Pravinbhai Tribhovandas Patel, Surat v. The Income Tax Officer Wd. 2(3), Surat

ITA 935/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 93520514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABBPP1934G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 935/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Pravinbhai Tribhovandas Patel, Surat
Respondent The Income Tax Officer Wd. 2(3), Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY AM) ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOVANDAS PATEL 197 BHATHENA-2 BAVAJINI WADI UMIAMATA ROAD SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT 395 001 PA NO. ABBPP 1934 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJESH M. UPADHYAY AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. R. GHOSH 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 12 TH JANUARY 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO.1 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.1 38 500/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CASH DEPOSIT EACH BELOW RS.20 00 0/- FROM 8 DEPOSITORS TOTALING RS.1 38 500/- NAMELY ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 2 1. ARVINDBHAI J. PRAJAPATI RS.18 000/- 2. BIPINBHAI NARAYANBHAI PATEL RS.18 000/- 3. DAHYABHAI AMTHARANAMDAS RS.17 500/- 4. DAHYABHAI TRIBHOVANBHAI RS.18 000/- 5. RAMESHBHAI I.PATEL RS.16 500/- 6. SANJAYBHAI LABHUDAS PATEL RS.15 000/- 7. TRIBHOVAN JETHABHAI RS.18 000/- 8. VISHNUBHAI NATVARLAL RS.17 500/- TOTAL RS.1 38 500/- THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID DEPOSITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE PROMISED TO PRODUCE 3 DE POSITORS AND WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING DEPOSITORS IT WAS STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES . THE AO OBSERVED THAT EACH OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE PERSONS O F SMALL MEANS AND HAVE NO CAPACITY TO GIVE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO DID N OT ESTABLISH THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE HELD TO B E BOGUS AND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT NAMES AND ADDRESSES CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS AND COPIES OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY EACH OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THEREFORE THE ASSESS EE DISCHARGED HIS INITIAL ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINE CREDITS. EVEN IF THE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED THE AO HAD OPTION TO ISSUE SUMMO NS U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT OR TO MAKE INQUIRY U/S 133 (6) OF THE IT ACT WHICH THE AO ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 3 HAD FAILED TO DO SO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON CONSIDER ATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DOCUMENTS ON REC ORD HELD THAT SOURCE OF INCOME IS NOT PROVED AND NO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ETC. HAVE BEEN FILED. NEITHER OF THE DEPOSITORS HAS ANY BANK ACCOUNT NOR HAS ANY CAPITAL ACCOUNT SIMPLY PREPARED THE COMPUTATI ON INCOME OR FILED PROOF OF FILING OF THE RETURN WOULD NOT PROVE IDENT ITY OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R EFERRED TO PB-3 WHICH IS THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE DEPOSITS ARE OLD AND ALSO REFE RRED TO PB-30 WHICH IS THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2004 TO SHOW THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE SAME BALANCES WERE APPEARING AGAIN ST THE 8 CREDITORS AND AS SUCH THESE WERE OPENING BALANCES I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THEIR COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH THEI R ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF THE RETURN. HE HAS THEREFORE SUBMITT ED THAT ADDITION IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE SE WERE OLD BALANCES. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AR E OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE 8 PARTIES AND T O PROVE THEIR ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 4 IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY AGREED TO PRODUCE 3 OF THE PARTI ES BUT LATER ON COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO. THE REAFTER THE ASSESSED DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY. ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE FIELD CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO AND THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-200 4 WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF THE AO. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE NAMES OF THESE 8 CREDITORS I N THE BALANCE SHEET ENDING ON 31-03-2004 (PB-30) AND THE SAME AMO UNT OF CASH CREDITS CONTINUED IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THESE WERE THE OPENING BALANCES IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) (PB-3) IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THA T THESE WERE THE OLD BALANCES BUT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W DO NOT SHOW IF SUCH PLEA WAS TAKEN BEFORE THEM OR IN CASE THIS PLE A WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THE SAME. IF THE SAME CREDITS INVOLVE IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WERE COMING UP FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AND THESE WERE THE OPENING BALANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL THE AO SHALL HAVE TO DELETE THE ADDITION. BUT THERE IS NO VERIFICATION OF SUCH FACTS EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FIND MENTION IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN TO MOVE BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW FOR RECTIFYING THEIR ORDERS. CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 5 VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATION S IN THIS ORDER. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ON GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISA LLOWANCE U/S 40 A(2) (B) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.3 07 512/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ABOVE AMOUNT TO SMT. RAMILABEN AM RUTBHAI PATEL TOWARDS RENT/TWISTING LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SMT. RAMILABEN AMRUTBHAI PATEL BEFORE THE AO AND SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY MACHINERY OR ANY FACTORY BECAUSE S HE ONLY LOOKS AFTER HER CHILDREN AND HER HOUSE. SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. FOR RUNNING THE HOUSE SHE WAS PROVIDED MONE Y BY HER HUSBAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH SUCH INFO RMATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE ASSESS EE BELONGS LADIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. THE AO THEREFORE HELD THAT SMT. RAMILABEN AMRUTBHAI PATEL IS NOT INVOLVED IN EARNING ANY TYPE OF INCOME AND THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40 A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS FOR TWISTING CHARGES RENT RECEIPTS COPY OF THE ACCOUNT AND RET URN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. SMT. RAMILABEN AMRUTHBAI PATEL OWNED PLANT AND MACHINERIES WHICH IS APPEARING IN HER BALANCE SHEET AND SHE WAS DOING WORK OF OTHER PARTIES ALSO. THEREFORE DISALL OWANCE OF THE ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 6 EXPENDITURE WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDING O F THE AO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTIO N 40A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT AND NOTING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD IF SMT. RAM ILABEN AMRUTHBHAI PATEL WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. NO EVIDENCE IS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE WAS EXCE SSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ACCORD ING TO SECTION 40A (2) (A) OF THE IT ACT WHERE AN ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR TO BE MAD E TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTIO N (RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE) AND THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH EX PENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOODS SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE FOR NEED OF BUSINESS SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS CONSIDER ED BY THE AO TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED A S DEDUCTION. THEREFORE BEFORE APPLYING SECTION 40A (2) (B) OF T HE IT ACT THE AO SHALL HAVE TO GIVE SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO HOW THE P ERSON TO WHOM PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE I N THE CASE OF ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 7 INDIVIDUAL. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO HOW SMT. RAMILABEN AMRUGHBHAI PATEL WAS RELATED TO THE ASSES SEE. IN ANY CASE EVEN FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(2) (B) OF THE IT ACT IT IS FOR THE AO TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES. NO EFFORT IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN MA DE BY THE AO. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UPPER INDIA PU BLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD. 117 ITR 569 HELD THAT BEFORE SECTION 40A (2) IS APPLIED THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROVED EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. HOWEVER THE AO IN THIS CASE HAS FAILED TO GIVE AN Y SUCH FINDING AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE AS TO HOW SMT. RAMILABEN AMRUTHBHAI PATEL WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDINGS ON RECORD THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT. SI NCE THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE FURTHER FINDING ON MERIT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROU ND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. ON GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISA LLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF TH E EXPENSES OUT OF FACTORY EXPENSES MILGIN EXPENSES AND WAGES. THE AO FOUND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHY 20% OF THE SAME BE NOT DISALLOWED BEING UNVERIFIABL E EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE S AME. THE ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 8 ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AGREED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAPPENS THAT DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENDITU RE COULD NOT BE FULLY VOUCHED/BILLED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE/BILLS 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED IN A SUM OF R S.1 07 763/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TH AT RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED ALONG WITH ATTENDANCE REGISTER WHICH WER E PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO MA DE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT NO FURTHER ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECA USE MANY OF THE SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN PUT BY THE SAME PERSONS ON THE WAGE REGISTER AND THERE WAS NO REVENUE STAMP AFFIXED ON THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION HA S ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER. THEREFORE DISALLOWANC E OUT OF THESE EXPENSES SHALL HAVE TO BE MADE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE AUDITED ON WHICH NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVE N BY THE AUDITOR. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPLETE RECORDS BEF ORE THE AO; THEREFORE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE OUT O F THE EXPENDITURE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELI ED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE A O HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SE EXPENSES WERE ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 9 NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND BILLS. SINCE T HE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE DETAILS THER EFORE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED FOR AND THE ASSESSEES R EPRESENTATIVE AGREED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAPPENED THAT DUE TO S OME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE FULLY V OUCHED AND SUPPORTED BY BILLS. THIS FACT NOTED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). EVEN NO MATE RIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE FINDING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEES REPRES ENTATIVE AGREED TO THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF THIS EXPEND ITURE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE ADDITION IS MADE ON AGREED BASIS NO A PPEAL WOULD LIE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VAMADEVAN BHANU 3 30 ITR 559 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI VS CIT 65 ITR 261. THEREFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) INSTEAD OF VERIFYING THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS REASON ALONE. CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. ITA NO.935/AHD/2009 PRAVINBHAI TRIBHOBANDAS PATEL VS ITO WARD 2(3) SU RAT 10 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-07-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 22-07-2011 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