Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Narendra Anopsinh Jadeja, Surat vs Assessee on 16 August, 2007
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "B"
(BEFORE S/SHRI D T G AR ASI A,JM AND A N P AHUJ A,AM)
ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007
(Assessment Year:-2004-05)
Narendrasinh Anopsinh V/s The Income-tax Officer,
Jadeja,HUF, W ard-3(4),Aayakar Bhawan,
27, Panchratna Society-1, Majura Gate,Surat
Anand Mahal Road,
Rander, Surat
[PAN:AACHN3364G]
[Appellant] [Respondent]
Assessee by :- Shri Yogesh B Shah,AR
Revenue by:- Ms. Smiti Samant,DR
O R D E R
A N Pahuja: This appeal by the assessee against an order dated 16-08-2007 of the ld.CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat, raises the following grounds :-
1. The learned C.I.T (Appeals) has erred in estimating the Agricultural income shown by the assessee by confirming the addition of Rs.107458/-
being the difference between Agricultural expenses shown by the Assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer at 40% of the total Agriculture receipts, keeping in view the decision in the case of Dhirabhai L. Narola in I.T.A. No. 2190 and 2922/Ahd/2004 dated 17/09/2004, neither the Assessing Officer nor the C.I.T (Appeal) has taken trouble to provide the text of the decision or copy of the decision to the assessee. It is regarded that both the authorities has also omitted to narrate the decision in the body of order as to how this decision is applicable in our case. The said decision is not discussed in their respective orders.
2. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.491999/- made on the basis of difference between document price and valuation adapted by the Stamp Duty valuation cell in its notice. The addition is made on the basis of mere notice issued by the Stamp Duty valuation cell which has passed the final order after the date of assessment. The final order is written on the last page of original documents by the Stamp Duty valuation cell. Copies of the orders were submitted to the C.I.T Appeal along with the written submission as per ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 Annexure-D on pages 17 to 46. The learned C.I.T has not taken in to consideration the said order which is on the last pages of document and confirmed the addition, might be trough over sight and as such valuation of bungalows should be reduced to the valuation adopted for Stamp Duty propose by the Stamp Duty Authorities.
3. The Appellant may be permitted to raise, modify the grounds of appeal at the hearing stage."
2 Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts ,in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs.57,740/- filed on 8.12.2004, by the assessee, trading in lubricating oils & automobile parts, after being processed on 14.2.2005 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was selected for scrutiny with the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 13.6.2005 . During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] noticed that the assessee disclosed a net profit of Rs.57,740 from their business of trading in lubricating oil and automobile spare parts besides net agricultural income of Rs.4,35,941/-[LY-Rs. 95,730/-]. The agricultural expenses of Rs.1,11,530 shown by the assessee were 20.37% of the gross receipts. Since these expenses were low, relying on the decision dated 17.9.2004 of the ITAT in the case of Dhirubhai L. Naroia in ITA No.2190 and 2922/Ahd/2004, the AO asked the assessee to explain why the agricultural expenses should not be estimated @ 40% of the gross receipts. In response, the assessee submitted that in the preceding year no irrigation facility was available while the family being of farmers had vast experience in economising the expenses on agricultural activity. They had saved seeds and used natural fertilizers. Instead of using any machinery, they used man-power and animal-power to cultivate the land. However, the AO observed that irrigation facility was available to the assessee for 3.3 hectares, whereas the assessee owned 51 hectares. The assessee had grown cash crops for which they needed pesticides, fertilizers and manpower etc. The AO, therefore, rejected the submissions of the assessee and estimated the 2 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 expenses @ 40% of the gross receipts, which worked out to Rs.2,18,988/- as against Rs.1,11,530 disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the difference of Rs.1,07,458/- was added as income from undisclosed sources.
3 On appeal, the assessee submitted that they had explained before the AO that because of shortage of water, the agricultural activity was restricted to only 4 months of the monsoon and accordingly, expenses were also restricted to the said period. Even in earlier years, the expenses incurred were- approximately 20% of the gross receipts. The family were experienced farmers and had full knowledge of economic farming. Moreover, the AO having failed to provide the full text of the judgment of the Hon. ITAT in the case of Dhirubhai L. Narola (supra) , the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to defend itself against the proposed addition. In the light of these submissions, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition,holding as under:-
"6. I have carefully considered both the positions. If the AR's argument that the expenditure incurred in the earlier years was also restricted to around 20% of the gross agricultural receipts is to be accepted because of the reason that the agricultural activity is confined only to the 4 months of the monsoon season, then the AR ought to have also explained how the agricultural income had jumped so drastically from Rs.90,870 in the year relevant to AY 02-03 and Rs.95,970 in the AY 03-04, to Rs.4,35,941 in the year under consideration. The restriction in the period of agricultural activity would not only restrict the expenditure incurred but would also restrict the gross agricultural receipts. This has not been explained, even though the family may have been expert farmers. Further, no details of, the gross receipt, nor of the expenditure incurred was furnished before the AO. Therefore, in my opinion the ratio of the case of Dhirubhai L. Narola (supra) was squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee's case. Even if the full text of the decision in the said case, was not provided to the Assessee by the AO yet, from the citation provided by the AO, the Assessee could have easily obtained -the full text and, if not in assessment proceedings, the application or otherwise of the ratio of the said case could have been argued at least-in appellate proceedings. This has not been done. It is therefore only a very flimsy argument in an attempt to defend the assessee's case.
6.1 Thus, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the AO was fully justified in 3 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 estimating the expenses incurred on the agricultural activity of the Assessee at 40% of the gross receipt. The Assessee thus had overstated the agricultural income by the sum of Rs.1,07,458. The AO was fully justified in reducing the agricultural income disclosed by the Assessee by the said amount and treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. The AO's action is sustained."
4 The assessee is now in appeal before us. At the outset, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that on similar facts and circumstances, the ITAT vide their decision dated 26-02-2008 in the case of Mahavirsinh Anopsinh Jadeja in ITA No.3598/Ahd/2007 for the AY 2004-05, limited the expenses to 30% of gross agricultural receipts while distinguishing the decision of the ITAT relied upon by the AO. On the other hand, The learned DR, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
5 W e have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the decisions relied upon by both the parties. W e find that the ITAT after considering the decision of the ITAT in the case of Dhirubhai L. Narola (supra) for the AY 2001-02 in the case of Mahavirsinh Anopsinh Jadeja in ITA No.3598/Ahd/2007,vide their order dated 26-02-2008, held as under:
"5. In the written submissions, the assessee submitted that there is no such rule that expenditure must be 40% of the receipts. There is also no formula in the Act for determining the expenditure. As regards the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola (supra), it was submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the facts of that case are distinguishable by stating in its letter dated 13.11.2006, which reads as under:-
"1. We are born farmers. Our fam'ly consists of members who themselves do the work of agriculture as done by labourer. This saves the expenses of labour charges. We also preserve seeds and seeds of previous years' crops put in the use for current years' agriculture operation, which saves considerable amount which is incurred for obtaining seeds. There also a considerable savings on fertilizer as we use gobar as fertilizer, which costs us nil as it is product of our cows. We also use manpower and animal power to cultivate the land which is cheaper than mechanized farming (noted in Namuna 7/12 as Gharkhed Land). We are aware of economic 4 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 farming as we have established method of farming which is cheaper and cost effective.
2. We also have water facility of our own. So there is lower expenses for obtaining water.
3. It must be respectfully submitted that HUF has land admeasuring vinghas i.e., it is a big holding of land. So expenses are also divided on such bulk quantity land. Certain expenses are fixed by nature whether the size of plot is big or small in our case such fixed expenses are divided results in cost reduction."
6. The written submissions of the assessee are considered and the arguments raised by the Learned D.R in defense are gone through. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola (supra) cannot be applied mechanically and as stated by the assessee, they are born farmers and themselves doing the agricultural activities as done by the labourers in other case. It saved the expenditure on that account. Besides the manpower, the assessee had used animal power to cultivate the land which is cheaper than mechanized farming. In these facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would meet if the expenditure is estimated at 30% instead of 40% adopted by the AO. We, therefore, make an ad-hoc addition of Rs.40,000/- to the total income of the assessee."
5.1 In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decision relevant for the AY 2004-05, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the expenditure is estimated at 30% instead of 40% adopted by the AO& the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of a decision relevant for the AY 2001-02. Thus, ground no.1 in the appeal is allowed to that extent.
6 As regards ground no.2, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased vide deed executed on 18.3.2004,bunglow no.165 & 166 at Kawasjinagar, Badrinarayan Temple Road, Adajan, Surat from Smt. Geetaben Parmar and Shri Prakashbhai Parmar through their Power of Attorney holder Shri Nikhilesh D.Rampuria for a consideration of Rs.4,91,999 for each of the bunglow. The AO further observed that the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer had estimated the value of each bunglow at Rs.7,31,541/- and had, thus, raised demand for 5 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 additional stamp duty of Rs.26,740 and a penalty of Rs.250 for each bunglow. In response to a show-cause notice, proposing to adopt purchase consideration as estimated by the Stamp Duty valuation Officer and addition of undisclosed investment of. Rs.2,39,542 (Rs.7,31,541 - 4,91,999) for each bunglow u/s sec.69 of the Act, the assessee replied that they had raised an objection before the AO against the valuation made by the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer and until the matter was decided by the Dy Collector, no addition could be made. However, the AO rejected the assessee's submissions on the ground that the bunglows were located very close to the Sardar Bridge on the Adajan side, and were surrounded by temples, schools, other apartments and gardens and therefore, the valuation made by the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer @ Rs.2,500 per sq. mtr. was quite reasonable. Since the assessee had not objected to the demand raised by the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer prior to the show-cause notice issued by the AO, the AO added an amount of Rs.2,39,542 x 2 = 4,79,084 by way of undisclosed investment of the assessee u/s Sec.69 of the IT Act.
7 On appeal, the assessee contended that the value of each bunglow was finally determined by the Stamp duty valuation officer at Rs.6,06,451 each and therefore, difference reduced to only Rs.1,14,452 between the document price of Rs.4,91,999 and the value finally determined by the valuation cell. Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the addition of Rs.4,79,084 may be reduced to Rs.2,28,904 (l,14,452x 2). However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO holding as under:
"10. I have carefully considered the findings and conclusions of the AO and the submissions of the AR. To begin with, I find that the order of the valuation ceil which the AR has claimed to have received and; which allegedly had reduced the final price of each bunglow to Rs.6,06,451, and the copies of which have been claimed to have been annexed to the written submission as per Annexure-D, pages 17 to 46, are nothing but copies of the sale deeds indicating the purchase price of Rs.4,91,499 for 6 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 each bunglow. This clearly shows that the AR has blatantly attempted to mislead on facts. He has also made a false and .baseless claim that the order of the valuation cell had been' received whereas, it is clearly seen that no such order has been received by the Assessee, at least none has been furnished in course of the appellate feedings. Thus, the AO was fully justified in relying upon the valuation of the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer of Rs.7,31,541 or each bungalow. This meant that the Assessee had understated the purchase consideration by the sum of Rs.2,39,542 (Rs,7,31,541 - 4,91,999). The total undisclosed investment was therefore rightly worked out by the at Rs.2,39,542 x 2 = 4,79,084. The action taken by the AO was based purely on the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer.
10.1 The Assessee claimed to have raised objection against the valuation. As correctly pointed out by the AO, the objection was raised after detection by the AO of the understatement. The show-cause notice was issued by the AO on 17.10.2006. The demand for additional stamp duty was raised vide notice dated 22.6.2004. Till the time of issue of the show-cause notice i.e., for more than 2 years, the Assessee did not find, it necessary to raise any objection against the valuation made by the Stamp Duty Officer. It was only after the Assessee received the show-cause notice, that it raised the objection on 24.11.2006. The facts of the case would thus clearly show that both in assessment proceedings, and in appellate proceedings the Assessee and the AR have made deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the facts. The AO further reinforced the valuation of the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer by noting that both the bunglows had very advantageous location, on the Adajan side of the Sardar Bridge and were surrounded by temples, schools, gardens and all other amenities. It was absolutely clear therefore, that the purchase consideration had been grossly understated.
10.2 Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO was fully justified in adding the sum of Rs.4,79,084 as undisclosed investment of the assessee, under the provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act."
8 The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee while reiterating their contentions before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee purchased following immovable properties during the year:-
Sr. No. Bunglow Address Purchase Date on Details of No. Price which Sale Registration Deed were 7 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 executed 1 165 Kawasji 491999.00 18/3/2004 2885 Nagar, dated Badri 19/3/2004 Narayan Temple Road, Adajan Surat 2 166 Kawasji 491991.00 18/3/2004 2886 Nagar, dated Badra 19/3/2004 Narayan Temple Road, Adajan Surat The Deputy Collector, The Stamp Duty Valuation Cell, Surat City- 1 estimated the value of each bunglow as under and he issued a notice requiring us to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.26,740 with fine Rs. 250.
Bunglow No. Estimation made by Document Difference between the Stamp duty Price Estimation of Stamp Valuation Officer in Duty Officer and notice Document Price 165 7,31,541.00 4,91,999.00 2,39,542.00 166 7,31,541.00 4,91,999.00 2,39,542.00 Total 4,79,084.00 On their objections, the valation cell determined the valuation as under: .
Bungalow No. Document Price finally determined by Difference
Price the Valuation Cell
8
ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007
165 4,91,999.00 6,06,451.00 1,14,452.00
166 4,91,999.00 6,06,451.00 1,14,452.00
TOTAL 2,28,904.00
Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the addition of Rs.4,79,084.00 may be reduced to Rs.2,28,904.00.The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities.
9. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the AO made the addition only on the basis of valuation of bunglows made by the Stamp duty valuation authorities without bringing any material on record that the value determined for the purposes of stamp duty was the actual consideration passed between the parties to the sale. We find that a co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in a decision dated 20.02.2008 in the case of Bharatkumar N Patel Vs ACIT, Circle-.3, Surat in ITA No.1749/AHD/2008 while adjudicating a similar issue held in the following terms:
"10. After careful consideration of the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of law as well as decision(s) of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Benches relied upon by the parties, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition by drawing the analogical provisions of section 50-C of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition by observing that if this proposition to be accepted, then the deeming provisions of section 50-C of the Act will become inoperable. He, further held that section 50-C of the Act is applicable to the seller and provides that the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to be deemed as the consideration received by the seller. Having said so, the CIT (Appeals) further held that "The converse will also have to be accepted as true, i.e. the valuation of stamp valuation authority will have to be deemed as the consideration paid by the purchaser of the property as well."
10.1 We are unable to agree with the aforesaid analogy drawn by the CIT(Appeals) because had the legislature intended so, it could have easily specified such a proposition in the provision itself.
11. In view of the settled proposition of law that the appellate authority has no right either to add or to delete any word from the 9 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 provisions of law unless and until the same are found to be having some ambiguity, we are unable to sustain the stand of the CIT(Appeals), there being no ambiguity in the section 50-C of the Act, we are of the opinion that these provisions are not applicable to be purchaser."
9.1 Another co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in their decision dated 24.7.2009 in the case of Jalaram and Co. in ITA No.3964/Ahd/2008 while adjudicating a similar issue, concluded as under:
"6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The only issue involved is whether difference between apparent consideration recorded in the transfer deed and valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authorities for levying stamp duty can be treated as undisclosed investment to be taxed u/S 69. In our considered view, this presumption raised by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) cannot be legally sustained. Section 50C creates a legal fiction thereby apparent consideration is substituted by valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities and capital gains are calculated accordingly. Legal fiction cannot be extended any further and has to be limited to the area for which it is created. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Durgamma P. (1987) 167 1TR 776 (AP) held that it is not possible to extend the fiction beyond the field legitimately intended by the statute. The Hon'ble court was dealing with the provisions of sec. 171(1) of the I.T.Act in the context of which it was held that joint family shall be deemed to continue for the limited purpose of assessing cases of joint families which have been hitherto assessed as such. It Is not possible to extend that fiction to other cases. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerla High Court in CIT v. Kar Valves Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 416 (Ker.) wherein it is held that legal fiction is limited to the purpose for which they are created and could not be extended beyond that legitimate frame, Hon'ble Kerala High Court was dealing with the case where assessee sought to take advantage of sec.41(2) by submitting that if liabilities are not liquidated and outstandings are not collected, then business could be deemed to continue. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Krishna Kumar Devi (1988) 173 ITR 561 (All) held that in interpreting the legal fiction the court should ascertain the purpose for which it was created and after doing so assume all facts which are logical to give effect to the fiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) held that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and they must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. In CIT v, Bharani Pictures (1981) 129 ITR 244 (Mad,) it is held that legal fictions are for a definite purpose and are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond its legitimate field. Statutory fiction introduced in one enactment cannot be incorporated in other Act. The point that legal fiction cannot be extended to a new field 10 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 was highlighted by Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Rajam T.S, (1988) 125 ITR 207(Mad,) wherein it is held that section 41(2) creates a legal fiction under which the balancing charge is treated as business income chargeable to tax but when this amount is distributed to shareholders then it would not become deemed dividend and it would be only a capital receipt and not distribution of accumulated profits. Thus, a legal fiction was invoked in the hands of the assessee company and was not extended in the hands of the shareholders.
7. In the present case, section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities as undisclosed investment U/s 69. In fact, section 69 itself is a legal fiction whereby investment into an asset is treated as income if it is not disclosed in the regular books of account. No further legal fiction from elsewhere in the statute can be borrowed to extend the field of section 69. It is for the legislature to introduce legal fiction to overcome difficulty in taxing certain receipts or expenditure which otherwise was not possible under normal provisions of the Act. It is with this purpose that when it was found difficult to prevent tax evasion by understating apparent sale consideration as compared to the valuation made by Stamp Valuation Authorities for the purposes of levying stamp duty then it was thought necessary to introduce section 50C for substituting apparent sale consideration by valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities. This fiction cannot be extended any further and, therefore, cannot be invoked by Assessing Officer to tax the difference in the hands of the purchaser.
8. Hon'ble Madras High Court in CGT v, R. Damodaran (2001) 247 ITR 698 held that Stamp Valuation Authorises have their own method of evaluating the property. Merely because for the purpose of stamp duty, property is valued at higher cost, it cannot be said that assesses has made more payment than what is stated in the sale deed. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kurnar Mittal v. ITO (1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.) quashed the order of authorities below, wherein half of the difference between the amount paid and the value for purposes of stamp duty was added as income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. It is held that there is no rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purposes of stamp duty is the actual consideration passed between the parties to the sale, I,TAT, SMC Ahmedabad in ITA No. 4120/Ahd/2003 in Nisnaben Aminbhai Mithani deleted the addition made u/s 69 on account of difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities after following various authorities as referred to as above.
As a result, we delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee."
11 ITA No.3951/Ahd/20079.2 Similar view was taken in their decisions in Richa Naresh Jain Vs. ITO,ITA no.3997/ Ahd./ 2008 as also in the decision dated 11.12.2009 in the case of ITO vs.Smt. Kusum Gilani in ITA no. 1576/Del./2008 and ITO vs.OPTEC Disc Manufacturing, 11 DTr (CHD)(Trib) 264. Moreover, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in their decision in the case of CIT Vs. Krishan Kumar & Others, 315 ITR 204(Raj), held that it becomes a pure question of fact, as to whether the consideration shown in the document of conveyance, is the actual amount paid by way of consideration, to be taken to be undisclosed income of the assessee, or it is a deflated figure, and therefore, addition is required to be made. If it is taken to be deflated figure, then it is for the Department to lead positive evidence, about the fair market value of the property, and further to show, that the property was undervalued in the document of sale, before making any addition in the income, on that count.
9.3 As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Mother India refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. ,155 ITR 711(SC) while referring to their decision in Bengal Immunity company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 2 SCR 603, 606 ; 6 STC 446, it is well settled that the legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. Provisions of sec. 50C falling under the Chapter 'Capital Gains' were enacted with a specific purpose of determining the full value of consideration in case of transfer of immovable property for the purpose of sec. 48 of the Act. In the absence of any evidence that the assessee paid consideration higher than stated in the purchase deed , provisions of sec. 50C can not be extended while making additions u/s 69B of the Act.
9.4 Admittedly, in the present case, apart from relying upon the rates adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority, there is no other material to support the addition. In our opinion, rates adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority cannot be taken, by itself, as the price, for which the property was purchased. In view thereof and in the light of aforesaid decisions of the ITAT and of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are 12 ITA No.3951/Ahd/2007 reversed and the AO is directed to delete the addition . Therefore, ground no. 2 in the appeal is allowed.
10. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no.3 in the appeal of the assessee, accordingly, this ground is dismissed.
11 In the result, appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court today on 22 -03-2010 Sd/- Sd/-
(D T G AR ASI A) (A N P AHUJ A) JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date : 22 -03-2010 Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. Narendrasinh Anopsinh Jadeja - HUF, 27, Panchratna Society-1, Anand Mahal Road, Rander, Surat
2. The ITO, W ard-3(4), Surat
3. CIT concerned
4. CIT(A)-II, Surat
5. The DR, ITAT,B Bench Ahmedabad
6. Guard File BY ORDER Deputy Registrar Assistant Registrar ITAT, AHMEDABAD 13