Shri Dilip Bhagwandas Jethwani, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 106/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94421 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM . ITA NO.106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 DILIP BHAGWANDAS JETHWANI, 52, URVASHI BUNGALOWS, B/H S.T. WORKSHOP, NARODA PATIA, NARODA, AHMEDABAD. VS INCOME-TAX OFFIER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA NO. AQJPJ 9539Q APPELLANT BY SHRI P. F. JAIN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 8/9/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/09/2015 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A)-XX. AHMEDABAD VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014 AND ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED FOR THE AY 2009-10 BY ITO, WARD-3(4) UND ER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), VIDE ORDER DATED 6.1.2014. THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE APPEAL :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD [FOR SHORT LD. CIT( A)] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT S WIFE, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,04,000/- IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,04,000/- IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER, AMEN D, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUND AS AND WHEN THE OCCASI ON MAY ARISE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS GATHERED FROM THE ORDER OF AO AND PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPART MENT IN REGARD TO PURCHASE OF SHOP BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME AS WEL L AS PURCHASE OF SHOP BY THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE, STATEMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 BY THE ITO, WARD-1(2), AHMEDABAD ON 12/ 12/2011. IN THE SAID STATEMENT ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN SHOP OF BAGMAR PLAZA IN HIS NAME AS WELL AS IN T HE NAME OF HIS WIFE MT. VANSHIKABEN D. JETHWANI WERE OUT OF HIS UN ACCOUNTED INCOME AND, THEREFORE, DISCLOSED THE SAID INVESTMEN T OF RS.11,78,000/- IN HIS NAME AND RS.9,26,020/- IN TH E NAME OF HIS WIFE TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.21,04,000/- AS HIS UNACCOUNTE D INCOME. ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT THAT HE WIL L OBTAIN PAN AND WILL FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND PAY RELEVANT TAX ACCORDINGLY ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREAFTER SINCE NO RETURN OF I NCOME WAS FILED FOR AY 2009-10 THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 9 TH APRIL, 2012 AFTER ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 3 RECORDING REASONS FOR THE SAME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RETURN OF INCOME ON 9 TH APRIL, 2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,46,210/-. THE A SSESSEE DID NOT UNDISCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS.21,04,000/- AS ADMITTE D IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 12.12.2011. FURTHER I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ISSUED ON 26.4.2013 AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF RETAIL SALE OF VEGETABLES AND CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS NO PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS WERE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, TRADING ACCOUNT, TRIAL BALANCE AND BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE ON 16..8.2012 WERE RECONFIRME D BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 25.11. 2013. ON BEING ASKED BY THE AO ABOUT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHOP IN NAME OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT INVESTM ENT IN SAID SHOP IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS.11,78,000/- WHEREAS THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE WAS MADE BY HER FROM HER PERSONAL SAVINGS AND PERSONAL INCOME. 3. ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT MADE BY HI M UNDER SECTION 131 BY SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.12. 2013 TO THE AO ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2013 STATING THAT HE WAS NOT VERY WELL C ONVERSANT WITH GUJARAT AND DUE TO STRESS, THE STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 131 RECORDED ON 12.12.11 WERE NOT CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, RETRAC TED THE SAME AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS IN SUPPORT OF CORRECTNESS OF HIS RETRACTION. THE AO PASSED THE AS SESSMENT ORDER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.21,04,000 IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SHOP AT BAGMAR PLAZA IN HIS NAME AT RS.11,78,000/- AND THE INVESTM ENT OF ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 4 RS.9,26,020/- IN ANOTHER SHOP AT BAGMAR PLAZA IN TH E NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. VANSHIKABEN D. JETHWANI BY MAK ING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 6.1 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (I) THE AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR RETRACTION OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH DTD.12.12.2011 ON 19.12.2013 AFTER CONSIDERABL E TIME OF TWO YEARS CANNOT CONSIDERED AS RELIABLE. IF THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT STATEMENT ON OATH WAS NOT CO RRECT THEN WHO PREVENTS HIM TO FILE AFFIDAVIT FOR RETRACT ION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME. FURTHER IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT IS STA TED THAT HE HAS STUDIED UP-TO HIGHER SECONDARY IN ENGLISH MEDIU M & HIS MOTHER TONGUE IS SINDHI. HOWEVER, DUE TO HIS DO MICILE IN GUJARAT HE CAN SPEAK & UNDERSTAND GUJARATI BUT C ANNOT READ. THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO NOT CONFIRMATORY TO H IS STATEMENT. IN THE STATEMENT ON OATH DTD.12.12.2011 IT WAS STATED THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN READ BY HIM WHIC H IS TRUE. THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN VOLUNTARILY & TH E SAME IS BINDING TO HIM AND ALSO TO HIS WIFE. (II) FURTHER THE PURCHASED DOCUMENT IS ALSO IN GUJA RAT. CAN IT BE BELIEVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SIGNED THE PURCHASED DOCUMENT WORTH RS.11,78,000/- WITHOUT READING IT? ASSESSEE BORN & BROUGHT UP IN GUJARAT, DEALING WITH THE GUJARATI CUSTOMER. HENCE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATI ONS IT CAN BE BELIEVED THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO READ GUJARAT I LANGUAGE. (III) FURTHER, THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BALANCE SH EET ETC. FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE AFT ER THOUGHT AND ALSO NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE SAME IS N OT SUPPORTED BY BILLS VOUCHERS ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EARLIER YEARS. THER EFORE, ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 5 THE OPENING BALANCE OF SO CALLED BALANCE SHEET IS N OT PROVED. (IV) FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN OF INCOME F ILED IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON 20/6/12, IT REVE ALED THAT IN ALL THE COLUMNS OF PART-A-BS REGARDING BALA NCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ETC. IT IS MENTIONE D AS NIL. THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT BALANCE SHEET FILED ON 16 .8.12 WAS AFTER THOUGHT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RELIA BLE. (V) THE OPENING CAPITAL SHOWS BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E BALANCE SHEET CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN EARLIER YEA RS. THE UNSECURED LOAN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR BELOW IN RS.20,000/- IN CASH ARE ALSO NOT RELI ABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE IDENTITY CREDIT WOR THINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 6.2 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE INVESTMENT IN BAGMAR PLAZA REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIV EN ANY CONVINCING REASON FOR RETRACTION AFTER PRETTY LONG TIME. ALSO THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE NOT REL IABLE AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL SUPRA. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMEN T MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SHOP AT BAGMAR PLAZA OF RS.11,78,00 0 REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9,24,000/- IN SHO P AT BAGMAR PLAZA BY SMT. VANSHIKABEN HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROVED AS SHE HAS NOT ANY INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME NOR SHE IS FILING OF HER RETURN OF INCOME. AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT, THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,24,000/- IN RESPE CT OF INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE WERE ALSO MADE O UT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT CAN SA FELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF HIS WI FE WAS MADE OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. 6.3 THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE I NVESTMENT IN SHOPS AT BAGMAR PLAZA MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESS EE AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.11,78,000 AND RS.9,24,000 TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.21,04,000 IS NOTHING BUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6 ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE TH E ASSESSE4E HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME A ND ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS INITI ATED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A) WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO TAKING THE BASIS THAT RE TRACTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BONA FIDE DUE TO THE AFTER-THOUGHT AS IT WAS GIVEN AFTER PASSING A LONG TIME (IN ALMOST TWO YEARS) AND IT WA S NOT THE SPONTANEOUS ONE. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPE LLANTS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS NOT WELL VERSED WITH GUJARAT I LANGUAGE THEN HOW CAN BE SIGN THE PURCHASE DEED FOR PURCHASE OF S HOP. FURTHER WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS :- THE MERE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODU CED IS VITAL AND IMPORTANT DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE TO ALLOW ITS A DMISSION AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIDENCES WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PARTY AT THE INITIAL STAGE AND HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY HIM WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE. CIT VS. JAIPUR UDYOG LTD. (RAJ) 227 ITR 345 VELJI DEORAJ & CO. VS. CIT (BOM) 68 ITR 708 JYOTSNA SURI VS. DCIT (ITAT, DEL) 61 ITD 139 A.K. BABU KHAN VS. CIT (AP 102 ITR 757 DCIT VS. VIRA CONSTRUCTION CO. (ITAT, MUM TM) 61 IT D 33 RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. CIT (ALL) 119 ITR 867 APPLICATION MUST BE MADE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE, WITH REASONS SHOWING THE PURPOSE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WOULD S ERVE AND REASONS FOR NOT PRODUCING IT EARLIER. BIMAL KUMAR ANANT KUMAR VS. CIT (ALL) 288 ITR 278 NO REASON WAS ADDUCED FOR NOT PRODUCING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER -APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION DESERVES TO BE RE JECTED. IF ADMITTED, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A TO BE FOLLOWED. N. B. SURTI FAMILY TRUST VS. CIT (GUJ) 288 ITR 523 RANJIT KUMAR CHAUDHURY (GAU) 288 ITR 179 ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 7 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IMPRESSED UPON THAT ONLY STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RETRACTED. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PROPE R REASON THEN THE STATEMENT MADE OTHERWISE THAN UNDER SECTION 132(4) CAN BE RETRACTED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS DOCUME NTS INCLUDING TRADING ACCOUNT, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE S HEET, LIST OF UNSECURED LOANS, CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND MOST IMPO RTANTLY BANK STATEMENT WERE FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN THE SHOP PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INVESTIGATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS A ND BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE BY THE AO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT BUT A PROPER WORKING AS WELL AS EVIDENCES SHOULD BE COLLECTED TO GIVE THE BASIS TO MAKE ADDIT ION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)AND PULLANG ODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. (1973) 91 ITR 0018 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI AKHILESH G. DWIVEDI VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1230/AHD/2011 DATED 19/12/2014. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 8 44AF OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO GIVE COGNIZANCE TO OTHER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND FURTHER RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AR & LD. DR. IT IS A FACT THAT RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AFTER LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME (ALMOST TWO YE ARS) AND ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOM E BEFORE, RATHER PAN AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ONLY ON RECEIVING NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO T O GIVE COGNIZANCE TO ALL THE SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORTING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE P RESENT CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSE E HAS FILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS, LIST OF UNSECURED LOANS AND BANK STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO T HE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE TO SUP PORT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM TO PURCHASE THE SHOP AT B AGMAR PLAZA FOR RS.11,78,000/-. ADDITIONALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RETR ACTED FROM THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 131 BY SUBMITTING AN A FFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS REQUIRED ON THE PART OF AO MORE SPEC IFICALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RETRACTED FROM HIS STATEMENT, DEEPLY SCRUTINIZE THE RECORDS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE AS WELL AS TO FURTHER GATHER MORE EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE ADDIT ION WHICH HE ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 9 INTENDS TO MAKE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT SEEMS THAT AO HAS ONLY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.12.2011 AND HAS FRAMED A SSESSMENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND NO WORKING AS WELL AS ADJUDIC ATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WAS MADE BY THE AO. TH EREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE INSTR UCTION FOR PASSING A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/9/2015 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 11/9/2015 MAHATA/- 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 DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 106/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 8/9/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 9/9/2015 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: 11/9/2015 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: