Shri Babubhai Jasangbhai Deai, Ahmedabad V. The CIT-III, Ahmedabad

ITA 1119/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 111920514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1119/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ) BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI A-25, BHAGWATINAGAR SOC., OPP.GULAB TOWER SOLA ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 061 / VS. THE CIT-III AHMEDABAD % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABOPD 5495 K ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR )*%( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SMT.NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT-DR -. , /& / DATE OF HEARING 30/07/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/08/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD [CIT IN SHORT] PASSED U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 21/02/2013 PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 ON 21-2-2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BY CIT- A;BAD-III, ABAD SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT MADE U/S.143(3) AND DIRECTING TO PASS AFRESH ORDER IN RESPECT OF EI GHT POINTS IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT AND SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CIT HAD ALLOWED VERY SHORT TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE DUE TO HIS POLITICAL AND OTHER ASSIGNMENTS. HENCE THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE AL LOWED TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2.1 THE LD.CIT HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE BY AO WAS ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL IN AS MUCH AS THE AO HAD NOT EXAMINED THE EIGHT ISS UES AND MECHANICALLY ACCEPTED THE SAME. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 AND SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSTT FOR FRESH INQUIRY. 3.1 THE LD.CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ORI GINAL ASSTT WAS COMPLETED AFTER CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS RELATIN G TO EIGHT ISSUE UNDER REVISION SO THAT THE POWERS INVOKED U/S 263 WERE IL LEGAL AND UNLAWFUL. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA SSED U/S 263 BY CIT MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED AND ORIGINAL ASSTT ORDER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) VIDE ORDER D ATED 28/05/2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD.CIT ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER; WHEREBY THE LD.CIT SET ASIDE TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/05/2010 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUES AND PASS ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT IS IN PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIS CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INGREDIENTS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATIS FIED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT HAS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT A SH OW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 01/12/2012 BUT NONE ATTENDED ON 04/12/201 2. HE FURTHER RECORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22/01/2013 TO BE COMPLIE D ON 29/01/2013. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE F IRST OCCASION WHEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 01/12/2012 ONLY THR EE DAYS WERE GIVEN TO COMPLY WITH. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN I N THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY, ONLY SEVEN DAYS WERE THERE FROM THE DA TE OF ISSUE OF THE LETTER FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE LETTER. FOR THE REA SONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM HAS GIVEN A SHORT-PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE AND EVEN TH E PERIOD GIVEN FOR COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AS THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ALSO TAKE TIME FOR DELIVERY. UNDER THE SE FACTS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT BE SET ASIDE. HE ALSO FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - DATED 25/02/2015. HE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE IN SYNOPSIS AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT. THE LD.CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD WAS DULY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. IN REJOINDER, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO EXPLA IN, AS POINTED OUT IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. ON MERIT, NO GROUND EXISTS FO R INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT IN HIS ORDER HAS RECORDED T HAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED BY ISSUING SHOW-CA USE NOTICE DATED 27/11/2012 AND BY THAT SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED TO ATTEND OFFICE OF THE LD.CIT ON 04/12/2012. IT IS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 01/ 12/2012, HOWEVER, NONE ATTENDED ON 04/12/2012. IT IS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN VIDE LETTER DATED 22/01/2013, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON 29/01/2013 AND ON THIS DATE ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, LD.CIT PROCEEDED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AS SESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, ON BOTH OCCASION, THE LD.CIT HAS GIVEN TOTAL PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF LETTER TO THE DATE OF HEARING. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER-BOOK, WHEREIN HE HAS POINT ED OUT THAT THE AO HAD EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS ON THE BASIS WHICH THE LD.CIT HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD.CIT HAS REVISED THE ORDER O N THE BASIS THAT NO PROPER ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD NOTICES DATED 16/10/2 009 AND 24/12/2009 ISSUED U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE DATED 24/ 12/2009 IS IN FORM OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND HAS EXHAUSTIVE INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF 25 ITEMS. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REPLY DAT ED 9 TH JANUARY-2010 GIVING ITEM-WISE REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO. TH ERE IS ANOTHER LETTER ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE NOS.34 & 35 OF TH E PAPER-BOOK ADDRESSED TO AO; WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED INFORMATION TO THE AO. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED WRI TTEN SYNOPSIS WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT BEGS TO STATE THAT THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 ON 21/2/2 013 BY CIT-III A'BAD DIRECTING THE AO TO REVISE THE ORDER OF ASSTT. PASS ED U/S 143(3) ON 28-5-2010. 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELL ANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, BROKING. AP ART FROM THIS, HE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.208-09 ON 31.03.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,73,70,120/- WHICH INCLUDED MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INCOME SUCH AS SALARY AS MLA, RENT OF PROPERTY, SHARE OF PROFITS, CAPITAL GAINS, SALE OF LANDS, ETC . ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED INITIALLY NOTICE DT. 16-10-2009 TO FURNISH DOCUMENTS AND ACCOUNTS IN SUP PORT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMS MADE THERE UNDER. THE APPELLANT B Y LETTER DT. 30-10-2009 SUBMITTED THE SAID DETAILS. THEREAFTER THE AO ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 143(1) DT. 24-12-2009 WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH INCLUD ED MANY ITEMS AS STATED IN THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DT. 9-1-2010 FURNISHED SAID DETAILS. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTE D DETAILS ON 3-2-2010 AND 19-4-2010.THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SAID DET AILS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 28-5-2010 ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,76,76,023 AFTER MAKING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES AGGREGATING TO RS.3,05,903/- . 2.2 THEREAFTER, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 WERE I NITIATED BY CIT-A'BAD-III VIDE NOTICE DT. 27-11-2012 IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOW ING ITEMS OF INCOME: (I) CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 28 LAKHS IN CANARA B ANK A/C. (II) INCOME FROM SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FO R RS. 58 LACS. (III) SALE OF LAND SHOWN AS CAPITAL GAINS INSTE AD OF BUSINESS INCOME. (IV) CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS76 LACS NOT EXAMIN ED. (V) RENTAL INCOME AS PER IDS CERTIFICATES WAS R S. 19,11,016 BUT SHOWN AT RS. 17,30,661. (VI) NO DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR PRORATE INTEREST E XP. THOUGH EXEMPT INCOME. (VII) DISALLOWANCE FOR PERSONAL USE OUT OF EXP OF RS. 5,99,229 NOT EXAMINED. (VIII) AGRI. INCOME ACCEPTED WITHOUT EXAMINING DE TAILS. 2.3 SINCE THE TIME ALLOWED IN THE SAID NOTICE WAS HARDLY 3 DAYS IT COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH. HENCE A FURTHER NOTICE DT 22-1-2013 WAS ISSUED TO ATTEND ON 29-L-13 WHEREIN ALSO FOUR EFFECTIVE DAYS WERE ALLOW ED IN VIEW OF HOLIDAYS FOR TWO DAYS. THEREAFTER NOTHING WAS HEARD FROM CIT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 21-2-2013 EX-PARTE DIRECTING AO TO RE-EXAMINE ALL THE EIGHT ISSUE AND PASS ORDER AFRESH. 2.4 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY AO WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE BECAUSE THE AO HAD AFTER HAVING CALLED FOR THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND O N VERIFICATION BEING SATISFIED WITH THE SAME TAKEN THE VIEW PARTLY IN FA VOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND PARTLY TO THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, CAPITA L GAINS ETC. THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR ARE TABULATED AS UNDER FOR CONVENIENCE: ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - SR NO. ITEM UNDER REVISION REMARK 1 CANARA BANK A/C ITEM NO. 3 AND 5(E) OF NOTICE DT 24-12-2009. CIT HIMSELF STATES PROPER & ADEQUATE INQUIRIES BY CALLING FOR BANK STATEMENTS NOT MADE.HOWEVER, REPLY DT. 9-1-2010 STATES COPY OF BANK A/CS FILED (P-30) 2 SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ITEM NO.14 OF NOTICE DT 24-12-2009 AND SEE REPLY DT 9-1-2010 (P-32). NO SUCH SALE MADE AS NOTICED FROM FINAL A/CS. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IN FRESH ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 DT. 11-2-2014. 3 SALE OF LAND & BLDG AS CAPITAL GAINS ITEM NO.16 OF NOTICE DT 24-12-2009. THE SALE AS DEALER IN LAND SHOWN SEPARATELY IN P&L A/C (P-9) 4 PROFIT AS CONFIRMING PARTY DETAILS AS PER PAGE 54 OF PAPER BOOK AND DETAILS GIVEN AS PER (P-56). THERE CANNOT BE A BUSINESS TO DEAL IN BANAKHAT RIGHTS BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 LEASE RENT ITEM NO.18 OF NOTICE DT 24-12-2009 (SEE DETAILS GIVEN AS PER PAGE-50). THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY BECAUSE SERVICE TAX OF RS.1,80,355/- WAS SEPARATELY CREDITED TO SERVICE TAX PAYABLE A/C. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WERE RS.19,11,016 LESS RS.1,80,355= RS.17,30,661 CR TO P&L A/C. 6 14A DISALLOWANCE ITEM NO.8 OF NOTICE DT 24-12- 2009 DETAILS FO INTEREST FURNISHED (P-32) 7 PERSONAL USE DISALLOWANCE -NO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO CONSIDERING NATURE OF BUSINESS, ETC. 8 AGRI INCOME ITEM NO.22 TO 25 OF NOTICE DT 24-12-2009 AND DISALLOWED RS.1,64,434/-. THE NET AGRI INCOME FOR THREE YEARS GIVEN (P-33) 9 FORM NO.16A-SHORTFALL IN INCOME ITEM NO.19 ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - CASE LAWS RELIED UPON: 1 MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD. - 243 ITR 83(SC) 2. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. - 203 ITR 108 (BOM) 3. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. - 332 ITR 167 ( DEL) 4. MAX INDIA LTD. - 295 ITR 283 (SC) 5. M/S BHAGAT MARKETING CORPN.- ITA NO.1292/A/06 DT 19-12-08 6. ABHISHEK ENG P LTD. ITA NO.754/A HD/2012 DT.22-6-12 4.1. U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE LD.CIT IS EMPOWERED TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT , AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO IS ERRONEOU S 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 MA KING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT IS EMPOWER ED TO CALL FOR THE RECORD AND EXAMINE THE RECORD AND MAKE INQUIRY AS H E DEEMS PROPER BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANC ES JUSTIFY. IT IS EXPECTED FROM THE LD.CIT IN THE EVENT OF INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HE WOULD AFFORD SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REPRESENTING AND DEFENDING HIS CASE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES OF SEVEN DAYS EACH INCLUDING THE PERIOD TAKEN FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE/LETTER. UNDER T HESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIS CASE. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT REVISIONARY POWER IS ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED WITH A GREAT CAUTION BECAU SE IT AFFECTS THE TAXPAYERS RIGHTS AND IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT THE CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BE REOPENED ON THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE AUTHORITY WHO IS BESTOWED WITH POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER, BUT SUC H EXERCISE OF POWER SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF L AW AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LAW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AND THE EXPLANATION WI TH REGARD TO THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WERE INVOKED REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE END OF THE LD.CIT. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE LD.CIT I S DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE MATT ER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 08 /2015 6/..-, .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1119/AHD /2013 BABUBHAI JESANGBHAI DESAI VS. THE CIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. ;< )-89 , / 893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <= >. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *; ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 6.8.15 (DICTATION-PAD 15- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..6.8.15 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..7.8.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .7.8.15 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