Navin Kalidas Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 109/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4991 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; TDS
• Section: 263; 143(3); 13; 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 109/Ahd/2021 (िनधा榁रण वष榁 िनधा榁रण वष榁 िनधा榁रण वष榁 िनधा榁रण वष榁 / Assess ment Yea r : 2015-16) Na vi n Ka li da s Pat el 80 2, Bl oc k –A , St at us Ap par t men t, O pp . T. V. To wer , Dr iv e-i n- Ro ad, Ah me da bad , Gu ja ra t, 38 00 54 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . Th e Pr. CI T- 3 Ah me da bad 瀡थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A C H P P 0 2 1 5 B (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथ牸 ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. 灹瀄यथ牸 क琉 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR D a t e o f H e a r i n g 05/08/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 14/08/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Co mmissioner of Inco me Tax, Ah medabad-3, (in short ‘the Pr . CI T’) dated 29.03.2021 in exercise of his revisionary power under Se ction 263 of the Inc o me Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act ’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed by the asse ssee on 25.01.2016 showing total income of Rs .2,03,730/-. The c ase was selected f or scrutiny ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – under CASS for verification of “Large invest ment i n property (AIR) as co mpa r ed to total income” . The assess ment was co mpleted under S ection 143(3) of the Act on 29.11.2017 and the returned income was ac cepted. Su bsequently, the a ssessment record was called for b y the Pr . CI T, wher ein it was n oticed that the source of the invest ment in the propert y was not properly exa mined b y the AO. The Ld. PC IT, therefore, held tha t the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Pr. CIT on 16.03.2022 and, thereafter, on various other dates. No co mpliance made before the Ld. Pr. CI T in response to the notices under Section 263 of the Act. Thereafter , the Ld. Pr . C IT passed the impugned order under Section 263 of the Act and the as sessment order wa s set aside with a direction to the AO to make requisite enquiries and proper verification and, thereafter, to co mplete the assessme nt de novo. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has t aken following grounds in this appeal: “ 1 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c as e , t h e l e a r n e d P r i n c i p a l C I T e r r e d i n a s s u m i n g h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n u /s 2 6 3 o f t h e I T . A c t , w h e r e a s t h e m a n d a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s f o r as s u m i n g s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e t o t a l l y a b s e n t , w i t h t h e r e s ul t t h a t t h e i m p u g n e d o r d e r p a s s e d u s 2 6 3 i s b a d i n l a w . 2 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a se , t h e l e a r n e d P r i n c i p a l C I T e r r e d i n a r r i v i n g a t a c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r p a s s e d b y t h e A s s e s s i n g Of f i c e r w a s e r r o n e o u s a s w e l l a s p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e r e v e n u e ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 – o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t s u c h o r d e r w a s p a s s e d w i t h o u t m ak i n g p r o p e r e n q u i r i e s . 3 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a se , t h e l e a r n e d P r i n c i p a l C I T e r r e d i n a r r i v i n g a t a c o n c l u s i o n t h at t h e r e w a s a c o m p l e t e f a i l u r e o n p a r t o f L d . A O t o e x a m i n e s o ur c e o f f u n d s f o r p u r c h a s e o f i m m o v a b l e p r o p e r t y a s w e l l a s c r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s o f l e n d e r s o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s a n d g e n u i n e n e s s o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o ns w i t h l e n d e r s n a m e l y I n f i n i t y I n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d H o r i z o n Fi n v e s t i s n o t p r o v e d a s p e r n o r m s o f s e c t i o n 6 8 o f I . T . A c t . 4 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a se , t h e l e a r n e d P r i n c i p a l C I T e r r e d i n c a n c e l l i n g t h e a s s e s s m e n t o rd e r p a s s e d b y t h e A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r o n 2 9 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 7 u / s . 1 4 3 ( 3 ) o f t h e I T . A c t a n d d i r e c t i n g t h e A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r t o f r a m e a s s e s s m e n t a f r e s h . 5 . T h e a p p e l l a n t c r a v e s l e a v e t o a d d , a l t e r , a m e n d a n d / o r w i t h d r a w a n y g r o u n d o r g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l e i t h e r b e fo r e o r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h e a r i n g o f t h e a p p e a l . ” 5. Shri S. N. Sopar kar, Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitte d that the issue of investment in pro perty was exa mined b y the AO in detail in the course of a ssessment proceeding. The assessee has filed a paper book containing 174 pages and the Ld. Sr. Counsel has taken us through the said paper book. He has dra wn our attention to various notices issued by the AO in the course of assess ment proce edings as well as to the reply filed b y the assessee. The Ld . Senior Counsel explained that the assessee had purchased agriculture land for a consideration of Rs.9.30 Crores an d a cop y of sale d eed was brought on record. Further that the explanation for the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed was all provided in the course of assessment proceeding, which was exa mined b y the AO and, thereafter, a ccepted as correct. He f urther explained that for the ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 4 – purpose of purchase of this propert y, loans were taken fro m different parties and a confir mation in this regard along with other relevant docu ments to establish their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness was also filed before the AO. The Ld . Senior Counsel contended that when the matter was exa mined b y the AO in detail in the course of a ssessment proceeding, it was not correct on the part of the Ld . Pr. C IT to hold that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He further submitted that a detailed reply dated 24 t h March, 2021 was also filed before t he Ld. Pr. CIT, which was not taken into account in his order. He placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that the order of t he AO was not err oneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the Ld . P r. CI T should be quashed: i. CIT vs . Kamal Galani, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 262 (Gujarat) ii. CIT vs. Kamal Galani, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 213 (SC) iii. CIT vs . Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) iv. ACIT vs . Jas Infra Space Pvt . Ltd. in IT A No. 2130/Ahd/2017 & Ors. v. Mastek Limited vs . PCIT in IT A No.375/Ahd/2023 vi. HBC Lifsciences Private Limite d vs. PCIT in ITA No.328/Ahd/2023 ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 – 6. Per Contra, Shri S udhendu Das, the Ld. CI T.DR sub mitted that the AO had not properly ex a mined the source of large investment made i n the propert y b y the assessee. Acc ording to the Ld. CI T.DR , t he case was select ed for li mited scr utiny onl y to exa mine the lar ge investment in p roperty made b y th e assessee as co mpared to t otal income as d isclosed. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the AO to c ritically exa mine the source of such investment, considering the fact that the assessee has disclosed only no minal income of Rs.2,03,730/- in his return. He further submitted that the assessee has not paid any interest on the loans taken for the purpose of acquisition of the property and consequently, th ere was no de duction of TDS as well. Considering these facts also, the AO should have exa mined the genuineness of loan transactions towards acquisition of the property b y making independent enquiries. In view of these facts the order of the AO was ce rtainly erroneous and pr ejudicial to the interest of revenue. He further s ubmitted that no co mpliance was made b y the assessee before the Ld. P r. CI T i n spite of numerous opportunities provided by hi m. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Senior Counsel were distinct on facts an d he strongl y supported the order of the Ld . Pr . CI T. 7. We have car efully considered the rival sub missions. The moot question to be decided in this case is whether t he order of the A.O. was erro neous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and whether the a ssumption of jurisdiction b y the Ld. PCI T u/s ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 6 – 263 of the Act wa s correct. In this c ontext it will be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is as under: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99 [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1 [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, 2 [including,— (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. As per provision of this section the PCIT is empowered to call far and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act. Accordingly, he had called for the record of this case, examined the assessment order and after such examination he formed an opinion that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. The circu mstance s under which an order can be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is specified in Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, which is found as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 3 [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 7 – (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. As per the Explanation 2, the order passed by the A.O. shall be dee med to be erro neous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verifications which should have been made or where the order is passed allowing any relie f without enquiring into the claim. We have to, therefore, examine as to whether this condition was fulfilled in this case and whether the assu mpt ion of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was correct. 9. It is found that the case was selected for scrutiny to verif y the large investment in propert y made b y the a ssessee as co mpared to the total inco me as disclosed by hi m. It appears fro m the various notices issued in the cour se of assess ment t hat the AO did make enquiries in respect of invest ment in the property. It is found fro m the copy of the sale dee d brought on record that the assessee had purc hased agricultural land ad measuring 8361 sq. meters for total consideration of Rs.9.30 Crores. As per the sale deed dated 19.02.2015, the consideration of Rs.9.30 C rores was paid by the assessee in the following manner: ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 8 – S r . N o . A m o u n t ( R s . ) P a r t i c u l a r s 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y c o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 1 t o s e l l e r b y c as h a t t h e t i m e o f e x e c u t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t t o s a l e ( b a n a k h a t ) 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y c o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 2 t o s e l l e r b y c a s h a t t h e t i m e o f e x e c u t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t t o s a l e ( b a n a k h a t ) 3 3 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y c o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 3 t o s e l l e r b y c a s h a t t h e t i m e o f e x e c u t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t t o s a l e ( b a n a k h a t ) 4 2 4 , 7 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o s e l l e r b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 91 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 5 2 4 , 7 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o s e l l e r b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 9 2 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 6 2 4 , 7 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o s e l l e r b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 9 3 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 7 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 1 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 7 6 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 8 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 1 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 7 8 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 9 8 5 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 1 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 7 9 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 1 0 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y No . 2 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 0 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 1 1 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y No . 2 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 1 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 1 2 8 5 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o .2 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 2 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 1 3 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 3 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 3 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k 1 4 1 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o . 3 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 4 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 9 – 1 5 8 5 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - B y p u r c h a s e r t o C o n f i r m i n g P a r t y N o .3 b y C h . N o . 0 0 0 0 8 5 d a t e d 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5 d r a w n o n A ' b a d M e r c a n t i l e C o . O p . B a n k T o t a l : 9 , 3 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - 10. It is evident from the above payme nt schedule that apart fro m Rs.90,000/-, which was adjustment of earnest money of the confir ming parties, the balance a mo unt of Rs.9,29,10,000/- was paid by the ass essee vide 12 different cheques all dated 13.02.2015, drawn on Ah medabad M ercantile Cooperative Bank. In view of this f ac t, it was incu mben t upon the AO to verif y the source of Rs.9 ,29,10,000/- paid by t he assessee b y che ques dated 13.02.2015 with r eference to the ba nk account of the assessee. He should have exa mined whether the assessee had so much of available balance in his bank account on that date , and i f not, how the funds were a rranged. A cop y of the bank account of the assessee, fro m which above cheques were cleared , has been brought on record. It is found that n one of the 12 che ques were cleared fro m the a ccount of the assessee prior to the d ate of sale deed i.e. 19.02.2015. In essence, th e property was tra nsferred in the na me of the as sessee without rec eiving any pa yme nt fro m the assesse (except adjust ment of Rs .90,000/- from the 3 c onfir ming parties). It was quite unusual that the sale deed was executed and the property was t ransferred in the n a me of the assessee without encash ment of an y of the cheques issued b y the assessee and this fact should have raised the suspicion of the AO to verif y the matter further. It is further noticed fro m the bank stat e ment that the three cheques for Rs.24,70,000/- each bearing Nos. 000091, 000092 & 000093, all dated 13.02.2015, which were dr awn in the ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 10 – na me of the seller, was appearin g in the bank statement as encashed on 16.03.2015 with the narration “P AY C AS H-S ELF ”. Thus, it was evident fro m the bank s tate ment that these cheques were not encashed by the seller of the property but the cash was withdrawn b y the assessee himself . This fact also should have been taken note by the AO to make further enquiry in the matter. No enquiry was made fro m the asse ssee as to wh y the cash was withdrawn through these three cheques almost after a month, when these cheques wer e dra wn in favour of the seller towards the purchase consideration. Neither an y enquiry was made f ro m the seller in this regard. 11. Fro m the materials brought on record, we do not find an y enquiries being carried out by t he AO in respe ct of the discrepancies as discussed in the preceding para, in the course of assessment procee ding. Thus, the AO had failed to ma ke enquires and verifications which were required to be made i n order to exa mine the issue for which the c ase was selected for scrutin y. The bank state me nt also revealed that the assessee had no funds of his own to ma ke these payment s. It was explained that the payments towards sale consideration were made on the strength of loans taken fro m “Infinit y International” and “Horizon Finvest” and a copy of confir mation in respect of the loans taken fro m these partie s along with their ITR and accounts were brought on record. The evidences filed b y the assessee we re accepted by the AO without any veri fication. The AO s hould have exa mined whether an y interest was paid on these loans obtained ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 11 – and whether TDS was deducted thereon. No such enquiry was made in the course of assessment and the docu ments and the evidences furnished in the course of assessment procee ding were accepted by the AO on their face value without any ve rification. It is, thus, evide nt fro m the above fa cts that the AO had not conducted proper enquiries in respect of the investment in the properties and, therefore, the order of the AO was rightly treated as erroneous and p rejudicial to the interest of the reven ue b y the Ld. Pr. CI T. 12. In the course of p roceeding under Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. Pr. CIT had made specific enquiry in respect of source of Rs.9.30 Crores along with evidences of creditworthiness of “Infinit y International” and “Horizo n Finvest”, details of interest paid to these two concerns, evidence of re-pa yment of loan etc. However, no compliance was ma de before the Ld. Pr . CI T. Though, the assessee has sub mitted t hat a repl y dated 2 4 t h March, 2021 was filed before the Ld. Pr . C IT, no acknowledge ment in respect of this letter has been brought on record. Further, it is found that no specific repl y to the queries as raised b y t he Ld. Pr . CIT was given and the repl y was more on the legality of the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act . 13. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. Sr . Counsel ar e all found different on facts and not applicable to the pec uliar facts of this case. It was held b y the Hon’b le Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Ga lani (supra) that once the ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 12 – Assessing Officer carried out detailed inquiries, it was not open for the Co mmissioner to reopen the issue on mere app rehension and surmises. As alread y discussed earlier there was no proper enquiry made in this case by the AO. One has to see fro m the records as to whe ther there was ap plication of mind by the AO and we don’t find any such application of mind by the AO in this case. The other decisions in the case of Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (supra) and Jas Infra Space Pvt. Ltd (supra) are on the issue of genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions which is not the issue involved in this case. It is a trite law and a we ll settled position that non application of mind or wrong assu mpt ion of facts or inc orrect application of law b y the A.O. will ma ke the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Ther efore, we do not find anything wrong with the assu mption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CI T as the ord er of the AO was erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue for the reasons as alread y discussed above. We, therefore, upheld the order of t he Ld. Pr . CIT. The grounds of appeals taken by the assessee ar e all dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal preferre d by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced on 14/08/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14/08/2024 S. K. SINHA ITA No. 109/Ahd/2021 [Navin Kalidas Patel vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 13 – आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषतआदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸 / The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु猴 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड榁 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1 . D a t e o f d i c t a t i o n o n 0 6 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 2 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e t y p e d d r a f t i s p l a c e d b e f o r e t he D i c t a t i n g M e m b e r 0 6 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 3 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e a p p r o v e d d r a f t c o m e s t o t h e S r .P . S . / P . S . ... 4 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e f a i r o r d e r i s p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e D i c t a t i n g M e m b e r f o r p r o n o u n c e m e n t ... . 1 4 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 ... 5 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e f a i r o r d e r c o m e s b a c k t o t h e S r. P . S . / P . S ... . 1 4 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 ... 6 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e f i l e g o e s t o t h e B e n c h C l e r k ... .1 4 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 4 ... 7 . D a t e o n w h i c h t h e f i l e g o e s t o t h e H e a d C l e r k ... ... ... .... 8 . T h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e f i l e g o e s t o t h e A s s t t . R e gi s t r a r f o r s i g n a t u r e o n t h e o r d e r ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9 . D a t e o f D i s p a t c h o f t h e O r d e r ... ... ... Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 19.12.2019Other Member.....................Date on which the approved draft comes to