Ankit Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1097/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 109720514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1097/AHD/2011 ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 30, OMKAR HOUSE SWASTIK CROSS ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD ( ( ( ( / VS. THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 6188 M ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : -NONE- (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION) ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. (2 1 3% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 16/12/2011 4') 1 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2011 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VI,AHMEDABAD DATED 03/02/2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE APPE LLANT, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE ADDITIONS INVOLVED AND ONE OF THE ISSUE ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 2 - BEING SETTLED WE HAVE THOUGH IT PROPER TO REJECT TH E ADJOURNMENT AND TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD.SR.DR MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL WHO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FA CTS BY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5446/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE THE LEARNED AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO NOT TO MAKE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 2.1. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDI NG ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 DATED 27/11/ 2009 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE, INV ESTMENT & TRADING IN SHARES. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14-A OF THE I.T.ACT ALONG WITH RULE 8-D OF THE IT RULES,1962, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND OF RS.60,687/-. THE DIVIDEND WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT AN INVESTMENT OF RS.89,293/- WAS MA DE, AS AGAINST THAT LOAN OF RS.66,454/- WAS TAKEN, HOWEVER NO INTEREST WAS CLAIMED. IN SPITE OF THE SAID FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED T HAT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN THE SAID TAX FREE INCOME. CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON, AN A VERAGE OF THE INVESTMENT AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED WAS CALCU LATED AND AN ADDITION OF RS.5,446/- WAS MADE. THE MATTER WAS CA RRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS FOUND THAT RULE 8D WAS RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE THE ADDITION WAS CONFI RMED. ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 3 - 3. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL, IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT THE I SSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14-A AS ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D S TOOD SETTLED BY A LATEST DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD. MUMBAI VS. DY.CIT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.626 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2010 OR DER DATED 12/08/2010 [ NOW REPORTED AS 328 ITR 81(BOM)]. IN THIS JUDGEMENT AT THE END, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO RECAPITULATED T HE CONCLUSION AND PRONOUNCED THAT A FINDING IS REQUIRED WHETHER THE I NVESTMENT IN SHARES IS MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS OR OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. A NEXUS IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE INVESTMENTS AND THE BORR OWINGS. IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATI SFIED WITH THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO T HE SAID EXEMPT INCOME. RATHER, THE COURT WAS VERY SPECIFIC THAT IN CASE, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HEN THE MATTER IS TO BE REMANDED BACK FOR AFRESH INVESTIGATION. IT HAS ALS O BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS EFFECTIVE FROM 2001-02. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THE IMPORTANCE O F RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES, 1962. IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT SUB-SECTIO N (1) TO SECTION 14A WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/04/1 962, HOWEVER, SUB- SECTIONS (2) & (3) WERE MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2007. THE PROVISO WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 11/05/2001, HOWEVER RULE 8D WAS INSERTED BY THE INCOME TAX (FI FTH AMENDMENT), RULES, 2008 BY PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETTE DATED 24/ 03/2008, RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 4 - A) THE ITAT HAD RECORDED A FINDING IN THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENTS THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS HAVE BEE N MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND THAT TH ERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENTS AND THE BORROWINGS. HOWEVER, IN NONE OF THOSE DECISIONS WAS THE DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED OUT OF INVESTMENTS MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS CONSIDERED. MOREOVER, UNDER SECTION 14A, EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME C AN BE DISALLOWED ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SAT ISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER. B) SECTION 14A WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 20 01 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 1962. HOWEVER, I N VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO THAT SECTION, THE DISALLOWANCE THEREUNDE R COULD BE EFFECTIVELY MADE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 ONW ARDS. THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER THE APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 14A IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 WOULD NOT BAR THE TRIBUNAL FROM CONSIDERING DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003. C) THE DECISIONS REPORTED IN SRIDEV ENTERPRISES (SUPRA), MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND RADHASOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT THERE MUST BE CONSISTENCY AND DEFINITE NESS IN THE APPROACH OF THE REVENUE WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE, BECAUSE OF THE MATERIAL CHANGE INTRODUCED BY SECTION 14A BY WAY OF STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE IN CERTAIN CASES. TH ERE, THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS WOUL D HAVE NO RELEVANCE IN CONSIDERING DISALLOWANCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 2003 IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 73. FOR THE REASONS WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED, WE HA VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDER SECTION 14A(1) IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FO RM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT AND IF SO TO QUANTIFY THE EXTE NT OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO ARRIVE AT HIS ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 5 - DETERMINATION AFTER FURNISHING AN OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ITS ACCOUNTS AND TO PLACE ON THE RECORD ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE CONSIDERE D TO BE RELEVANT AND GERMANE. FOR THIS PURPOSE AND IN LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE EARLIER IN THIS SECTION OF THE JUDGMENT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND THE PROCEEDINGS BACK TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION. CONCLUSION : 74. OUR CONCLUSIONS IN THIS JUDGMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS ; I) DIVIDEND INCOME AND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS FALLIN G WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 10(33) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961, AS WAS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESP ECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A (1); II) THE PAYMENT BY A DOMESTIC COMPANY UNDER SECTION 115 O(1) OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX ON PROFITS DECLARED, DISTR IBUTED OR PAID IS A CHARGE ON A COMPONENT OF THE PROFITS OF T HE COMPANY. THE COMPANY IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON ITS PROFITS AS A DISTINCT TAXABLE ENTITY AND IT PAYS TAX IN DIS CHARGE OF ITS OWN LIABILITY AND NOT ON BEHALF OF OR AS AN AGENT F OR ITS SHAREHOLDERS. IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER AS T HE RECIPIENT OF DIVIDEND, INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND DO ES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME BY VIRTUE OF THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 10(33). INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS STANDS ON THE SAME BASIS; III) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTI ON 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID; IV) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES A S INSERTED BY THE INCOME TAX (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES 2008 ARE NOT ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, MORE ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 6 - PARTICULARLY SUB SECTION (2) AND DO NOT OFFEND ARTI CLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION; V) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES W HICH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 MARCH 2008 S HALL APPLY WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; VI) EVEN PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ENFORC E THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THT PURPOSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DET ERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASON ABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE R ECORD; VII) THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SHALL S TAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RE LATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME / INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DO ES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT OR GERMANE MATERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. SINCE A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN THAT THIS MA TTER HAS TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME LINES, WE DEEM IT JUS TIFIABLE TO RESTORE THIS ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 7 - GROUND AS WELL BACK TO THE STAGE OF LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO AS PER THE GUIDELINES. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER:- 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FA CTS BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR EXPENSES OF R S.64,873/-, AND THEREFORE THE LEARNED AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. 5.1. A SUM OF RS.64,873/- WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TO MAINT AIN THE PROPERTY, CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED. IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT. BECAUSE OF THAT REA SON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED R EPAIRS EXPENSES FROM THE RENTAL INCOME, HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME CLAIMI NG 30% DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. BEFORE A SSESSING OFFICER, AN ANOTHER PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TENANT HA D VACATED THE SAID PREMISES AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED U SING THE SAID PREMISES AS BUSINESS PREMISES. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ONLY FOR THREE MON THS; I.E. 01/4/2006 TO 31/06/2006 AND FOR THE REST OF THE PERIOD, IT WA S USED AS BUSINESS OFFICE. AS PER ASSESSEE, REPAIRS WERE UNDERTAKEN I N THE MONTHS OF JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH-2007. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD REJECTED THE SAID EXPLANATION AND HELD THAT THERE WAS CONTRA DICTION IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UT ILIZED FOR THE OFFICE, ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 8 - HENCE FINALLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS AFFIRMED THE VIEW O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON REN T FOR A PART PERIOD AND FOR THAT REASON 30% WAS CLAIMED AS REPAIRS AND MAIN TENANCE. ONCE THE CLAIM OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN A LLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROPERTY INCOME, THEN THE ASSESSEE SH OULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM REPAIR EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ALLEGED T O BE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE HAS OPINED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEDUCT ION GRANTED U/S.24 OF THE I.T.ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, THE REPAIRS EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 30 % WERE ALLOWED, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE EXPEN DITURE OF THE LIKE NATURE UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL . 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD.SR.DR MR.SAMI R TEKRIWAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT FOR PART OF THE YEAR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AS AN OFFICE. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN A STA ND THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY I NCOME AND, THEREUPON, THE DEDUCTION U/S.24 OF THE I.T.ACT WAS ALLOWED TOWARDS ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 9 - REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. ACCORDING TO US, ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED IT PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH THA T THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS SO AS TO ALLOW REPAIR EXPENSES AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT VERY PROPERTY HAS EARNED RENTAL INCOME ON WHICH THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE S WERE ALLOWED AS PER THE PRESCRIBED RATE U/S.24 OF THE I.T.ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY INCOME, THEREFORE WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DISALLOW T HE IMPUGNED CLAIM. WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND. 8. REST OF THE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEED N O INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED A S ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 12 /2011 63..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1097/AHD /2011 ANKIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 - 10 - 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. 7 >> >/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..19.12.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.12.11 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S21/12/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21/12/2011 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