Shri Amish Madhusudan Modi, Surat v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(3),, Surat

ITA 665/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 66520514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAYPM1368B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 665/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Amish Madhusudan Modi, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(3),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 30-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 30-06-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL AM) ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 SHRI AMIISH MADHUSUDAN MODI 47 MAITRI ROW HOUSE BEH. SARJAN SOCIETY CITY LIGHT SURAT 359 007 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (3) SURAT PA NO. AAYPM 1368 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. K. LAL DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II SURAT DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND G ONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO.1 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF A SUM OF RS.4 79 500/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UN SECURED LOANS FROM 8 PERSONS TOTALING TO RS.4 79 500/-. THE DETAI LS AND BIFURCATION OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT E VIDENCES INCLUDING ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 2 LOAN CONFIRMATION COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME OR AC KNOWLEDGMENT ALONG WITH THEIR BALANCE SHEET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT BANK PASS BOOK AND ANY OTHER EVIDENCES REGARDING THEIR CAPACITY AN D CREDITWORTHINESS ETC. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE BA NK PASS BOOK OF ONLY 2 OF THE CREDITORS MENTIONED AT SR. NO.7 AND 8 NAMELY SHRI SACHIN N. SHETH (SR. NO. 7) (IN A SUM OF RS.1 00 00 0/-) AND SHRI SAVJIBHAI DHUABHAI (SR. NO.8) (IN A SUM OF RS.2 50 000/-). ON VERIFICATION OF THEIR BANK STATEMENT THE AO NOTICE D THAT THEY HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THEREFORE ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES FOR PERSONAL VERIFICATION. HOWEVER NONE WAS PRODUCED B EFORE THE AO. THE AO THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF ALL THE L OAN ACCOUNTS FROM HIS BOOKS WHICH WERE DULY CONFIRMED BY EACH CREDITO R. COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESSES AND PA NUMBER OF THE CREDITORS E XCEPT IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHARATBHAI R. SOLANKI AND SMT. RAMABEN H. SOLANKI WERE NOT FILED BECAUSE THEY WERE AGRICULTURISTS. BA NK ACCOUNTS OF TWO CREDITORS WERE FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CREDIT ORS HAD ORALLY INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY WOULD SUBMIT SUCH D OCUMENTS TO THE AO AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR. THIS WAS INTIMATED TO TH E AO WHO WAS REQUESTED TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO ALL THE CREDITORS BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AND ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 3 MATERIAL ON RECORD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AN D DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 4.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITION S. FORM THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE AR IT IS CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN THAT LAY ON HIM OF PROVIDING THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES PE RTAINING TO THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINES S AND CONSEQUENTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE FURNISHED ACCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS TAKEN FROM HIS OWN BOOKS YET THAT DID NOT SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE EIGHT CREDITORS. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR IT IS SEEN THAT THE CREDITOR S DID NOT CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HAD COMMUNICATED THEIR INTENTION OF SUBMITTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON LY TO THE AO IF AND WHEN CALLED FOR. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y SUCH DOCUMENT THE AO WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO CARRY-FOR WARD INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AND THEREFORE THERE W AS NO QUESTION OF ISSUING EITHER NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OR SE CTION 131 OF THE IT ACT. ONLY IF THE AO HAD DISCHARGED THE IN ITIAL BURDEN WOULD THE ONUS HAVE SHIFTED TO THE AO. THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SAVJIBHAI GHUSABHAI SHOWED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2 50 000 IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CHEQU E WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ASK THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DEPOSIT IN ORD ER TO ASCERTAIN AND VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SA ID CREDITOR. IF THAT MEANT HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE SOUR CE OF SOURCE SO BE IT. THE AO DID NOT VIOLATE OR GO AGAIN ST THE RATIOS OF ANY OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE AR. I T HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS THAT ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS FOR ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF ANY CASH CREDIT IS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WHIC H THE AO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ENQUIRE INTO. GIVEN SUCH FACTS O F THE CASE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NONE OF THE CREDITS WER E SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AS BEING GENUINE. THE ADDI TION OF THE SUM OF RS.4 79 500 BEING THE TOTAL OF ALL SUCH CREDITS ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 4 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT I S CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON THE ABOVE GROUND. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FA CTS OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. FOR PROV ING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT THE BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS TH EIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. EXCEPT IN TH E CASES OF SHRI SACHIN N. SHETH AND SHRI SAVJIBHAI DHUABHAI OTHER SIX CREDITORS HAVE ALLEGEDLY GIVEN UNSECURED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. THE SOURCE OF THE SAME IS NOT EXPLAINED AT ALL. IN THE CASES OF SHRI SACHIN N. SHETH AND SHRI SAVJIBHAI DHUABHAI THOUGH COPIES OF THE BANK PASS BOOK WERE FURNISHED BUT ON VERIFICATION IT WA S FOUND THAT THEY HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ISS UING CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED C ONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE AO COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPE R BOOK THESE WERE LOAN ACCOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE STATED TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITORS. THE CREDITORS HAVE FAILED TO PRO VE AS TO FROM WHERE THE CASH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. NO EVIDENCE OF CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN FILED. NO EVIDENCE OF PRO VING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THE AO TO ASK THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE EIGHT CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO FOR VER IFICATION ALONG WITH THEIR DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER NONE OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN PRODUCED ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 5 BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH THEIR DOCUMENTS FOR THE RE LEVANT PERIOD. THUS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB - 9 AND 12 WHICH ARE THE REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE AO IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE REFUSED TO HANDOVER THE PAPERS AND T HEY WERE READY TO SUBMIT THE SAME AS AND WHEN DIRECTLY ASKED BY TH E DEPARTMENT. THIS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE ANY RE QUEST FOR ISSUE OF THE SUMMONS TO THE AO FOR PRODUCTION OF THESE CR EDITORS FOR EXAMINATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KAMDHENU VYAPAR CO. LTD. 263 ITR 692 IN WHICH IT W AS HELD THAT WHEN TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF A PERSON A REQUES T IS MADE TO THE AO FOR ISSUING SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT IT W AS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ISSUE SUCH SUMMO NS IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL OF OPPORTUNIT Y PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. HOWEVER NO SUCH CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE NO REQUEST IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A O TO ISSUE SUMMONS FOR PRODUCTION OF ANY OF THE CREDITORS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE REPLY IS POORLY WORDED BUT THE AO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN IT CORRECTLY TO ISSUE SUMM ONS AGAINST THE CREDITORS. WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE A SPECIFIC REPLY IS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE SHOWING INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES AND TO PRO DUCE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND EXAMIN ATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THE LEARNED DR W AS JUSTIFIED IN CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE TH E IDENTITY OF THE ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 6 CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS UPON HIM TO PROVE GENUINE CREDITS AS IS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALEKHAN MOHHAMAD HANIF 50 ITR 1. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78. HOWEVER THE SAME IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS A ND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. 5. ON GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.87 287/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REGAR DING THE ACTION TAKEN TO RECOVER SUCH DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT F URNISH ANY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. AGRA WAL TRADING CO. ON WHOM A BILL OF RS.1 12 287/- HAD BEEN ISSUED (P B-39). APART FROM A PAYMENT OF RS.25 000/- IN CASH NO OTHER PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED. THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THEM HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY TH E BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO TAKE ACTI ON AGAINST THEM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECA USE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT WAS IN FACT A DEBT . IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME IRREC OVERABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 7 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. R. F. LTD. 323 ITR 397 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL-SETTLED. AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. I T IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERA BLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINE D WHETHER THE DEBT HAS IN FACT BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN BAD DEBT OCCURS THE BAD DEBT ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND THE CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT IS CREDITED THUS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT OF T HE CUSTOMER. IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES THE PROVISION I S DEDUCTED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS. AS STATED ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER IN FACT THE BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEE N UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASPECT ONLY AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE WRITE O FF. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENC E BEFORE THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ADDIT ION. NOTHING WAS STATED ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. AFTER AMENDMENT IN THE ACT THE BAD DEBT IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1) (VII) OF THE IT ACT WHEN THE AMOUNT OF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH VERIFICATION BY THE AO THE MATTER REQU IRES RECONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FIELD DETAILS OF THE SALES MADE TO M/S. AGRAWAL TRADING CO. AND PART PAYMENT RECEIVED (PB-39) WHICH ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 8 PRIMA FACIE SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISS UE IN THE LIGHT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 36(1) (VII) OF THE IT ACT AS WELL AS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF T. R. F. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE RESULT THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ON GROUND NO.4 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED DISALLOW ANCE OF 10% OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS.18 398/-. TH E AO NOTED DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE I N A SUM OF RS.1 84 803/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF TELEPHONE TRA VELING & CONVEYANCE VEHICLE ALLOWANCE VEHICLE EXPENSES VE HICLE REPAIRING AND DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR. THE AO NOTED THAT PA YMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH TH E ASSESSEE. IN SOME CASES SIGNATURES OF THE RECIPIENTS ARE NOT FO UND. 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EX PLANATION AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED EXPENSES BECAUSE THE SAME WERE USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES ALSO. THE LEAR NED CIT(A) DELETED SOME ADDITIONS BUT MAINTAINED SUBSTANTIAL A DDITIONS IN A SUM OF RS.18 398/-. 8. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE AO HAS NOTED SPECIFICALLY THAT PAYMENT OF VARIOUS EXPE NSES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH ONLY AND EVEN SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WER E NOT AVAILABLE ITA NO.665/AHD/2009 SHRI AMISH MADHUSUDAN MODI VS ITO WARD 3(3) SURAT 9 INCLUDING SOME OF THE VOUCHERS DID NOT CONTAIN SIGN ATURES OF THE RECIPIENTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANAT ION AS WELL AS DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE DIS ALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-07-2011 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 05-07-2011 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 D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD