONSIST MAINLY IN FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS NO OF INVESTMENT AND GRANTING OF LOAN AND ADVANCES. HENCE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE AND THE LOSS IS SPECULATION LOSS. HENCE THE AO'S FINDING IN THIS RESPECT IS AL SO UPHELD AND IT IS FURTHER UPHELD THAT APPELLANTS INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND WAS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER SINCE IT IS HELD THAT LOSS CLAIMED IS NO G ENUINE IT IS NO EVEN ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AS SPECULATION LOSS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ACTION OF CIT(A) ASSESSEE C AME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUN IL H TALATI STATED THAT THE FIRST AND MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLO WANCE OF LOSS OF RS.35 57 761/- ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 SUN FINLEASE (G) LTD. V. ITO WC-8(2) ABD PAGE 4 ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF ONE MERIT CREDIT CO RPORATION LTD. HE ARGUED THAT IN FACT THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF MERIT CREDIT COR PORATION LD. WAS RS.34 52 877/- AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS PER THE STATEMENT ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO.10 AND 11 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. ACCORDIN G TO HIM THE MAIN GROUND ON WHICH THE AO HAS DISALLOWED AND CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THE LOSS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RATHER DID NOT PRODUCE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES NAMELY MR. NARENDRA L PARMAR AND THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED/INCURR ED ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE OF SHARES IS NOT GENUINE. SO FAR AS THE FIRST POINT IS CONCERNED HE STATED FACT THAT SHARES ARE SOLD IN OFF MARKET I.E. NOT THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE BUT THROUGH THE SOCK BROKER AND IT IS ACCEPTED FACT THAT LOSS SUFFE RED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES EITHER THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE OR DIRECTLY ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS LOSS UNLESS CONTRARY IS PROVED. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE COMPLETE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE OF SHARES AND CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS BY WAY OF COP IES OF CONTRACT NOTES COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE BROKER COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH SALE PROCEEDS ARE CREDITED COPY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 3CD REPORT AND ALL OTHER MATERIALS AND MERELY BECAUSE SHARES SOLD ARE FROM A COMPANY WHICH IS CLOSELY HEL D COMPANY WITHOUT TRADING UNDER SOCK EXCHANGE SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS NOT A GENUINE/LEGITIMATE LOSS. HE FURTHER STATED THE FACT THAT THESE SHARES OF THE COMPANY WA S TRADED UP TO 20-02-2004 ARE APPEARED IN PAGE NO.9 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LAST PRICES WHEN SHARES WERE TRADED WERE RS.2.85 AND 2.8 0 PER SHARE. ACCORDING TO HIM FURTHER TRADING OF THE SHARES WERE SUSPENDED AND TH EREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO SELL THE SHARES DIRECTLY THROUGH SHARE BROKER BY WAY OF OFF MARKET TRANSACTION ON 23-03-2004 AT RS.1.80 PER SHARE TO R S.2.29 PER SHARE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SHARE BROKER HAD APPEARED AND GIVEN A STATEMENT ON OATH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SHARE BROKER HAD SOLD SHA RES TO ONE MR. NARENDRA L PARMAR AND THE SHARES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY TRANSFERRE D TO THE BUYER AND THE CONSIDERATION BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN RE CEIVED FROM THE STOCK BROKER AND THE RESULTANT DIFFERENCE IS THE LOSS WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS FROM THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE SECOND LIMB OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF LOSS BEING THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BUYER MR. NARENDRA L PARMAR AND IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON LAST PAGE THAT THE AO FIRST TIME ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BUYER ON 28-12-2006 GIVING 24 HOURS ONLY AND FURTHER NARENDR A L PARMAR WAS NOT AVAILABLE AS HE WAS SICK AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN SPITE OF BEST EFFORTS EVEN ON 30 TH ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 SUN FINLEASE (G) LTD. V. ITO WC-8(2) ABD PAGE 5 OR 31 ST DECEMBER 2006. MR. NARENDRA L PARMAR HAD EXPIRED ON 16-03-2008 AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE HIM AND HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF HIS PROLONGED SICKNESS. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE SECOND GROUND OF DISALLOWING THE SAID LOSS BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED B Y THE CIT(A) TAKING THE VIEW THAT LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES IS SPECULATION LO SS BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 OF THE ACT. THE AO ON PAGE 10 AND 11 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS HELD THAT AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CD IT IS CERTIFIED THAT N ATURE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN SHARES AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS ADVANCING LOAN IS NOT CORRECT. HE ARGUE D THAT THE MENTION IN FORM 3CD IS WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AS PER ARTICL ES OF ASSOCIATION AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND NOT THE MAIN SOURCE O F INCOME AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT. HE STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT WHERE ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS OF HE COMPANY (OTHER THAN A CO MPANY WHOSE GROSS TOTAL IN CONSISTS MAINLY OF INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEADS:- (A) INTEREST ON SECURITIES (B) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY CAPITAL GAINS (D) INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR (E) A COMPANY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF WHICH IS TH E BUSINESS OF BANKING OR THE GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. CONSISTS IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHE R COMPANIES SUCH COMPANY SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED O BE CARRYING ON A SPECULATION BUSINESS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS HE STATED THAT FRO M THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ENCLOSED AT PAGE 18 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK IT CAN BE SEEN THAT OUT OF TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS OF RS.3 CRORES 2.42 CR ORES ARE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THEREFORE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 DOES NOT APPLY AN D EVEN IF THE SECOND CRITERIA OF INCOME IS CONSIDERED IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PAGE 23 THAT OUT OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13.12 LAKHS DIVIDEND INCOME IS RS.10 LAKHS INTER EST IS RS.54 000/- AND INSURANCE IS RS.11 000/- AND RS.2.38 LAKH IS PROFIT IN F & O. IN VIEW OF THIS ALSO THE EXPLANATION TO SE.73 DOES NOT APPLY THE LD. COUNSEL STATED. ITA NO.3995/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 SUN FINLEASE (G) LTD. V. ITO WC-8(2) ABD PAGE 6 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. SR-DR SMT. NEETA SHAH STA TED THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRANSACTION IS NOT AT ALL GENUINE L OSS AND THIS IS CLEARLY HIT BY EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 OF THE ACT. SHE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES AS THE TRANSACTION IS NOT THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS IMPORTANT TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASER TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY SHE SUPPORTED T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND THE ASSESSE ES PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS ON SHARE TRADING AS IT WAS DONE THROUGH A STOCK BROKER AND NOT THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE. WHETHER THE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASER AT RS.2.85 TO RS.2.80 PER SHARE IS REALLY A GENUINE PRICE OR NOT IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PURCHASER. EVEN THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY P RODUCING THE PURCHASER SHRI NARENDRA L PARMAR. SINCE IT IS INFORMED THAT SHRI NARENDRA L P ARMER HAS EXPIRED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY STATED THAT HE IS READY TO PROVE THIS TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARES BY SHRI NARENDRA L PARMER BY COGENT EVIDENCES I.E. PRODUCING TH E LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI NARENDRA L PARMER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS T O BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DMAT ACCOUNT COPIES OF CONTRACT NOTES STATEMENT OF BROKER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK TO FILE THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. EVE N THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN HOW THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.73 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM . IN VIEW OF THESE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVI DING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTIRE ONUS OF PROVING THIS TRANSACTION IS ON ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 30 TH APRIL 2010 SD/- SD /- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED : 30/04/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIV AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD