Shri Rajeshkumar V.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

CO 227/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2001 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Speculation loss; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3001/AHD/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL 5, SHIVAM SATELLITE SOCIETY NEHRU PARK VASTRAPUR AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABCPP 2582 R ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.227/AHD/2011 AY 2005-06 (IN ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010 AY 2005-06) SHRI RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL VS. THE DCIT AHMEDABAD CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),AHD (CROSS OBJECTOR) .. (RESPOND ENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, AR ( ) / DATE OF HEARING 21/01/2016 *+,- ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/02/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE BOTH HAVE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, AHME DABAD [CIT(A) ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - IN SHORT] DATED 07/09/2010 BY FILING THE APPEAL AN D CROSS OBJECTION RESPECTIVELY PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 200 5-06. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .3001/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2005-06. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DIRE CTING THE AO TO TREAT THE SURPLUS ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES OF WE LL WORTH OVERSEAS LTD. AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.1,67 ,40,000/- AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME AS TAXED BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2007. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E AO TREATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S.WEL LWORTH OVERSEAS LTD. AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND ALSO TREATED A SUM OF R S.9,07,872/- AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPE AL. WHILE PARTLY ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY THE LD.CIT(A), THE SURPLUS, ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF M/S.WELL WORTH OVERSEAS LTD., TREATED AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) AS WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE FINDING OF THE LD.AO AS SPECULATION LOSS. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), BOTH THE REVENU E AND THE ASSESSEE ARE BEFORE US BY WAY OF APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS REVENUES APPE AL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO TREAT THE SURPLUS ARI SING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF M/S.WELLWOTH OVERSEAS LTD. AS LTCG AMOUNTING TO RS.1,67,40,000/- AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME TAXED BY THE AO. THE L D.SR.DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN TREATING THE SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF M/S.WELLWO RTH OVERSEAS LTD. AS CAPITAL INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. SHE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS WELL-REASONED AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI VIJAY RANJAN CONTENDED THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FROM VERY BEGINNING IDENTIFIED THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCH ASE IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AS CAPITAL ASSET OR BUSINESS ASSET AS PE R HIS INTENTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN LTCG OF RS.1,67,40,000/-, THERE IS ONLY ONE SALE TRANSACTI ON. ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FAC T IN PARA-3 OF HIS ORDER, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS SHO WN INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,67,40,000/- FROM ONE SCRIPT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CON TENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE HE HAS HELD SHARE AS INVESTMENTS EXCEPT THOSE SHARES INTENDED AS TRADING ASSETS IN WHICH THERE IS FREQUE NT NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS, HOLDING PERIOD OF SHARES ARE VERY SHO RT. HE HAS THEREFORE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MOTIVE IS TO EARN M AXIMUM PROFIT AND NOT TO HAVE INVESTMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APP ELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS MAINTAINED TWO PORTFOLIOS BEING ONE FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND ONE AS TRADING ASSETS AND INCOME EARNED FROM SA LES OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AND INCO ME EARNED FROM SALE OF TRADING ASSETS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMI SSION FILED BY APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,67,40,000/- AND LOSS FROM SHARE TRADING AT RS.1,28,537/-. THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT ANY ASS ESSEE CAN HOLD TWO PORTFOLIOS IS SUPPORTED BY PARA 10 OF CIRCULAR NO.4 /2007 DATED 15/06/2007 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 10. CBDT ALSO WISHES TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS POSS IBLE FOR A TAX PAYER TO HAVE TWO PORTFOLIOS, I.E. AN INVESTMENT PO RTFOLIO COMPRISING OF SECURITIES WHICH ARE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSETS AND A TRADING PORTFOLIO COMPRISING OF STOCK-IN-TRAD E WHICH RE TO BE TREATED AS TRADING ASSETS. WHERE AN APPELLANT H AS TWO PORTFOLIOS, THE APPELLANT MAY BE INCOME UNDER BOTH HEADS I.E., CAPITAL GAINS AS WELL AS BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE O F ACIT VS. KETHANKUMAR A.SHAH 242 ITR 83 AND DECISION OF HONB LE MUMBAI ITAT IN CASE OF J.M. SHARE STOCK BROKERS REFERRED S UPRA SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT ANY ASSESSEE CAN HOLD SHARE S AS TRADING AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, APPELLANT HAS HELD THE SHARES OF WELL WORTH OVERSEAS LIMITED AS INVESTMENT ON YEAR T O YEAR BASIS AND SAME IS DULY REFLECTED AS SUCH IN ANNUAL ACCOUNTS S UBMITTED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN ANY EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INV ESTMENT IN SHARES BUT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM APPELLANTS OWN FU NDS. DURING THE PRESENT YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ONLY FROM ONE SCRIPT AND ALL OTHER SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENTS CONTINUED TO BE HELD AS SUCH. I FOUND FORCE IN ARG UMENTS OF APPELLANT THAT AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SCRIPT, CRITERIA OF FREQU ENCY IN SHARES TRANSACTIONS OR HOLDING PERIOD BEING VERY SHOT PERT AINING TO SHARES HELD AS TRADING ASSETS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SHARES HELD AS PART OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. CONSIDERING THIS, I DIRECT ASSESSING OF FICER TO TAX PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES OF WELL WORTH AMOUNTING TO RS.1,67,4 0,000 AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND RELATED GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4.1. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL ASSET, THEREFORE, WE D O NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. AS A RE SULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION NO.227/AHD/2 011 FOR AY 2005-06 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (ARISING OUT OF ITA N O.3001/AHD/2010-FOR ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - AY-2005-06 - REVENUES APPEAL), WHEREIN FOLLOWING G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LOSS OF RS.9,97,872 ON SALE OF SHA RES WAS IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATIVE LOSS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,00,000 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON REPAIRS OF PROPERTY LET OUT DURING THE YEAR, INCOME FROM WHICH HAS BEEN BRO UGHT TO CHARGE OF TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. 3. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 5.1. FIRST GROUND OF THE CROSS OBJECTION IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE LOSS OF RS.9,07,872/- ON SALE OF SHARES WAS IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATIVE LOSS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) A ND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY RECORDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED WI THOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT WHILE DO ING SO, THE AO HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CORRECT POSITION AND THE LOSS HAS BEEN TREATED AS ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - SPECULATIVE LOSS BY THE AO ENTIRELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON SUCH FI NDING. 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MECHANICALLY, IN PARA-4 OF HIS ORD ER, CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE AO. 6.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR HAS SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED MATERIAL TO PROV E THAT THE LOSS COMPUTED AT RS.9,07,872/- BY THE AO IS NOT A SPECUL ATIVE LOSS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA-4 OF HI S ORDER, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. THE THIRD AND FOURTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO TREATING LOSS OF RS.9,07,872/- AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4.8 OF HIS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT H AS INCURRED SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.9,07,872/- INCLUDED IN SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS.2,20,091/- AND SUCH LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAIN ST SHARE TRADING INCOME. AS APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.2,2 0,091/- WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION, THE A SSESSING ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,87,781/- (9,0 7,872 LESS RS.2,20,091). THE APPELLANT NEITHER DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BROUGHT ANY RECORDS TO PROVE THAT LOSS COMPUTED AT RS.9,07, 872/- BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SPECULATION LOSS AND CONSI DERING THIS, I FOUND NO FORCE IN ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT AND RELATED GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7.1. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING ON THE BASIS THAT N O EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.6 3 & 64 OF THE PAPER- BOOK TO BUTTRESS THE CONTENTION THAT THE FINDING ON FACT THAT NO DELIVERY WAS TAKEN IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. WE HAVE GIVEN OU R THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE AO IN A MECHANICAL WA Y. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO HIM TO EXPLAIN THE CORRECT POSITION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASI DE THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, GROUND NO.1 O F ASSESSEES CROSS- OBJECTION IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NE EDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WOULD AFFORD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. TH E ASSESSEE WOULD ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - FURNISH THE REQUISITE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION THAT THE DELIVERY WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN. 8. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,00,000/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE ON REPAIRS OF PROPERTY LET OUT DURING THE YEAR. THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTI FIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE ALLOWED HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEBIT-NOTE WAS DULY PLACED ON RECORD. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO HIS CLAI M OF REPAIRS OF PROPERTY LET OUT DURING THE YEAR. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM AND THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. MERELY A DEBIT-NOT E ISSUED BY THE TENANT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FURNISHED BILLS AND VOUCHERS WITH REG ARD TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE ITA NO.3001/AHD/2010(REVENUE) AND CO NO.277/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SH.RAJESHKUMAR V.PATEL ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, S AME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED, WHEREAS THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 26 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/ 02 /2016 1.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 6 7 &34 , 34- , 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79: ;( / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, '6 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 18.2.16 (DICTATION-PAD 14+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.2.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.26.2.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 26/2/16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER