Shri Suresh N. Gupta,, GANDHIDHAM v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 446/RJT/2007 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44624914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ABZPG6744K
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 446/RJT/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Shri Suresh N. Gupta,, GANDHIDHAM
Respondent The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-12-2010
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 02-08-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JM) I.T.A. NO.446/RJT/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) SHRI SURESH N GUPTA VS THE DY.CIT CENT.CIR.1 PLOT NO.186 SECTOR 4 RAJKOT GANDHIDHAM PAN : ABZPG6744K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MP SARDA REVENUE BY : SHRI JAI RAJ KUMAR O R D E R GARASIA : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD DATED 16-03-2007 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1996-97 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE UPHOLDING OF VALI DITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 2. IN THIS CASE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 29-12-2000 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED AT RS.1 23 060 ON 24-12-1996. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY RECORD ING THE REASONS THAT ASSESSEDE WAS IN RECEIPT OF NRE GIFTS FROM UNRELATE D PERSONS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED STEREOTYPE CONFIRMATION OF G IFTS AND COPY OF GIFT DECLARATIONS BY DONEE WHICH WAS ALSO STEREOTYPE ET C. AND IN THE REASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 23-03 -2004 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS. 7 LAKHS O VER AND ABOVE THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1 23 060. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS. ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31-05-2006 IN ITA NO.923/ RJT/2004 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING TO THE FILE O F THE CIT(A) WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 2 34. IN THE CASE OF SURESH N GUPTA THE LD AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE RAISED ADDITION GROUND WITH REGARD T O VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN SO FAR AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND AS PER PROVISO BELOW SEC. 147 NO REOPEN ING CAN BE DONE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS UNLESS THERE WAS AN Y FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FULL AND TRUE INFOR MATION. SINCE IT IS A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WE ALLOW THE AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE TO RAISE THE SAME AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CIT (A) HAD NOT DECIDED THIS LEGAL ISSUE THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO HER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER THE LD.CIT(A) H AS UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. WHILE HOLDING SO THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PROVISO ATTACHED TO SECTION 147 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PR ESENT CASE SINCE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) OR 147 FOR THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFORE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROC EEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US WE FIND THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PROVISO ATTACHED TO SECTION 14 7 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OR 147 FOR THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REFORE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IS CONTRARY TO TH E FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS PLACED A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2000 PASSED IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 23 060 WHICH IS THE RETURNED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. SO THE FINDING BASED ON WHICH THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE VALID ITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS MISCONCEIVED AND HAS NO LEG TO STAND. NOW LOOKING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE WE FIND THAT SIMIL AR COURSE OF ACTION OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS HAS BEEN RESORTED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CONSTITUENTS OF ASSESSEE G ROUP WHICH HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 31-05-2006 BEARING ITA NOS 924/RJT/2004 ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 3 TO 926/RJT/2004. THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS ORDER WHIL E DEALING WITH THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN THE CASE OF SMT. RANJANA GUPTA GEETA DEVI GUPTA AND SMT. PUSHPA GUPTA HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AN D HELD THE REASSESSMENT AS INVALID: 18. WITH RESPECT OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) IN THE CASE OF SMT. RANJANA GUPTA GEETA DE VI GUPTA AND SMT. PUSHPA GUPTA THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS PER PROVISO BELOW SEC.147 REOPENING CANNOT BE DONE AFTER EXPIRY OF F OUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S 139 / 142 (1) / 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECES SARY FOR ASSESSMENT REOPENING U/S 147 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 19. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF CIT(A) FOR HOLDING THE REOPENING IN INVALID AS WELL AS ADDITION DELETE D ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF OTHER ASSESSES. 20. IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PARTICULARS OF GIFT IN THE R ETURN FILED ASSESSMENT OF WHICH WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) THERE FORE AS PER PROVISO TO SEC. 147 REOPENING CANNOT BE MADE AFTER FOUR YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AL SO REOPENING CANNOT BE DONE. FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED BY THE LEARNED AR ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL PHOTO FILMS LTD V. DCIT (234 ITR 170) V. DCIT (237 ITR 668) AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE FOR FORAMER VS CIT (247 ITR 436) IN SUPPORT OF THE PROP OSITION THAT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION DO4ES NT CONFER POWER UPON T HE AO TO INITIATE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING RECOUR SE TO SEC.147. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELIBERATED ON THE CASE LAWS CITED AT BAR BY LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE ASE OF SMT. PUSHPA GUPTA GEETADEVI AND SMT. RANJAN GUPTA WE FOUND THA T UNDISPUTEDLY THE ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 18-3-2003 I.E. MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTE R THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE FACT OF GIFTS RECEIV ED WERE DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FI LED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. COPIES OF GIFTS DEEDS AND CONFIR MATION OF DONORS WERE ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FIL ED. ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 4 22. THE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO REOPENING OF ASS ESSMENT IS VERY CLEAR. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 READS AS UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THI S SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MA KE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 23. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE PLAIN READING OF T HE ABOVE PROVISION THAT REOPENING CAN BE MADE AFTER COMPLETI ON OF 4 YEARS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) ONLY WHEN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN UNDER SEC TION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR 1 48 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. INA THE INSTANT CASE UNDISPUTEDLY IN THE RETURN SO FILED THERE WAS FULLY DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FA CTS NECESSARY FOR HER ASSESSMENT. EVEN THE COPY OF GIFT DECLARATION AND CONFIRMATION OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEPOSITORS WERE FILED ALON G WITH RETURN F INCOME AND THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UN DER SECTION 143(3). 24. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S HETH BROTHERS VS JCIT (2001) 251 ITR 270 (GUJ) HAS OBSER VED THAT: AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO OM ISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER THE AO I.E. THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 147. THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE MACHINERY IN CHAPTE R XIV UNDER SECTION 147 TO 153 FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ESCA PED INCOME IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE FUNDAMENTALS UNDERLYING THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS TO SEE TH AT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE ASSEMBLE IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SUBJECTED TO ONE SING LE ASSESSMENT FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR FOR INCOME WHIC H IS ASSESSABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR FOR INCOME WHIC H IS ASSESSABLE IN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR ANY REASON. THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE PIECEMEAL ASSESSMENT; ONE ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 5 ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO A PORTION OF THE INCOME A ND ANOTHER IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER PORTION. 25. HONBVLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ICICI BANK LTD V DCIT & ANR. (2004) 188 CTR (BOM) 380 HELD THAT: CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED BEYOND A PERIO D OF FOUR YEARS ONLY IF THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. HAVING FU RNISHED ALL MATERIAL FACTS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE ERRONEOUSL Y CLAIMS HIGHER DEPRECIATION IT WILL NOT BE A CASE OF FAILU RE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. ALSO IF THE LE GAL INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE MATERIAL FACTS IS ERRONEOUS IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 26. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYASHRE E TEA INDUSTRIES LTD 245 ITR 567 OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS WAS BAD IN LAW AS THE D EPARTMENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT DISCLOSE FULLY AN D TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. 27. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT T HE RELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THIS REGARD WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IF INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 147 IS TAKING PLACE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 UNDER APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WOULD BE ATTR ACTED. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 PROVIDES THAT AN ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR 1247 I.E. A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY IF INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AP PELLANT TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE IT IS ONLY WH EN THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 THAT THE QUESTION OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS WOULD BECOME RELEVANT. IN SUCH C ASES IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATER IAL FACTS NO ACTION CAN BE INITIATED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 147 . 28. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT PROVISIONS OF LAW AS C ONTAINED UNDER SECTION 147(A) AND CASES COMING WITHIN THE PU RVIEW OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 NAMELY CASES WHERE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ARE PARI MATERIA AND THEREF ORE THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF ITO ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 6 V LAKHMANI MEWELDAS (12976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) MAY BE SAID TO BE VALID IN RESPECT OF THE LAW ON THE STATUTE BOOK WIT H EFFECT FROM 1-4- 89. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: I. THE DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS TO MAKE A TRUE AND F ULL DISCLOSURE OF THE PRIMARY FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. II. THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT IN ANY CASE EX TEND BEYOND MAKING A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE PRIMARY FA CTS. ONCE HE HAS DONE THAT HIS DUTY ENDS. III. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO INITIATE SUCH PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 147(A) THE ITO SHOULD HAVE REASON T BELIEVE THAT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR PARTIC ULAR YEAR AND THIS ESCAPEMENT HAS RESULTED BY REASON OF THE OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN FOR THE YEAR OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. B OTH THESE CONDITIONS MUST COEXIST TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON T HE ITO. IV. THE GROUNDS OR REASON WHICH LEAD TO THE FORMATI ON OF THE BELIEF MUST HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THAT BECAUSE OF ASSESSEES OMISSION OR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. V. THE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE OF FICER AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY HIM REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT6 IS BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSES FAILURE TO DISCLOSE PRIMARY FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR. SUCH LINK MUST BE A LOGICALLY SOUND BASIS AND SHOULD NOT BE FAR-FETCHED. 29. IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDISPUTEDLY IT IS NOT TH E ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. UNDISPUTEDLY RETURN WAS FILED ALONG W ITH GIFT DECLARATION AND CONFIRMATION OF GIFTS FROM THE DONO RS ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THE NOTICE FOR REOPENI NG U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . SINCE THERE IS NO FAILURE N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERI AL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT AS INVALID IN SO FAR AS REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY HELD THAT THE REASSE SSMENTS MADE IN THOSE CASES UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WERE INVALID WE DO NOT SEE A ITA NO.446/RJT/2007 7 REASON DIFFERENT TO COME A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE MAT TER. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMEN T FRAMED U./S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AND TOO UNDER TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED FACT INASMUCH AS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PROVISO ATTACHED TO SECTION 14 7 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OR 147 FOR THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REFORE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED. WE THEREFORE C ANCEL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF TH E ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-12-2010 SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DT : 31 ST DECEMBER 2010 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CENTRAL-II AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT