M/s. Shree Krishnakeshav Laboratories Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT., Circle-8,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1980/AHD/2006 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 198020514 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AADCS0519G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1980/AHD/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Shree Krishnakeshav Laboratories Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-8,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 13-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 13-05-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 14-09-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 13.5.10 DRAFTED ON:13.05.2010 ITA NO.1980/AHD/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-2004 SHREE KRISHANAKESHAV LABORATORIES LTD. DEVASHISH 3 RD FLOOR C.G.ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8 4 TH FLOOR AJANTA COMMERCIAL CENTRE A WING ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD-38 009 PAN/GIR NO. : AADCS 0519G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH AD. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL CIT D.R. O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XIV AHMEDABAD DATED 04.08.2006. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) I S BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS HENCE IT IS REQUESTED THE SAME BE CANC ELLED AND BE SUITABLY MODIFIED. 3. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND R EQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION BY US. - 2 - 4. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF THA T WERE GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 33 35 8 18/-. 3. THE SAID ADVANCES HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND HENCE WHEN WRITTEN OFF THE SAME BE ALL OWED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE GRANTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THESE GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 4. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAI M OF RS.1 33 35 818/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE:; WRITTEN OF F DURING THE YEAR. 4.1 THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF A S BAD DEBT IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ITEMS: S.N. NAME OF PARTY AMT. WRITTEN OFF 1 INDIAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY PVT . LTD. 5231091 2 SHREE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. 334735 3 SHREE BIOGAURD LABORATORIES 3195961 4 JAIWANTI CHEMICALS LTD. 153992 5 ELEXIR PHARMACEUTICAL S 3459684 6 CHANDRA AGRO PVT. LTD. 885355 7 UP HOUSING & DEV. COMM.FIN. SCHEME 1987 75000 TOTAL 13335818 4.2. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO VARIOUS COMPANIES FOR SETTING UP OF THE NEW PLANT F OR I.V. SETS BUT THE SETTING UP OF THE NEW PLANT WAS NOT M ATERIALIZED. THE ADVANCES OF RS.52 31 091/- GIVEN TO THE INDIAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY PVT. LTD. FOR SETTING UP OF NEW PLANT AT LUC KNOW AND FOR PROCUREMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING. ADVANCES OF RS.31 95 961/- WERE GIVEN TO SHREE BIOGUARD LABORAT ORIES IN CONNECTION WITH SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT IN U. P. A DVANCES - 3 - OF RS.34 59 684/- WERE GIVEN TO ELEXIR PHARMACEUTIC ALS FOR MACHINERY RAW MATERIALS PACKING MATERIALS ETC. T O SET UP THE NEW UNIT. ADVANCES OF RS.8 85 355/- WERE GIVEN TO CHADRA AGRO PVT. LTD. FOR SETTING UP A MANUFACTURIN G UNIT WHICH DID NOT MATERIALISED. SIMILARLY OTHER ADVANCE S WERE MADE ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS AND NEW UNITS OF PLAN T. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IT AS BAD DEBTS THE A.O. HAS DISA LLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS OF ADVANCES WERE NEVE R INCLUDED AT ANY POINT OF TIME IN THE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE CLAIM IS NOT ADMISSIBLE U/S.36 OF THE I. T. ACT AND THESE ADVANCES WERE OF CAPITAL NATURE. HENCE THIS BECAME A CAPITAL LOSS AND DOES NOT PARTAKE CHARACTER OF BAD DEBT. EVEN THE AUDITOR HAS CATEGORISED THE TRANSACTION AS A CA PITAL NATURE IN COLUMN NO.7 (A) OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN F ORM NO.3CB. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT WRITING UP THE SE ADVANCES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT. ALTERNATIVE LY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS L OSS U/S.28 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF CIT V/S.ABDUL & CO. 136 ITR 825 (GUJ.). 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE SUBMISSION AND CASE LAWS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S VIEW. ADVANCES WERE GIVE N FOR SETTING UP OF NEW BUSINESS AND FOR PURCHASE OF PLAN T & MACHINERY AND LAND. HENCE THIS CANNOT BE CLAIMED A S BAD DEBT U/S.36 OF THE I.T. ACT AS THE CONDITIONS PRESC RIBED IS NOT MADE. FURTHER THESE CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS L OSS U/S.28/37 OF THE I.T. ACT AS THESE WERE FOR THE PU RCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND THESE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPIT AL LOSS. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT CIT VS. ABDU L RAZAK & CO. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS FOR RECOVERY OF ADVA NCE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSI ON AGENCY. HERE THE ADVANCE WAS FOR PURCHASE OF CAPIT AL ASSETS. HENCE THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THE RAT IO OF THE CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT ACTIO N OF THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY THIS ADDITION IS CONF IRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AS DE DUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF FOLLOWING ADVANCES. S.N. NAME OF PARTY AMT. WRITTEN - 4 - OFF 1 INDIAN HOSPITA] SUPPLY PVT . LTD. 5231091 2 SHREE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. 334735 3 SHREE BIOGAURD LABORATORIES 3195961 4 JAIWANTI CHEMICALS LTD. 153992 5 ELEXIR PHARMACEUTICAL S 3459684 6 CHANDRA AGRO PVT. LTD. 885355 7 UP HOUSING & DEV. COMM.FIN. SCHEME 1987 75000 TOTAL 13335818 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THESE ADVANCES DO NOT SATISFY THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN SECTION 36 THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ACT. H E THEREFORE DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME CANNOT ALSO BE ALLOWED AS A TRADING LOSS UNDER SECTION 28 OR 37 OF THE ACT AS THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS FOR NEW PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE L OSS WAS ON CAPITAL FIELD. 8. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT AS THE ADVANCE DID NOT RESULT IN ACQUIS ITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET OF ENDURING NATURE AND THEREFORE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS REVENUE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ABOVE P ROPOSITION HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PATNAIK & CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 5 - (I) THAT SINCE THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE HIGH C OURT WAS FRAMED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAD TO BE DECIDED IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX DELINEATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE HIGH COURT WAS WRON G IN RE- APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE: ITS FINDING HAD TO BE VA CATED; (II) THAT ON THE FACTS NO ENDURING BENEFIT WAS DE RIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY THE INVESTMENT; (III) THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE SALE OF THE INVEST MENT WAS A REVENUE LOSS. WHERE GOVERNMENT BONDS OR SECURITIES ARE PURCHASED BY AN ASSESSEE WITH A VIEW TO INCREASING HIS BUSINESS WIT H THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH THE OBJECT OF RETAINING THE GOOD WILL OF THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS THE LO SS INCURRED ON THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS OR SECURITIES IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS LOSS. 9. THUS FROM THE ABOVE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ADVAN CE WAS GIVEN TO BOOST UP THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH ADVANCE HAD NOT RESULTED IN ACQUISITION OF ASSET OF A CAPITAL NATUR E THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE LOSS BY TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ADVANC ES WERE GIVEN FOR SETTING UP OF NEW PROJECTS SUCH AS RS. 31 95 961/- WERE GIV EN TO SHRI BIOGUARD LABORATORIES FOR SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT IN U.P. RS. 34 59 684/- WERE GIVEN TO ELEXIR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR MACHINERY RAW MATERIALS PACKING MATERIALS ETC. TO SET UP THE NEW UNIT RS.8 85 355 /- WERE GIVEN TO CHANDRA AGRO PVT. LTD. FOR SETTING UP A MANUFACTURING UNIT WHICH DID NOT MATERIALISE SIMILARLY OTHER ADVANCES WERE MADE FO R ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS AND NEW UNITS OF PLANTS. NO MATERIAL WAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES OR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO S HOW THAT WHETHER THESE PROJECTS WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXISTING BUSINESS OR WERE FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OR WAS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF A NEW AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW FINDING OF THE AB OVE FACT IS ESSENTIAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THUS WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER FOR PROPER - 6 - VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AND T HEREAFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO CITED CERTAIN OTHER DECISIONS BEFORE US. AS WE HAVE REST ORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECON SIDERING HIS FINDING ON THE ABOVE RELEVANT FACT WE CONSIDERED IT FIT THAT THE OTHER DECISION CITED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREF ORE THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO MAKE ITS ENTIRE SUBMISSION B EFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CONSIDERED THE SAME AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF FRESH ORDER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND IT IS NEEDLES S TO MENTION THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING ORDER AFRESH IN LIGH T OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREINABOVE. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 4. THE LEARNED A.O HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING LOAN T O EMPLOYEES OF RS.1 46 345/- WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW. THE SAID LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COUR SE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SAME ARE W RITTEN OFF AND THE SAME ARE FULLY ALLOWABLE. IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT THE SAME BE GRANTED ACCORDINGLY. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS DECIDED THESE GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 5. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAIN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 46 34 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS WRITTEN OFF. 5.1 THE APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO IT'S EMPLOYE ES WHICH WAS NOT MATERILISED AND CLAIMED IT WAS A BAD DEBT. THE A.O. HAS NOT ALLOWED THIS CLAIM AND SAYING THAT IT IS NO T ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBT FOR THE AUDITOR HAS ALSO MENTIONED IN H IS REPORT IN FROM NO.3CD THAT THIS WAS OF CAPITAL NATURE. THE - 7 - APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT ALTERNATIVELY IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINE SS LOSS U/S. 28 AND ALSO RELIED CASE LAWS IN THE CASE OF MAHENDR A AGENCY VS. ITO 11 TTJ (AND). 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND SUBMISSION AND CASE LAWS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEW. THE APPELLANT IS N OT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING LOAN AND ADVANCES AND HENCE THE ADVANCES GIVEN UNREALISED CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT U/S . 36 OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINES S LOSS AS ADVANCES WERE NOT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINE SS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE APPELL ANT MAHENDRA AGENCY VS. ITO (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT CUSTOMARY LOAN TO AN EM PLOYEE WHO LEFT THE SERVICE WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS AND THERE SUM AMOUNT WAS RS.1 938/- ADVANCE AS CUSTOMARY LOAN S AND THE ITAT HELD THAT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS SOME SMALL AMOUNTS ARE GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEE AS ADVANCES . HERE THE MONEY GIVEN TO AN OFFICE STAFF IS RS.1 46 345/- AND IT IS NOT A COMMON PRACTICE TO GIVE SUCH AMOUNT OF LOAN T O ANY STAFF AS CUSTOMARY ADVANCE TO ALL PERSON. HENCE IT IS HELD THAT A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISA1LOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONFIRMED . 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1 46 345/- IN RESPECT OF WRITE OFF OF STAFF ADVANCE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE STAFF WERE DURING THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE SAME HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ABOVE CLAIM BY OBSERVING THAT THE TAX AUDITOR OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE AMOUNT AS CAPITAL LOSS AND MOREOVER AS THE AMOU NT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAME CANNOT BE AL LOWED AS BAD DEBT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ACT. 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVANCING LOAN AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT IN QUES TION CANNOT BE - 8 - ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ACT AND IN RESPECT OF THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDING ALLOWA NCE OF THE SAME AS TRADING LOSS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE OFFICE STAFF AND SUCH ADVANCE OF RS.1 46 345/- WAS NOT CUSTOMARY IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS NOT GIVEN TO ALL OTHER STAFF AND WAS NOT IN THE CO URSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. 14. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ADVA NCE WAS GIVEN TO OFFICE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.146 345/- AND WHICH HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE AND THEREFORE WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW A LOSS ARISING OUT OF NORMAL TRANS ACTION AND IF THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTI ON 36 AND 37 OF THE ACT THEN THE SAME CAN BE ALLOWED AS TRADING LOSS U NDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT UNLESS THE LOSS IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DISALLOWED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 28 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADVANCE TO STAFF WAS NOT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LOS S IN QUESTION WAS IN A CAPITAL FIELD. FURTHER IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT T HE OFFICE STAFF WAS ENGAGED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DU RING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. FURTHER NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D TO SHOW THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR SOME CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE. NO RELATION BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD OTH ER THAN THE BUSINESS RELATION. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIV EN TO OFFICE STAFF OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THEREFOR E IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH IRRECOVERABLE ADVAN CE AS TRADING LOSS WAS - 9 - NOT WARRANTED. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.1 46 345/- AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF MAY 2010 SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF MAY 2010. PARAS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XIX AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 13.05.2010 ---------------- --- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 17.05.2010 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 17.05.2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 17.05.2010 ---------- --------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 18.05.2010 -------- ------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 21.05.2010 --------- ----------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.05.2010 ------ -------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- -------------------