Shri Ashraf H.Katlariwala, Navsari v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Navsari

ITA 2087/AHD/2009 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 208720514 RSA 2009
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2087/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Shri Ashraf H.Katlariwala, Navsari
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Navsari
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 29-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-01-2010
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 01-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' (BEFORE SHRI N S SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2087/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 1995-96) ASHRAF H KATLARIWALA OLD VEGETABLE MARKET MOTA BAZAR DIDHIA TALAV NAVSARI V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 NAVSARI [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S N DIVATIA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL SR. DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DA TED 24-04- 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2 GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 OF THE ACT ON 24.4.2009 FO R AY 1995-96 BY CIT(A) VALSAD UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSE D U/S 144 R.W.S. 254 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE ITO WARD -1 NAVSARI IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDER ING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGN ED ADDITIONS. 3 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THEREFORE THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 4 GROUND NO.2 3.1 AND 3.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND/ OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: (A). BUSINESS INCOME RS. 5 500 (B). MONEY CHANGING INCOME RS. 15 000 (C). BOGUS CASH CREDITS RS.1 30 000 2.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT S INCE THE DALALI BUSINESS WAS ALREADY CLOSED BY THE APPEL LANT THE ADDITION OF RS.5 500/- WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY AO WITH REGARD TO THE REQUISIT ION IN CASE OF ASHOK R RAI ARE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GRO UNDS ARE COMMON THEY ARE BEING CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AS FO LLOWS. 5 THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE AS SESSMENT WAS EARLIER COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R. W. S. 147 OF TH E I. T. ACT 1961 ON 24/11/2000 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.1 50 500/-. THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBJEC T MATTER OF APPEAL & THE SAME WAS SET ASIDE BY HONOURABLE TRIBU NAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 01/12/200 6. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF ITA T ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN MADE THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE ORIGINA LLY MADE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. IN T HE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO 3 FURNISH EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS OBSE RVED BY A.O THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE T O ARRIVE AT A CONCRETE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS STATED TRUE AND COR RECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. IT WAS FURTHER OBSER VED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RELATED VOUCHERS BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED AT RS.5 500/-. 6 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT DALALI BUSINESS WHICH WAS DONE IN F.Y 1 992-93 WAS DISCONTINUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I T WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DONE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS MONEY CHANGE R DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION & THUS ESTIMATION OF DALA LI INCOME IS NOT CALLED FOR. 7 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM HELD AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF APP ELLANT AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE SAME I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRO DUCE WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT H E IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. H ENCE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING BU SINESS INCOME AT RS.5 500/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS REGA RDS INCOME FROM MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS ASSESSEE HAS N OT SUBMITTED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THE DECISION OF THE ER STWHILE A.O. THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM POLICE DEPARTMENT A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY IN TELLIGENCE WING AND CASH OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS SEIZED FROM MR. ASH OK RANCHODBHAI 4 RAI AND IN HIS STATEMENT HE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVE D CASH FROM ONE MR. AYUB MUNSHI AND MOHMED MEMON OF BARODA FOR HAND ING OVER THE SAME TO ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING FOREIGN CURRENCY FOR THEM. THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT LOCAL INQUIRIES ALSO REVE ALED THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING ILLEGAL EXCHANGE OF CURRENCY OUTSIDE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE REASONS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.15 0 00/- AS MADE BY ERSTWHILE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEE N CONTENDED THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMAT ION ONLY AND THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH INDICAT ES THAT ASSESSEE EARNED RS.15000/- OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 10 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM HELD AS UNDER:- 12 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENT ION OF APPELLANT AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AFT ER GOING THROUGH THE SAME TL FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING ANY COG ENT REASONS. IT HAS ONLY BEEN STATED THAT ADDITION IS MADE ON ES TIMATED BASIS. HOWEVER ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT DONE MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY MR. ASHOK RANCHOD RAI STAT ED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH FROM TWO PARTIES FOR HANDING OVER THE SAME TO ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING FOREIGN CURRENCY. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING INCOME FROM MONE Y EXCHANGE BUSINESS AT RS.15 000/- AS THE SAME IS NOT SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 11 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 5 12 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER ADDED RS.5500/- BY ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME FROM DALALI BUSINESS AND ALSO ADDED RS.15000/- BY ASSUMI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY SUCH BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE TH AT HE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT THE ABOVE BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS DU RING THE RELEVANT YEAR. I FIND THAT A PERSON CANNOT BE CALLE D UPON TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE. I FAIL TO APPRECIATE HOW A PERSON CAN PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. UNDER LAW ONUS LIES UPON THE PERSON WHO ASSERTS EXISTENCE OF A CIRCUMSTANCES TO PROVE THE SAME. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE REVENUE HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE SUMPTIONS DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS WHICH WAS NOT R ELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT CARRIED OUT ANY DALALI BUSINESS OR MONEY EXCHANGE BUSINESS OUTS IDE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM THOSE SOURCES AND TO ADD THE SAME TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. I THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5500/- AND RS.15000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. A CCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6 14 GROUND NO.3.3 READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE C ASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF CASH BALANCE AFTER A PERIOD EIGHT MONTHS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. 15 THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION IS THA T ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF CASH DEPOSIT AGGR EGATING TO RS.1 30 000/- MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON THREE OCC ASIONS VIZ. 21/11/94 21/11/94 & 21/12/94. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASH BOOK AND COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK IN SUPPORT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1 30 000/- ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CA SH ON HAND OF RS.1 61 333.50 AS PER BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y 1994-95 AND SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK. HOWEVER A.O REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CASH BOOK APPEARS TO BE FABRICATED ONE FROM ITS APPEARANCE. HE FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HA ND & THAT CASH SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET & OTHER PAPERS FILED WITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME OR IN THE SUBMISSION MADE CANNOT THEREFORE B E ACCEPTED. HE STATED THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF TH E CASE SURVEY ACTION & ASSESSEE'S UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN MOVAB LE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES THERE IS NO REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF ERSTWHILE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1 30 000/-. 16 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN A RGUED THAT CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING RS.1 30 000/- MADE O N 21/11/94 & 21/12/94 IS MADE OUT OF CASH BALANCE OF RS.1 61 333 AS ON 31/03/94 & THE SAME IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK. IT I S ARGUED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IT IS 7 EVIDENT THAT THERE IS OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.1 61 333 AS ON 01/04/94 WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS.1 50 833.50 A S ON 1/11/94 AFTER WITHDRAWALS & OUT OF THE SAME CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.10 000/- & RS.70 000/- HAVE BEEN MADE ON 21/11/94. AS REGARDS ANOTHER CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.50 0007- ON 21/12/94 IT IS STATED THA T SAME IS ALSO MADE OUT OF THE BALANCE CASH AVAILABLE AS PER THE C ASH BOOK (RS.70 333.50 AS ON 01/12/94). IT IS THEREFORE CONT ENDED THAT THAT CASH OF RS.1 30 000/- DEPOSITED IN BANK ON VARIOUS DATES IS OUT OF THE REGULAR CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT CASH BALANCE OF RS.1 6 1 333.50 IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/94 WHICH WAS ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 1994-95. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVI DENCE WHICH INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY CASH ON H AND AS PER THE REGULAR CASH BOOK & THAT DEPOSITS OF RS.1 30 000/- HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 17 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM HELD AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTEN TION OF APPELLANT AS WELL AS THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1 30 000/- MADE IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT ON THREE OCCASIONS IS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OFF REGULAR CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS PER THE LAST BALANCE SHEE T I.E. 31/03/94. HOWEVER I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUM ENT OF APPELLANT AS CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT AFTER SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF ABOUT EIGHT MON THS. NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WILL KEEP SUBSTANTIAL CASH BALA NCE WITH HIM FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED PHOTO COPY OF CASH BOOK THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH I S DOUBTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASH BOOK APART FROM FEW TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS NO FURTHER D AY TO DAY TRANSACTIONS ARE FOUND & THIS DOES APPEAR TO BE ABN ORMAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE & CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS O F THE CASE 8 1 DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 18 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 19 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 20 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS.1 30 000/- BY CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21-11-94 21-11-94 AND 21-12-94 WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENTS. ON APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 01-12- 2006 PASSED IN ITA NOS.1755 1756 AND 1757/AHD/2002 HELD AS UNDER: 24 SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.1 30 000/- IS CONCERNE D WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THOUGH THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON SO-CALLED BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE A S ON 31-03- 1994 BUT THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO W HETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THIS BALANCE-SHEET BEFOR E THE AO OR NOT AND ALSO THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE UTILIZA TION OF CASH IN HANDS AVAILABLE ON 31-03-1994/01-04-1995 IF ANY. T HE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO SOURCE OF THREE DEPOSITS IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ALSO BACK TO TH E FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 21 I FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF HIS BALANCE SHEET 9 ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND AS PER THE SAID BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.1 61 333.50 AS ON 31-03-1994. FURTHER I FIND TH AT REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT OF R S.1 30 000/- IN QUESTION. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN MY CONSIDE RED VIEW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING TH E DEPOSIT OF RS.1 30 000/.- AS UNEXPLAINED MERELY ON THE BASIS O F SUSPICION OR DOUBTS. THE APPROACH OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS CL EARLY UNSUSTAINABLE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH BALANCE OF RS.1 61 333.50 WITH HIM AS ON 31-03-1994 IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND AS NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SAID CASH WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE DEPOSITED RS.1 30 000/- OUT OF THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT C ANNOT BE REJECTED. I THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 30 000/- AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 22 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29-01-2010 SD/- (N S SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 29-01-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASHRAF H KATLARIWALA OLD VEGETABLE MARKET MOTA BAZAR DIDHIA TALAV NAVSARI 10 2. THE ITO WARD-1 NAVSARI 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABA