M/s. Integra Engineering India Ltd., Panchmahal V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Baroda

ITA 1120/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 112020514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHELLEY JINDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHAH WITH SHRI Y G SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM SHRI KUL BHARA T, JM) ITA NO. 1120/AHD/2012 A. Y.: 2007-08 M/S. ITEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SCHLAFHORST ENGG. (I) LTD.), POST BOX NO.55, CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE, HALOL, PANCHMAHAL P. A. NO. AABCS 8347 Q VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-4, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. R. SHAH WITH SHRI Y. G. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SHELLEY JINDAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 16-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19 -10-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT- II, BARODA PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT DATED 30-03-2012 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AR DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.2 OF THE APP EAL SINCE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY WAS PURSUED AND FURTHER HE DID N OT PRESS GROUND ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 2 NO.5. THEREFORE BOTH THOSE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE OTHER THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE GROUNDS NO.1, 3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL AND THEY ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REF ERENCE:- 1. (I) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT BAD IN LAW AS THE ORDER OF LEARNED A. O. U/S 14 3(3) WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF REVENUE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW AND ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BE QUASHED. (II) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN LAW IN APPLYING PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF SET-O FF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR A. YS. 1997-98 AND 1998 -99 AGAINST THE INCOME FOR A. Y. 2007-08 AS WAS DONE BY LEARNED A. O. AS THE SAME WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED A. O. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TWO VIE WS ARE POSSIBLE AND LEARNED A. O. HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE V IEWS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS HAS B EEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. 243 ITR 83 AND SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT& FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ALLOWANCE OF SET-OFF OF DEPRECIATI ON FOR A.YS. 1997-98 AND 1998-99 AGAINST THE INCOME FOR A. Y. 20 07-08 HAS TO BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SUCH SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT POSITION OF LAW AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR IS TO BE SEEN FOR SUCH TREATMENT AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE & INDUST RIES LIMITED 120 ITR 921 AND ALSO OTHER DECISIONS OF SUP REME COURT LAYING DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH DEEMING FICTI ON IN 32(2) BE BENEFICIALLY INTERPRETED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELL ANT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AP PELLANT BEING BIFR REGISTERED COMPANY, IT IS ENTITLED TO SU CH TREATMENT ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 3 AS PER THE SCHEME SANCTIONED BY BIFR. YOUR APPELLAN T SUBMITS THAT THEREFORE EVEN ON THAT CONSIDERATION THE LEARN ED CIT HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ORDER U/ S 263 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE O F HIGH SPEED DRAW FILM WHICH IS USED IN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES . THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES BUSINESS BY SELLING SPARE PARTS MANUFACTURED B Y IT AND SOURCED LOCALLY AND IMPORTED, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 ON 29-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF T HE ACT ON 27-11- 2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 24-12-2009 WHEREIN THE LEARNED AO GRANTED DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ACCUMU LATED SINCE 1994-1995 TO 2003-04 FOR RS.13,36,45,631/-. THEREAF TER, THE LEARNED CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 24-12-2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4, BARODA NOT BE CANCELLED SINCE UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,19,49,810/- AND RS.1,20,78,798/- RESPECTIVELY WERE WRONGLY SET OFF AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE PRESE NT PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (2) OF THE ACT WHICH RESTRICTED THE CARRY FORWARD OF UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE TO EIGHT SUBSEQUENT ASSESSME NT YEARS, WAS APPLICABLE ONLY UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND T HAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2002 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONWARD S THE CONDITIONS RESTRICTING THE CARRY FORWARD UP TO EIGH T YEARS WAS NO LONGER ON THE STATUTE. SINCE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I N QUESTION WAS ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 4 2007-08, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN ALLOWING T HE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 AGAINST THE INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 WAS NOT ERRONEOUS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT HELD THAT T HE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN PERMITTING THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEPRE CIATION ALLOWANCE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 BEY OND THE STIPULATED QUARANTINE PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS AND SET TING OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS U NSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THEREFORE, ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DURING T HE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT STAGE U/S 143 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AO VIDE LETTER DATED 14-09-2009 AT ITEM NO.19 HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES AS PER RETURNED INC OME AND ASSESSED INCOME YEAR WISE (REFERENCE PAGE 21 OF THE PAPER BO OK) PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SUCH DETAILS AND BASED ON SUCH SUBMISSION AND EXAMINING THE ISSUE THE LEARNED AO H AD JUDICIOUSLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS ALSO THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS DCIT [ 2012] 25 TAXMANN.COM 364 (GUJ.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 COULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AFTER A PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 32( 2) AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001. THE LEARNED AR WITH THE ABOV E SUBMISSION ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 5 ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ISSUE UN DER CONSIDERATION, MORE THAN ONE VIEW IS POSSIBLE AND W HEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW IS ADAPTED BY THE AO, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ORDER ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83. WITH T HE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED CIT MAY BE QUASHED. 4. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THOUGH ON MERIT THE ISSUE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS HELD TO BE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, THE ISSUES DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT AT THAT POINT OF TIME CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE DEBATABLE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT WAS IN ORDER AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME M AY BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR THE LEARNED AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF LOSSES AS PER RETURNE D INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME YEAR WISE. FROM THE INFORMATION FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED AO CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION HAD JUDICIOUSLY SET OFF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 OF RS.1,19, 49,810/- AND RS.1,20,78,798/- RESPECTIVELY. ON MERIT, THE ISSUE IS HELD IN FAVOUR OF ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 6 THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS DCIT W HEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER: THE PROVISION OF SECTION 32(2) WAS INTRODUCED BY F INANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1996 AND FURTHER AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000. THE PROVISION INTRODUCED BY FINANCE (NO.2) AC T WAS CLARIFIED BY THE FINANCE MINISTER TO BE APPLICABLE WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. [PARA 34] THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR CLARIFIES THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT THAT IT IS FOR ENABLING THE INDUSTRY TO CONSERVE SU FFICIENT FUNDS TO REPLACE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE A MENDMENT DISPENSES WITH THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THIS AMENDMENT HAS BECOME APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS MEANING THAT ANY UNABSORBED DEPREC IATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) WILL BE DEALT WITHIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE SAID AMENDMENT. IF THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN TO ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WORKED OUT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ONLY FOR EIGHT SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIO N 32(2) BY FINANCE ACT, 2001, IT WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH PROVISION. HENCE, A PURPOSIVE AND HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION HA S TO BE TAKEN KEEPING IN VIEW THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT OF S ECTION 32(2). WHILE CONSTRUING TAXING STATUTES, RULE OF ST RICT INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE APPLIED, GIVING FAIR AND R EASONABLE CONSTRUCTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION WITHOUT LEANING TO THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE OR REVENUE. BUT IF THE LEGISLA TURE FAILS TO EXPRESS CLEARLY AND THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED F OR A BENEFIT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION BY THE CLEAR WORDS USED IN SECTION, THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENI ED. HOWEVER, CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 HAD CLARIFIED THAT UNDER SECTION 32(20, IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS OR ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 7 PROFESSION FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, DEDUCTION OF DEPR ECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 SHALL BE MANDATORY. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 WO ULD ALLOW THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 20 01-02 TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, AND IF ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR PART THEREOF COULD NOT B E SET OFF TILL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THEN IT WOULD BE CARRIE D FORWARD TILL THE TIME IT IS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. [PARA 37] THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT, CURRENT DEPRECIATIO N IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS TO WHICH IT RELATES. IF SUCH DEPRECIATION AMOUNT IS IN EXCESS T HAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS, THEN SUCH E XCESS SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS, IF ANY, CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A BALANCE IS LEFT EVEN THEREAFTER, THAT BECOMES DEDUCTIBLE FROM OUT O F INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS OF INC OME DURING THAT YEAR. IN CASE THERE IS A STILL BALANCE LEFT OV ER, IT IS TO BE TREATED AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND IT IS TAKEN TO THE NEXT YEAR. WHERE THERE IS CURRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ADDED TO THE C URRENT DEPRECIATION FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION BECOMES THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH SUCCEEDING YEAR. IT IS HELD THAT ANY UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 (A. Y. 2002- 03) WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001. AND ONCE THE CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 CLARIFIED THAT THE RESTRICTI ON OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM AS SESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 GOT CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND BECAME P ART THEREOF, IT CAME TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 AND WERE AVAI LABLE FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND G AINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER. [PA RA 38] ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 8 FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THIS WRIT PETITION SUCCE EDS AND IS ALLOWED. [PARA 39] 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED AO HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND HAD ADOPTED A POSSIBLE VIEW. THEREFORE, THE DECISIO N RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD . VS CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THIS CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HE LEARNED CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY PASSING ORDER INVOKING SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1997- 98 AND 1998-99 SET OFF BY THE LEARNED AO IN THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE AND THEREBY CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ON MERITS, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 7-98 AND 1998-99 BEING SET OFF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS CITED SUPRA. THUS, GROUND NO.1 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OFF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, WE HAVE QUASHED THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT; WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDIC ATE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1120/AHD/ 2012 (AY: 2007-08) M/S. INTEGRA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-4, BARODA 9 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-10-2012. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA / DEKA / DEKA / DEKA / 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 ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 16-10-12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: -10-12 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: 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: