Avichal Press Pvt. Ltd.,, Anand v. The ACIT., Anand Circle,, Anand

MA 68/AHD/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6820524 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCA2269G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 68/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Avichal Press Pvt. Ltd.,, Anand
Respondent The ACIT., Anand Circle,, Anand
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 20-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 20-08-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 23-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND N. S. SAINI AM ) M. A. NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.579/AHD/2006 - A. Y.: 2002-03) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. 703/2 GIDC ESTATE VITHAL UDYOGNAGAR TALUKA ANAND DIST. ANAND VS THE A. C. I. T. ANAND CIRCLE S. P. COMPLEX MAYFAIR ROAD ANAND PA NO. AACCA 2269 G (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI A. K. THAKKAR AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. M. MAHESH DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18 -12-2009 WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.40 50 000/- FROM ON E MRS. NEENAKSHI YOGENDRA PATEL AND RS.30 00 000/- FROM ONE SHRI KAU SHIK C. PATEL. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN RESPONSE I NSTEAD OF SUBMITTING THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIONS SIGNED BY ITS MANAG ING DIRECTOR. SINCE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS WAS NOT PROVED THEREFORE THE AO TREATED BOTH THE AMOUNTS AS UNEXP LAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 2 3. AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFI RMATIONS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS DATED 16 TH MARCH 2005 AND 15 TH MARCH 2005. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAME ARE OBTAINED NOW AND BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM WERE PRE-OCCUPIED THEREFORE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y FILED CONFIRMATION ON THEIR BEHALF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LOANS WERE G IVEN THROUGH BANK DRAFTS THROUGH NRO/NRE ACCOUNTS WITH THE CITY BANK. COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). COPIES OF THE PASSPORT HELD BY THEM WERE ALSO FURNISHED. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PARTIES ARE NOT CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE PROVED IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E CREDITORS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUBST ANTIAL AMOUNT AS ALLEGED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS LOANS THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS AND THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED IN THIS CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AL SO NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO SENSE IN TAKING ADVANCE FROM UK RESIDENTS TH ROUGH OVERDRAFT AND THAT SINCE THERE IS A DOUBT IN RECEIPT OF THE GENUI NE LOANS THEREFORE ADDITIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE LEARNED C IT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO IN SPITE OF GIVING OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND REFERRED TO DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND S UBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DI RECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO IS RELATIVE OF THE CREDITORS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN UP AT THE FAG END OF THE YEA R BY ISSUING NOTICES IN OCTOBER 2003 DECEMBER 2003 OCTOBER 2004 AND NO VEMBER 2004 AND THE AO DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE AND MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 3 THE ASSESSMENTS GONE TIME BARRED IN 2005 AND THERE FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S. 5. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E EVEN DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE GENUINE CRED ITS ARE NOT PROVED THEREFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKIN G AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. 6. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS IN PARA 7 AND 8 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES. HOWEVER WE MAY NOTE THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE ON THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING AS TO WHY THIS ADDIT IONAL GROUND SHOULD BE ADMITTED. SINCE THIS APPLICATION I S PART OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS NOT AT ALL ARGUED BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WE DEEM IT FIT AND PRO PER TO REFER THE SAME IN THIS ORDER. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT TH E AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM BOTH THE LENDERS TO PROVE THE GE NUINE CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER DID NOT FILE ANY CON FIRMATION LETTER FROM BOTH THE LENDERS BEFORE THE AO. THE MAN AGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS HOWEVER FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LENDERS WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE UNDER THE LAW. SINCE CREDIT ENTRIES APPE ARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS TH EIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S AS REQUIRED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS BEFORE THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO TOOK UP THE ASSESSMENTS AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR AND H AS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFI RMATIONS MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 4 FROM THE CREDITORS. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FIL ED CONFIRMATIONS THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE NOTHING HAS PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING CONFIRMATION BEF ORE THE AO ON BEHALF OF THE LENDERS. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THUS REJECTED THAT NO P ROPER OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF THE LE NDERS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE IF THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 A OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HOWEVER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUERY DURING T HE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS. IT THEREFORE STANDS ESTABLISHED THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY RECOURSE BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE FIR ST APPELLATE STAGE. IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO NO SUCH AVERMENTS ARE CONTAINED AND NO COPY OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION IS AL SO FILED. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE LEARNED CIT( A) TO HAVE ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES UNDER WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) COULD ADMIT ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. NONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 46 A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE DESPITE GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS NOT EVEN FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE LENDERS AT THE ASSESSMENT STATE. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. SINCE THE ENTIRE EVIDEN CES WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONDITIONS OF R ULE 46A HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY DID NOT EXERCISED SUCH JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE LASTLY ARGUED THAT LET THE MATTER MAY FURTHER BE EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW BECAUSE THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES ARE NOW FILED IN THE P APER BOOK. HOWEVER HE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASONS AS TO WHY SUCH POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT THIS S TAGE WHEN THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO AVAIL THE REME DY PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASO NABLE AND COGENT REASONS WE ARE UNABLE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 5 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLI NED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 8. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT HE HAS ARGUED ON THE APPLICATION FILED RAISING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN PARA 5 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REASONS WERE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FO R NOT FILING CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO (PB-1 AND PB-2 WRITTEN SUBMISSION) BECAUSE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN AT THE FAG END. THEREF ORE INITIALLY CONFIRMATION WAS FILED WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE DIRE CTOR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE HE SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD OR IN THE ALTE RNATIVE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT( A) FOR CONSIDERING THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE L EARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE CONFIRMATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RUL ES WOULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT HE HAS NO COPY OF THE AP PLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 46A IN THE MATTER. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEAR NED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. THERE FORE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATTER IN ISSUE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. HE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER AND THAT CONTE NTION OF THE LEARNED MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 6 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE MERELY BASED UPON THE PRESUMPTION AND HAS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED THROUGH ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THEREFORE THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REJECTED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCOR DING TO SECTION 254(2) OF THE IT ACT THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ANY M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND AMEND SUCH ORDER IF ANY MISTAKE IS BROUG HT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE AO. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ANAMIKA BUILDERS 251 ITR 585 HELD THAT TRIBUNAL SHO ULD NOT CHANGE THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR VIEW BY T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ID EAL ENGINEERS 251 ITR 743 DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J. N. SAHANI 257 ITR 16 DECISION OF AGARWAL WAREHOUSING 257 ITR 235. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DEEKSHA SURI V ITO 232 ITR 395 HELD THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE COURTS OR TRIBUNAL IS PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS ORDER . CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PROVISI ON AND THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND NO REASON WAS EXPLA INED AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL SHOULD BE ADMITTED. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THE ASSESSEE CH ALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE AT THE STAG E OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL ASKED THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IF THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY APPLICATION UNDE R RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUERY DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT. IT WAS T HEREFORE CLEAR THAT MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 7 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY RECOURSE BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE APPELLA TE STAGE. THE SAME IS THE POSITION NOW AS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE WHILE ARGUING IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AGAIN CONCEDED THAT HE CAN NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A IF FILED BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. THESE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MISC. APPLICATION ON INCORRECT FACTS. ANYHOW WE MA Y FURTHER NOTE THAT SINCE THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS PAR T OF THE RECORD THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED THE SAME IN THE ORDER AND NOTED T HAT THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE IT RUL ES. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT MERE FILING OF THE CONFIRMATION WOULD NOT PROV E THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE BURDEN OF THE ASSE SSEE IS TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS A ND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CA SE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT IN THIS MATTER AT EVERY STAGE. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON R ECORD OR THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE BASED UPON HIS ASSUMPTION THAT SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT AD MIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE FILED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTA KE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DE VOID OF MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. MA NO.68/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2006) AVICHAL PRESS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ANAND 8 9. IN THE RESULT THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 20-08-2010 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