M/s. Amrut Metal Coats, Vapi V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-1, Vapi

CO 5/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1852 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.1625/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI VS. M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, J-16, 1 ST PHASE, NR. GTBL, GIDC, VAPI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAZFS 8542C ITA NO.1566/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, J-16, 1 ST PHASE, NR. GTBL, GIDC, VAPI VS. ITO, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAZFS 8542C ITA NO.1626/AHD/2012 ALONG WITH C.O. NO.4/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2007-08 ITO, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI VS. M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, J-16, 1 ST PHASE, NR. GTBL, GIDC, VAPI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAZFS 8542C AND ITA NO.1627/AHD/2012 ALONG WITH C.O. NO.5/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 ITO, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI VS. M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, J-16, 1 ST PHASE, NR. GTBL, GIDC, VAPI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAZFS 8542C ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJESH UPADHYAY, AR REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 22/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/01/2016 O R D E R PER BENCH CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE V IDE SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE I.E. 28 TH MAY, 2012 PASSED IN ASST. YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS WHEREAS I N ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEALS A ND ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE IN REVENUES APPEALS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THEREFORE, WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS & CROSS OBJECTIONS TOGETHER AND DEEM IT PRO PER TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THIS COMMO N ORDER. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THE REFORE, WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN ASST. YEARS 2007-08 AND 200 8-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, WHEREIN IT HAS PLEADED THAT SINCE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THE ISSUES FOR WHICH A SSESSMENT WAS REOPENED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRECL UDED TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADDITION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN ASS T. YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 3 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT . WE TAKE ALL THESE THREE GROUNDS TOGETHER. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. COPY OF THE REASONS IN ASST. YE AR 2006-07 IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREAS COPI ES OF THE REASONS IN ASST. YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 ARE AVAILA BLE ON PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONS WE FIN D THAT THESE ARE VERBATIM IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE ARE TAKING UP THE REASONS FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 . THEY READ AS UNDER:- OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI REASONS FOR REOPENING ASST. U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. NAME : M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, J-16, 1 ST PHASE, NR. GTBL, GIDC, VAPI. PAN AAZFS 8542C ASST. YEAR 2007-08 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OU T BY THE CUSTOM & EXCISE DEPARTMENT ON THE PREMISES OF THE M/S AMRUT METAL COATS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS, RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT, SINCE THE INCEPTION I.E. JANUARY, 2005 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH BY THE CUS TOM & EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED AND HAVE REASON TO BELIEV E THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 3. AS FAR AS AY 2006-07 IS CONCERNED LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND. THEREFORE, IT IS REJECTE D. 4. AS FAR AS AY 2007-8 & 2008-09 ARE CONCERNED, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPE AL IS CONCERNED IT ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 4 IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND IT CAN BE AGITATED AT ANY STAG E. HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT REPORTED AT 229 I TR 383 HAS OBSERVED THAT IF AN ISSUE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE TA XABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE AND NO FRESH INVESTIGATION OF FACTS IS REQ UIRED THEN ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE SUCH AN ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON . SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, WE PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE ADD ITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE STRENGTH OF HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOHMED JUNED DADANI 355 ITR 172 CONTENDED THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD A N OCCASION TO CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION AND ALSO EMPLO YED IN SECTION 147 AND PROPOUNDED THAT IF NO ADDITION IS BEING MAD E ON AN ISSUE FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED THEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER WILL BE PRECLUDED TO TAKE ANY OTHER ISSUE FOR MAKING ADDITI ON IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS FOR ASSESS ING OR RE- ASSESSING ANY OTHER INCOME IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS TO FIRST MAKE AN ADDITION ON AN ISSUE FOR WHICH ASSESS MENT WAS REOPENED. IN THIS BACKGROUND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE TOOK US TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE ISSUE THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ACCOUNT ENTIRE RE CEIPTS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT N O SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 5 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVE RT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD CAREFULLY. IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR BOTH THE ASST. YEARS. IT READS AS UNDER :- ASST. YEAR 2007-08 8. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS AND FROM THE DATA MADE AVAILABLE, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER : TOTAL INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION RS.53,640/- ADD: DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE (I) ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION EXPENSES AS PER PARA 5 RS.1,23,258/- (II) UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER PARA 6 RS.5,21,020/- (III) UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES AS PER PARA 7 RS.4,88,057/- R S.11,32,335/- TOTAL INCOME RS.11,85,975/- ROUNDED OFF U/S 288A RS.11,85,970/ - ASSESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. CH ARGE INTEREST U/S 234A/B & C OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE. GIVE CREDIT TO THE PREPAID TAXES, IF ANY. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. ISSUE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS AND FROM THE DATA MADE AVAILABLE, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER : ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 6 TOT AL INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION RS.34,994/ - ADD: DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE (I) ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION EXPENSES AS PER PARA 5 RS.1,08,740/ - (II) UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER PARA 6 RS.5,55,021/ - (III) UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES AS P ER PARA 7 RS.4,09,584/ - RS.10,73,345/ - TOTAL INCOME RS.11,08,339/- ROUNDED OFF U/S 288A RS.11,08,340/ - ASSESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. CH ARGE INTEREST U/S 234A/B & C OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE. GIVE CREDIT TO THE PREPAID TAXES, IF ANY. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. ISSUE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE COMPUTATIONS, IT SHOWS T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION WITH REGARD TO TH E JOB WORK RECEIPTS ALLEGED TO HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUD GMENT COUPLED WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT 336 ITR 136 (DEL) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAY S (I) LTD. 331 ITR 236 (BOM), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EXPRESSION AND ALSO EMPLOYED IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAS DENUDED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ANY SUCH OTHER INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNLESS ADDITION IS BEING MAD E ON AN ISSUE FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED. WE ALLOW THE CROS S OBJECTIONS AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS. ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 9. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE LA TEST INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO. 21/2015 ISSUED BY ON 10.12.2015 BY THE CBDT, THESE APPEALS, OTHERWISE ARE NOT SO MAINTAINABLE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. WITH PREJUDICE TO OUR DECISION ON MERITS OF CROSS OBJECT IONS, EVEN CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED THEN ALSO THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WOULD BE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CROSS OBJ ECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO YEARS ARE ALLOWED AND CONSEQU ENTLY APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 H AVE BECOME INFRACTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COMPUTATION OF TAX ON THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO HIS CALCULATION THE TAX AMOUNT ON THE ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) COMES TO RS.8,23,266/-. HE PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE LATEST CBDT INSTRUCTION BEARING NO.21/2015 DATE D 10.12.2015 AND CONTENDED THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABL E WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE A PPLICABLE ON THIS APPEAL ALSO. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 11. LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOI NG THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL. BUT THE COMPUTATION OF TAX MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL COUL D NOT BE CROSS ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 8 VERIFIED, THEREFORE, ON RE-VERIFICATION IF LD. AO F OUND THAT TAX EFFECT IS MORE OR THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVID ED IN THE INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER IN THIS APPEAL. SUCH APPLICATI ON SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN LIMITATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. AS FAR AS ASSESSES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2006 -07 IS CONCERNED, IT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO INITIATE PROC EEDINGS U/S 147 OF IT ACT, 1961, ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN BY LOWER SERVICE TAX AUTHORITY AND WHEN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX. APPELLATE TRI BUNAL AHMEDABAD IS PENDING TO BE DECIDED TO INITIATE PROC EEDINGS U/S 147 ARE NOT LEGAL. (2) PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST APPELLANT U/S 147 OF IT ACT, 1961 ARE WITHOUT VALID REASON. (3) ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO COME TO A FIN DING THAT AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,266/- (RS.17,66,427/- DEPOSITS MA DE WITH DCB BANK RS.16,35,161/- RECEIPTS AS PER PROFIT & L OSS A/C) IS UNACCOUNTED SALES AND TO ESTIMATE INCOME RS.11,289/ - ON THE BASIS OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 8.60% AS PER BOOKS AND TO ADD THE SAME TO THE INCOME RETURNED. (4) ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,85,000/- WHICH IS NOT CREDITED IN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BUT IT IS CARRIED FORWARD FROM TH E EARLIER YEAR. PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 OF IT ACT WRONGLY APPLIED. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. (5) LD. ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO DISALLOW AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,654/- TREATING 25% OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 14,94,617/- ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 9 BEING UNVERIFIABLE. DISALLOWANCE MADE IS ON GUESS, SUSPICION AND PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING 10% OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE. (6) ADDITIONAL GROUND- ADDITION OF INCOME BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENS ES OR ADDITION OF INCOME ON UNACCOUNTED SALES OR ADDITION OF DEEMED INCOME U/S 68 OF IT ACT, 1961, AND SUCH ADDITION SU STAINED BY CIT(A) BEING BUSINESS INCOME, REMUNERATION OF WORKI NG PARTNERS IN PROPERTIES LAID DOWN IN PARTNERSHIP DEE D, BE ALLOWED. 14. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NOS.1,2,3, 5 & 6. THE ONLY GROUND REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED IS GROUND NO.4. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.1,85,000/- OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE NAME S OF TEN PERSONS. THE LD. AO HAS REPRODUCED ALL THESE AMOUNTS IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE LOANS AND, TH EREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,000/- WITH THE AID OF SECTI ON 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF . 15. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE OPENING BALANCE IN THIS YEAR. HE TOOK U S THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2005 AS WELL AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006. THESE COPIES ARE PLACED ON PAGE NO.45 AND 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND NAMES OF ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 10 ALL THESE TEN PERSONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANC E SHEET. THE CREDIT BALANCE AGAINST THEIR NAMES IS IDENTICAL AS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THUS THESE ARE THE LOANS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. ADDIT ION U/S 68 CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT(S) WHICH ARE NOTICED BY THE AO A S CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY WERE INTRO DUCED. THESE AMOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS YEAR. THEREFORE, THE NATURE AND SOURCE CANNOT BE ENQUIRED IN THIS YEAR. FOR THIS REASON WE ALLOW THIS GROUND AND DELETE THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,85,000/-. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF TAX EFFECT VIDE INSTRUCTION BEARING NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 AND THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR AY 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEARS 2007-08 & 20 08-09 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JANUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27/01/2016 MAHATA/- ITA NO. 1625,1566,1626 , 1627 & COS.4 & 5 ASST. YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 22/01/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 27/01/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 27/1/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: