Satya Sankalp Villa(Ellisbridge) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

CO 135/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6319 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1937/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) ITO, WARD 8(1), AHMEDABAD VS. SATYA SANKALP VILLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT. LTD., DHARAMDEV HOUSE, SHYMAL CROSS ROAD, AHMEDABAD. C.O. NO. 135/AHD/2009 IN I.T.A.NO. 1937/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) SATYA SANKALP VILLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT. LTD., VS. IT O, WARD 8(1), DHARAMDEV HOUSE, SHYMAL CROSS ROAD, AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AAICS2707B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S K GUPTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.09.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION I S FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 17.04.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 2 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. TH E GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1) THE LD. CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,79,649/- AND 28,35,30 0/- MADE ON A/C OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SHOWN I N THE SALE DEED AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. 3. THE FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE TILL THE ASSESSME NT STAGE ARE NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6.1 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS RE PRODUCED BELOW: 6.1 THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.6,79,649/- AT PARA 4 AT PAG ES 2 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ADDITION OF RS.28,35,300/- IN PARA 5 AT PAGES 6 & & 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE A.O. HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HA S PURCHASED CERTAIN PROPERTIES I.E. PLOTS OF LANDS ADMEASURING 2011.14 SQ MTR. IN AGGREGATE VALUE OF WHICH IS SHOWN AT RS.78.84.000/ - IN AGGREGATE WHEREAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY THE SAME HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS.85,63,649/-. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT SHOWN THE PROPER VALUATION OF THE LAND IN THE WIP IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE APP ELLANT. THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23.12.2008 EXPLAINING THAT MERELY DRAWING INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMPING AUTHORITIES, THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT. THE A.O. DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLA NT AS ACCEPTABLE AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.6,79,649/-. SI MILARLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED LOOSE PAPER, A COPY OF NOTICE RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR PAYMENT OF ADD ITIONAL, STAMP DUTY OF RS.217554/- ON THE SALE DEED REGISTERED FOR THE DOCUMENT NO. 3240 THE A.O. NOTICED THAT SALE DEED OF THE PRO PERTY WAS MADE FOR RS.15,20,000/- BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS VALUE D BY SUB REGISTRAR AT RS.43,55,300/- AS PER THE JANTRI RATE FOR STAMP PURPOSE. AFTER ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AFTER REJECTING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF DIFFERENTIAL AM OUNT OF RS.28,35,300/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITI ON ON THIS BASIS THAT THE A.O. HAS ONLY PLACED WEIGHTAGE ON THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE STAMPING AUTHORITIES WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE ALLEGED INVESTME NT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE STAMPIN G AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH IS IN CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT, DEALING WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR CAPITAL GAIN, HAS NO APPLICABILITY FOR MAKING ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. HE HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE SE OF CIT VS KISAN KUMAR AS R EPORTED IN 215 CTR 181 AND NOTED THAT IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT I F THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT IS A DEFLATED FIGU RE, 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 AND WITHOUT THIS, STAMP VALUE AUTH ORITYS RATE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE PURCHASER. BY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT, LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION AND NOW, THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION REND ERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PINKYBEN B CHOKHAWALA RENDERED IN I.T.A.NO. 39 38/AHD/2008 AND I.T.A.NO. 4015/AHD/2008 DATED 18.03.2011 AND POINTE D OUT THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF A PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHANDNI GUCHHAR AS R EPORTED IN 191 TAXMAN 142 AND IT WAS HELD THAT NO SUCH ADDITION CA N BE MADE UNLESS EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 4 ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS HARLEY AS REPORTED IN 38 SOT 486. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF DEC LARED CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O. HAS MADE AD DITION ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. A S PER THE FICTION CREDATED IN SECTION 50C, WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GA IN IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ST AMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION BUT THIS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KISAN KUMAR (SUPRA) AND ALSO BY HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHANDNI GU CHHAR (SUPRA) THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY ANY STATE AGENCY FOR THE PURP OSE OF STAMP DUTY, COULD NOT IPSO FACTO SUBSTITUTE THE ACTUAL SALE CON SIDERATION AS HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, NO EVIDENCE HA S BEEN BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT OV ER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND HENCE, BY R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROU ND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER: I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 5 2) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,55,000/- MADE ON A/C OF SALE OF LAND TO SEWA. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE TILL THE AS SESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7.1 OF HIS ORDER, W HICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 7.1 NEXT GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.72.55.QOO/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND TO SEWA. THE A.O. OBSERVED AT PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL THAT THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAINED A COPY OF SA LE DEED ENTERED BETWEEN SWASRAYI WOMEN SEWA SANGH (SEWA) AS PURCHAS ER PARTY, MR. VADILAL CHAMPAKLAL AND OTHER AS SELLER P ARTY. M/S. NETRA OWNERS ASSOCIATION AS FIRST CONFIRMING PARTY AND M/ S. SANKALP VJLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT LTD AS SECOND CONFIRMING PAR TY. THE SALE DEED IS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AT TP SCHEME NO. 3/5 FP NO. 526 AT CITY TALUKA, CHHADWAD, ELLISBRIDGE OF 2680 SQ. YARD OR 3205 SQ MTRS. VIDE THIS SALE DEED, M/S. SEWA HAS PURCHASED THE LAND FROM VADILAL & OTHERS FOR RS.72,55,000/-. THE A.O. ISSUE D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY THE RECEIPT OF RS .72,55.000/- SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSION DATED 23.12.2008 EXPLAINING THAT MERE RECEIPT OF MONEY BY ITSELF DOES NOT RESULT IN ANY INCOME AND THAT ALL THE TRANSACTI ONS IN QUESTION ARE PENDING AND ULTIMATE PROFIT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS PAID AFTER THE LITIGATION IS COMPLETED. THE A.O. DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AS ACCEPT ABLE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.72,55.000/-. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON T HIS BASIS THAT SINCE THE ISSUE REGARDING LITIGATION HAS NOT FINALLY RESOLVED AND THE LITIGATION IS PENDING, ULTIMATE PROFIT SHALL BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ENTIRE LITIGATION IS REVOLVED AND THE ACTION OF THE A.O. I N TAXING THE GROSS RECEIPT AND NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSE ALREADY INCUR RED, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS HELD THAT NO FINAL ASSESSMENT OF INCOME CAN B E MADE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE A.O. I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 6 10. THE LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SPORTED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER WHEREAS IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE GROSS RECEIPT WITHOU T GRANTING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF LAND PURCHASED AND PAYMENT TO TE NANTS FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH D ECISION WITH THE DIRECTION TO BRING TO TAX THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE PRICE OF LAND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LAND OWNER AND THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TENANTS TO GET THE PROPERTY VACATED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE NEXT YEAR. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PURSU ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER THE SEIZED PAPERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIGNED THE SALE DEED AS SECOND CONFIRMING PARTY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE A.O. ON PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.26.16 LACS TO THE L AND OWNER AND ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.17.50 LACS TO THE T ENANTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND A FURTHER PAYMENT OF RS.9.28 LACS WAS MADE TO THE TENANTS IN THE NEXT YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE A.O. ON PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE PAYMENTS TO LAND OWNER AND TENANTS IN THE ASSETS SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS AND INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE VALUE OF THE LAND. BUT TH E A.O. HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHAS E PRICE OF LAND AS WELL AS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO VARIOUS TENANT S AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING DISPUTE, INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE PRES ENT YEAR. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NEITHER THE ACTION OF T HE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED TO TAX THE GROSS RECEIPT NOR THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) I S SUSTAINABLE THAT NO INCOME IS TAXABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. WE FIND THA T ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE LAND OWNER AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 7 REGARDING THE DISPUTE ALSO, WE FIND THAT MAJORITY O F THE SAME WAS RESOLVED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.17.50 LACS WAS ALREADY PAID TO THE TENANTS AND ONLY A SUM OF RS.9.28 LACS IS CLAIM ED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE TENANTS IN THE NEXT YEAR. SALE DEED HAS BEEN E XECUTED AND THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER AND HENCE, WE FEEL THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THIS TRANSACTION IS LIABLE TO TAX IN THE PRESENT YEAR BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS PAYMENTS TO TENANTS ETC. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE A.O. H AS TO FIRST DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN THE PROPERTY AN D THE INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT IS TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR THE AMOUNT IS TAXABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN AND WHETHER THE CAPITAL GAIN IS A SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE A.O. SHOULD ALSO FIND THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION A ND DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE SAME. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE A.O . HAS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED TH E EXPENSES OF RS.17.50 LACS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND RS.9.28 LACS IN THE NE XT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO TENANTS FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATE D AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT. IF IT IS FOUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION VACATED AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THEN THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON A CCOUNT OF THOSE PAYMENTS ALSO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHE R THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE PRESENT YEAR OR IN THE NEXT YEAR AND NE T INCOME AFTER ALLOWING, BOTH THE DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THE A.O. SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A.NO. 1937 /AHD/2000 C.O.NO.135/AHD/2009 8 13. REGARDING THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE C.O. IS NOT PRE SSED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D. 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEP., 2011. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 16.09. 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14.09.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.09.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 15.9.2011 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 16.09.2011 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 16.09 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.09.2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..