Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Maldeep Catalysts Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat vs Assessee on 18 September, 2008
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "D"
Before SHRI D K TYAGI, JM & SHRI A N P AHUJ A, AM
ITA no.3708/Ahd/2008
(Assessment Year:-2005-06)
Maldeep Catalysts Pvt. V/s Deputy Commissioner of
Ltd., 3, Harikunj, Udhna Income-tax, Circle-1, Room
Industrial Estate, S V P no. 108,Aayakar Bhavan,
Road No.3, Udhna, Surat Majura Gate,Surat
PAN: AABCM 6306 M
[Appellant] [Respondent]
ITA no.3911/Ahd/2008
(Assessment Year:-2005-06)
Deputy Commissioner of V/s Maldeep Catalysts Pvt. Ltd.,
Income-tax, Circle-1, Surat 3, Harikunj, Udhna
Industrial Estate, S V P
Road No.3, Udhna, Surat
[Appellant] [Respondent]
Assessee by :- Shri J P Shah, AR
Revenue by:- Shri U S Raina, DR
O R D E R
A N Pahuja: These cross appeals directed against an order dated 18-09-2008 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Surat, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06, raise the following grounds:-
ITA No.3708/ Ahd/2008[Assessee] 1 "That on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs.5,12,341/- as made by the AO, which is absolutely incorrect and bad in law, requiring outright deletion.
2 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, and modify any or all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing."
ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 ITA No.3911/ Ahd/2008[Revenue] [1] "On the fact, and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in holding that the formula used by the A.O. cannot give a correct picture as he has not taken into account the mixing of M.T.O., a finished product, before the same is sold without appreciating the fact that M.T.O. is mixed in varied quantity giving more yield as discussed by the A.O. in the assessment order on Page No.3 [2] On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in holding that the A.O. has adopted wrong basis for calculation of production without appreciating the fact that the A.O, has worked out the calculation of excess consumption of raw materials and has well discussed in the order of assessment itself.
[3] On the feet and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.35;97,603/- and Rs.52,01,771/- on account of excess consumption of raw materials.
[4] On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law,, the learned CIT(A)-I, Surat has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs.18,10,372/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any evidence before the A.O. which may prove the 'nature of services rendered, if any, by the so called two commission agents viz. M/s. Kapadia Enterprise and M/s. Complex Marketing Corporation [5] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue.
[6] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that the Order of the Assessing Officer be restored."
2. Adverting first to ground nos.1 to 3 in the appeal of the Revenue, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs.63,70,830/- filed on 30-10-2005 by the assessee, manufacturing paint driers, after being processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, on 7-7-2006.During the course of assessment 2 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 proceedings, the Assessing Officer [AO in short] noticed that the assessee manufactured the following chemicals:-
(a) Cobalt Octoate
(b) Lead Octoate
(c) Zirconium Octoate
(d) Manganese Octoate
(e) Zinc Octoate
(f) Calcium Octoate
2.1. To a query by the AO seeking chemical formulae for the
manufacture for the aforesaid chemicals, the assessee provided details of products with formulae. The AO noticed that the raw material used to produce 1000 Kg. of the final product, revealed as under:-
Sr . Nam e of At om ic RM 1 RM 1 At om ic RM 2 RM 2No . th e f in a l W eigh r eq u ir ed r eq u ir ed W eight r eq u ir ed r eq u ir ed pr o d uc t of th e as p er t he as p er t he of th e as p er t he as p er t he Ma i n c a lc u l at i on c a lc u l at i on Ma i n c a lc u l at i on c a lc u l at i on RM 1 g i ve n by g i ve n by RM 2 g i ve n by g i ve n by th e th e th e th e As s es s e e As s es s e e As s es s e e As s es s e e to pr o d uc e to pr o d uc e to pr o d uc e to pr o d uc e 1 MT of 1 MT of 1 MT of 1 MT of FG - As FG - As FG As per FG As per per per s ubm is s i on s ubm is s i on s ubm is s i on s ubm is s i on da t ed 23- da t ed 23-
da t ed 23- da t ed 21- 10- 2 0 07 10- 2 0 07
10- 2 0 07 11- 2 0 07
1 Co b al t 33 2 62 5 65 0 28 0 .9 3 40 0 57 4
O c to a te
2 Le a d 28 8 41 5 29 0 22 3 .2 0 40 0 41 0
O c to a te
3 Zi nc 28 8 42 5 36 5 81 . 38 15 5 14 8
O c to a te
4 Zir c o ni um 28 8 31 5 52 0 30 1 .2 2 60 0 61 5
O c to a te
5 Ca lc i um 28 8 48 0 49 0 74 . 08 10 0 10 0
O c to a te
6 Ma n ga n es e 33 2 55 0 58 5 54 6 .9 4 28 5 10 1 5
O c to a te
2.2 Since the assessee admitted before the AO that the
quantitative data as submitted by them on 23-10-2007 was incorrect, the AO after analyzing the components of chemicals manufactured by the assessee, concluded as under:-3
ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 a. "Over the assessment hearings, the assessee has been giving out varied data as explained in the footnote 1, on the page 3 & 4 of the assessment order.
b. The molecular weight etc. were calculated and confronted to the assessee and he has clarified that the formula as calculated by the department is correct.
c. Even if the assessee were to be given the set off for the yield purpose, it can be as per his submissions and personal discussion to the tune of25% only. This is being done to counter the argument of the assessee regarding the scaling of the stochiometric reaction to the production level where many of the factors like temperature, pressure etc. will make difference.
d. The queries have been raised from the data provided by the assessee during the submission made. The assessee as per the letter dated 02-11-2007 has provided the quantities required for the production of one MT of the finished products. It must be carefully noted that the quantities of the materials, which are not costly, are generally matching with the molecular weight wise consumption figures. It is only the costly materials where the figures are going haywire."
2.3 On the basis of charts of the consumption and the comparison for the main raw material i.e. Octoic Acid and the second Raw material, mentioned in para 2.6(f) of the assessment order, the AO concluded that there was a mismatch in the consumption figures and the actual figures, which could not be explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the excess consumption of the Octoic Acid of Rs.35,97,603 and other raw materials of Rs.52,01,771 was disallowed and added to the income .
3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition in the following terms:-
"2.3.1 I have considered the submission made by the appellant and the observation of the A.O. The appellant has stated that a fixed quantity of finished product is produced when the two raw-materials are chemically reacted, The reaction is based on molecular weight of finished products vis-a-vis molecular weight of raw material. However, the final product is mixed with MTO before it is sold to the customers. The second 4 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 argument of the appellant is that the Excise Department and Sales-tax Department has not found any objection. The third argument of the appellant is that the A.O. has wrongly calculated the formulas and averages and, therefore, the addition made is wrong. The appellant further stated that average conversion ratio of 0.81 as calculated by it in the table given above matches with the average mentioned in the Tax Audit Report. The appellant stated that the A.O. has calculated the average conversion ratio of 0.95 which is actually on the basis of value.
The correct ratio is 0.81 which is on the basis of quantity. In view of this reason, the argument of the appellant appears to be correct that the A.O. has adopted a wrong basis for calculating production. The basis for production cannot be value of raw material, it has to be quantity.
2.3.2 As regards calculation of the A.O., if the finished product is mixed with turpentine oil in varying quantity before selling the same then the theory of fixed amount of raw material producing fixed amount of finished products does not survive. In view of this reason, the calculations of the A.O. become totally wrong. The Director of the appellant has stated that in the finished product is varying quantities. This means that if the finished product is mixed with more turpentine oil then this will be giving more yield. Hence the yield cannot be calculated as done by the A.O. without finding out the ratio in which MTO was mixed with each product in the same way as milk production cannot be found out from the sale of milk if the water is mixed with the milk and the quantity of the water mixed is not known. In the present case also, the appellant has been mixing MTO in varying quantities with the finished products before selling the same to the customers. The formulas used by the A Q, cannot give the correct picture because he has not taken into account the mixing of MTO with the finished product before the same is sold. The formulas also do not give correct picture because the A.O. has adopted the ratio of 0.95 instead of 0.81, The appellant argued that as per the settled position of law no addition can be made solely on the basis of formula without rejecting the books of account. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Jaipur in the case of ITO Vs. Quality Chemicals (1998) 61 TTJ (JP) 395, wherein the Hon'ble I.T.AT. held as under:-
"The very fundamental principle under the IT Act has to be appreciated that income has to be determined as per book of account and not as per chemical formula. If the books are such from which correct income cannot be determined, or if there are sufficient reasons in the form of some material which point towards suppression of production, then, in addition, the AO should support his finding by an opinion of the expert. But merely by itself, neither a person who is an expert in a field other than accounts, nor a chemical formula can help one to conclude that the accounts are defective and do not give a true picture about the income. The CIT(A) has given very sound reasons to delete the addition. The deletion is sustained.'' 5 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 In view of the above, I agree with the appellant that the chemical formula cannot be made on basis of addition without bringing any material on record to show that there was actually an excess consumption or inflation of purchase or suppression of production.
2.3.3 Further, it is seen that the books of account have not been rejected by the AO and as per the settled position of law addition cannot be made to the book results either by way of excess unaccounted consumption or excess production unless the books are rejected or there is some 'material evidence on record to show that the production of finished goods or consumption of raw material was more than shown by the appellant, In the present case, there is no material available on record regarding excess production of finished goads or even excess consumption raw materials. In this regard, the decisions of the various Courts can be seen as under:-
(i) In the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of St. Teresa's Oil Mills (76-ITR-365) the Hon'ble Court has held that unreliability; incorrectness or incompleteness of the account books have to be shown by the Department before rejecting the same and mere disparity in consumption of electricity in certain months cannot be the reason for rejection of books arid for addition.
(ii) In the decision of the Hon'ble LT.A.T., Ahmedabad in the case of Babul Products (62-ITD-179) the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. held that where there is no evidence of sale of silver foil or that silver foil had been purchased from undisclosed sources there cannot be addition for excess consumption or excess stock.
(iii) In the decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T,. Anmedabad in the case of Nutan Tobacco Pvt. Ltd, (85-ITD-34) the Hon'ble I.T.A.T, held that the assessee having maintained correct and complete books of account on the basis of the method of accounting regularly employed and followed a reasonable method of valuation of Bardana, addition on account of excess consumption of Bandana arid sale of Bardana were not justified, estimate of consumption of Bardana made by the A.O. 'being factually and apparently incorrect.
(iv) In the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Siddheshwari Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (117-ITR-953) the Hon'ble High Court stated that if the ITO has not rejected the books of account it cannot be assumed that the ITO had considered and rejected the books because it would be speculative assumption. The Hon'ble High Court held that there was no material to hold that extra wastage was utilized by the assessee and that the extra production was sold at a certain rate. In view of this, since the books of account have not been rejected expressly in the assessment order it cannot be presumed that the books of account are deemed to be rejected and, therefore, since the books of accounts are not rejected no addition can be made as the A.O. has brought no material on record 6 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 to show that there was excess purchase of raw material or excess production of finished products.
2.3.4 In view of the above reasons, I agree with the appellant that the chemical formula cannot be made the basis of addition as decided by the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Jaipur and the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Ahmedabad in the cases cited above without rejecting the books of account and without bringing any material on record for having made unaccounted purchase or for making unaccounted sales. Hence, the addition made by the AO is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed."
4. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). The learned DR supported the order of the AO while the learned AR on behalf of the assessee supported the findings of the learned CIT(A).W hile referring to page-8 &11 to 14 of the impugned order, the ld. AR contended that the AO adopted incorrect ratio while working out the addition. Even otherwise the books having not been rejected by the AO, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, the ld. AR added.
5. W e have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the AO adopted an incorrect method for calculating the production, having calculated the average conversion ratio of 0.95 on the basis of value instead on the basis of quantity. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the basis for production could not be the value of raw material, but quantity only, especially when turpentine oil was mixed in varying quantity with each product and the AO did not take into account the factor of mixing of MTO with the finished product. Even other wise, without pointing out any defect in the books and without establishing that there was actually excess consumption or inflation of purchase or suppression of production nor having an expert opinon, chemical formulae can not be the sole basis for addition. The decision of the ITAT in Quality Chemicals (supra) relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) supports this view. Undisputedly, the assessee is maintaining the books of accounts and no defects have been pointed out by the AO in the purchases or sales and even in the expenses. There is no finding or opinion either that the records were incorrect and incomplete or that the method applied was such that the income could not be 7 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 deduced from the accounts maintained by the assessee. Simply on the basis of an axiomatic chemical formulae, without any defects in the books of accounts, when the method of accounting has consistently been adopted by the assessee, addition could not be sustained. It is difficult to catalogue various types of defects in the account books of an assessee which may render rejection of accounts on the ground that accounts are not complete from which the correct profit cannot be deduced. The ld. CIT(A) found that no defects were pointed out by the AO in the books nor any such defects have been brought to our notice. The ld. DR did not refer us to any material controverting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitbhai Gunwantbhai, 129 ITR 573 held that if there was no challenge to the transactions represented in the books then it is not open to Revenue to contend that what is shown by the entries is not the real state of affairs. Secondly, even if for some reason, the books are rejected it is not open to the AO to make any addition on estimate basis or on pure guess work. The burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs is not the real one is very heavy on the Department [Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT,144 ITR 352(Karn) affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 230 ITR 580]. No material has been placed before us to doubt the nature of the transactions recorded in the books and as mentioned by the ld. CIT(A), no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee have been pointed out nor was any material brought to our notice to establish that purchases were inflated or receipts suppressed. In these circumstances , there was no justification in estimating the profits [ Vikram Plastics,239 ITR 161(Guj) . In view of the foregoing, especially when there is no material before us for taking a different view in the matter while purchases of raw material and sales have not been doubted at all, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
6. Adverting now to ground no.4 in the appeal of the Revenue and ground no.1 in the appeal of the assessee, relying on his findings in the assessment order for AY 2004-05 and in the absence of any evidence of services rendered by the recipients of 8 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 commission to the assessee in the year under consideration, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.23,98,378/- on account of commission paid to the following five parties:-
Sr. Name and Address of the PAN Amount
No. agent (Rs.)
1 Complex Marketing AGVPS 8912 J 6,97,911
Corporation, S R Petrol
Pump, College Road,
Nadiad-387 007
2 Pheno-Chem Industries, AATPK 0280 H 4,80,359
13/6, East Punjabi Baugh,
New Delhi-110 026
3 Kapadia Enterprise, (Prop. AACPK 57449 11,12,461
Ketan Kapadia), 6,
Hanuman Building, 67,
Tambakanta, Pydhonie,
Bombay-400 003
4 Amar Chemicals AALEA 4362 Q 9,924
D No.11-52/1-33/B,
Immampanja Street, Main
Road, Vijaywada-520 001
5 Scorpion Enterprise, 47, AAEFS 1329 L 22,058
Mukund Nagar, Opp. D S K
'Chandradeep', Silver Oak',
Pune-411037
6 Misc. Trade Discount 75,665
Total 23,98,378
7. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) while relying upon his own findings for the assessment year 2004-05, concluded as under:-
"3.3 I have considered the submission made by the appellant and the observation of the A.O. While deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, the CIT(A) had considered this issue and had allowed the commission in respect of Kapadia Enterprise and Camplex Marketing Corporation as per the following decision:-
"3.3 I have considered the submission made by the appellant and observation of the AO. The appellant has shown commission payment of M/s Pheno Chem Industries, M/s Kapadia Enterprises, M/s Camplex Marketing Corporation and M/s Scorpion Enterprises. With respect to Kapadia Enterprises and Camplex Marketing Corporation, M/s Asian Paints 9 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 Ltd. and Berger Paints India Ltd. have confirmed that they are the agents through whom they have made purchases from the assessee company. Therefore in respect of these two parties the proof that they are commission agents has been established. However, there is no evidence that Pheno Chem Industries or Scorpion Enterprise were agents at all because the AO has stated has that the invoices are not believable because they seem to have been tampered with. The appellant has not proved what services have been rendered by Pheno Chem Industries and Scorpion Enterprises and therefore commission payment in respect of Pheno Chem Industries and Scorpion Enterprises has been rightly disallowed by the AO, In view of the above reasons the disallowance made by the AO of commission payment in respect of Pheno Chem Industries and Scorpion Enterprise is confirmed and the commission payment in respect of Kapadis Enterprise and Camp/ex Marketing Corporation is deleted. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed."
Since the facts in the current year are same, therefore, following the decision of A.Y. 2004-05, the commission paid to M/s. Kapadia Enterprise and M/s. Camplex Marketing Corporation is allowed. However, there is no evidence that Pheno Chem Industries, Amar Chemicals or Scorpion Enterprise were agents at all because the AO has stated has that the invoices are not believable because they seem to have been tampered with. The appellant has not proved what services have been rendered by Pheno Chem Industries, Amar Chemicals and Scorpion Enterprises and therefore commission payment in respect of Pheno Chem Industries, Amar Chemicals and Scorpion Enterprises has been rightly disallowed by the AO. In view of the above reasons the disallowance made by the AO of commission payment in respect of Pheno Chem Industries, Amar Chemicals and Scorpion Enterprise is confirmed. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is partly allowed."
8. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A), upholding the disallowance to the extent of R.5,12,341/- on account of commission to M/s Pheno Chem Industries, Amar Chemicals and Scorpion Enterprise while the Revenue is in appeal against deletion of the remaining amount. The learned AR on behalf of the assessee while carrying us through pages 11 to 15 of the paper book contended that M/s Pheno Chem Industries was a consignment agent and their confirmation along with PAN had been furnished. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition. To a query by the Bench, the learned AR did not confirm as to whether or not the documents placed at page 13 to 15 of the paper book were filed before the AO. On the other 10 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 hand, the learned DR contended that in view of tampering of sales invoices and in the absence of any evidence of services rendered by the recipients of commission, the AO was justified in making the addition. To a query by the Bench, the learned AR submitted a copy of the order dated 11-06-2010 of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench [Camp at Surat] in the assessee's own case for the AY 2004-05 in ITA nos.3071-3075/Ahd/2008 and pointed out that the matter relating to payment of commission had been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.
9. W e have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. W e find that out of aforesaid five parties, commission was paid to M/s Camplex Marketing Corporation, M/s Kapadia Enterprises ,M/s Pheno Chem Industries, and M/s Scorpion Enterprises in the preceding year also. Though the learned CIT(A) had upheld the disallowances on account of payment of commission to M/s Pheno Chem Industries and M/s Scorpion Enterprises in the preceding year while deleting the disallowance of commission to the remaining two parties, on appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, ITAT, vide their aforesaid order dated 11.6.2010, restored the matter of payment of commission to the file the AO for fresh adjudication with the following directions:-
"17. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view matter is required to have a relook by the Assessing Officer as fresh evidence has been furnished before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals) as pointed out by learned Authorised Representative in the documents before us. Even though there is tempering on the invoices but if buyers have actually purchased the goods from the assessee during the agents then tempering should not come in the way to allow the claim. However, it is to be seen as to what the agents have done for the assessee. Copy of the correspondence by the assessee with the agents and by the agents with the buyers should be produced. Copy of the agency agreement should be examined so as to find out the nature of services to be rendered by the agents to the assessee and whether such services have actually been rendered to the assessee. If the evidence indicated that what is recorded in the agreement 11 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 about the nature of the services is actually .performed by the agents, then payment of commission should be allowed. Confirmation by the buyers that they have made purchases through the agents is one evidence and can be treated as one of the services rendered by the agents to the assessee, But, it all depends upon the terms mentioned in the agency agreement. To the extent services mentioned in the agency agreement are performed by the agents, payment of commission should be allowed. Therefore, for considering the issue afresh we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee will extend full cooperation to the Assessing Officer who will provide him opportunity of being heard. As a result this ground in assessee's appeal and in Revenue's appeal are allowed, but for statistical purposes."
10. Indisputably, the facts & circumstances relating to the payment of commission to the aforesaid four parties viz. M/s Camplex Marketing Corporation, M/s Kapadia Enterprises ,M/s Pheno Chem Industries, and M/s Scorpion Enterprises are similar to the facts obtaining in the preceding year while the paper book filed before us reveals that relevant certificates[pg.13 to 15 of PB] from three parties were placed only before the ld. CIT(A). It is not known as to whether or not these documents were before the AO at the time of completion of the assessment nor the learned CIT(A) have referred to these documents in the impugned order. In these circumstances, especially when issue of commission has been restored to the file of the AO in the preceding year, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue relating to payment of commission to the aforesaid four parties to the file of the AO for readjudication in accordance with law and in the light of directions of the ITAT in their order dated 11.6.2010 for the AY 2004-05 and of course after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
11. As regards the payment of commission to M/s Amar Chemicals, the learned AR did not make any submissions before us nor referred us to any evidence of services rendered by the said party to the assessee. Since the assessee failed to furnish any evidence of services rendered by the said party to the assessee, before the lower authorities and even before us, we have no hesitation in 12 ITA nos.3708 & 3911/A/08 upholding the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of commission to M/s Amar Chemicals. W ith these observations, ground no.4 in the appeal of the Revenue and ground no.1 in the appeal of the assessee are disposed of.
12. Ground nos.5 & 6 in the appeal of the Revenue being mere prayer, do not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeal of the assessee, these grounds are dismissed.
13. No other plea or argument was made before us.
14. In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and that filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court today on 18-03-2011 Sd/- Sd/-
(D K TYAGI) (A N P AHUJ A) JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 18 -03-2011 Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Maldeep Catalysts Pvt. Ltd., 3, Harikunj, Udhna Industrial Estate, S V P Road No.3, Udhna, Surat
2. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Surat
3. CIT concerned
4. CIT(A)-I, Surat
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench-D, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File BY ORDER Deputy Registrar Assistant Registrar ITAT, AHMEDABAD 13