M/s. J.K. Paper Ltd., New Delhi V. The Addl.CIT., Range-1, Surat

ITA 1128/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 112820514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIAN SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 133A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1128/AHD/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) JK PAPER LTD. P.O. CENTRAL PULP MILLS FORT SONGADH DIST.SURAT / VS. THE LL.CIT RANGE-1 SURAT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT 6305 N ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) ' $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR #' % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR.DR &'( % ) / DATE OF HEARING 23/10/2015 *+, % ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/12/2015 / 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(APPEALS)-I, SURAT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 26/03/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 SURAT ERRED IN :- ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - 1. PROCEEDING TO PASS IMPUGNED ORDER BY IGNORING THAT POWERS CONFERRED ON HIM U/S.251 OF THE ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT WERE CONFINED ONLY TO THE MATTERS / ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHICH ARE BEING CONTESTED IN APPEAL AND THE ENHANCE MENT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING ON POINTS FROM NEW SOURCE IT WAS BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.13657000 . 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE A) HOLDING THAT SALE OF TRIAL RUN PRODUCTION OF RS.31 0.38 LACS REDUCED FROM CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS SHOULD FORM P ART OF TURNOVER AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. B) WRONGLY ESTIMATED THAT SUCH TRIAL RUN PRODUCTION SA LE HAD G.P. RATIO OF 44% AND IGNORING THAT ACTUAL EXPENSES WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ESTIMATED AT 56% OF SALE VALUE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOD.1 & 2 ABOVE, HAVING HELD THAT SALE VALUE OF TRIAL RUN PRODUCTION THOUGH FOR THE PURPOS E OF ASSETS BLOCK, WAS REDUCED, NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDING/DIRECTING T HAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING TAX DEPRECIATION, THE RESPEC TIVE ASSETS BLOCK SHOULD BE INCREASED BY IDENTICAL AMOUNT TO AVOID DO UBLE TAXATION FOR THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 01.12.2011 PASSED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BEING BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE THE ABOVE ADDIT IONAL GROUND BEFORE THIS HONBLE BENCH OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , THE SAME BEING LEGAL GROUND WHICH CAN BE RAISED AS PER THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383. ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - THE APPELLANT FURTHER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND, CHANGE, DELETE AND EDIT THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REOPENED AND THE REASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED V IDE ORDER DATED 01/12/2011, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN S HORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.51,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN CLOSIN G STOCK. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.C IT(A) DELETED AND THE ADDITION, HOWEVER, ENHANCED THE INCOME TO RS.136.57 LACS BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY BE DECIDED FIRST, IN CASE THI S TRIBUNAL HOLDS THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01/12/2011 IS BAD IN LAW, THEN THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BECOME NULL AND VOID. THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF N ATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1998)229 ITR 383 (SC), THE LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING IS ILLEGAL AN D UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THIS GROU ND WAS NOT RAISED ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND IS BEING TAKEN FIRST-TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE(S) OF P.V . DOSHI VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (GUJ.) AND OF RAMILA BEN RATILAL SHAH VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2006) 152 TAXMAN 37 (GUJ.) = (2006 ) ITR 176 (GUJ.). 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR OPPOSED THE SUBM ISSION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMITTING THE ADDIT IONAL GROUND. 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 JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF P.V.DOSHI VS. CIT AND RAMILABEN RA TILAL SHAH VS. CIT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADM ITTEDFOR ADJUDICATION. WE FIND THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE, THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TOLLARAM HASSOMAL RE PORTED AT (2008) 298 ITR 22 (MP) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAV ING PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TREAT ING THEM TO BE LEGAL GROUNDS IN APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SHOULD HAVE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECI DING THE APPEAL BY CIT(A) AFRESH ON ALL THE ISSUES INCLUDING ON THOSE FOUR GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL R ATHER THAN TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THEMSELVES AND SET ASIDE THE ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - ORDER OF CIT(A) AS ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HAD T HE CASE BEEN REMANDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE CIT(A) WOULD HAVE BEE N IN A POSITION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RELATION TO THOSE FOUR GROUNDS WHICH HE DID NOT DECIDE FOR WANT OF ANY ATTACK ON T HOSE GROUNDS INITIALLY IN THE FIRST ROUND. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT CIT( A) HAD JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THOSE FOUR GROUNDS HAD IT BEEN RAISED BEFOR E HIM IN APPEAL EVEN IN THE FIRST ROUND. WE THUS CANNOT SUBSCRIBE T O THE APPROACH AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESS EE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON THOSE GROUNDS BY NOT ONLY SETTING ASIDE O F THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BUT EVEN PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE ORDER OF AO ALSO. SUCH APPROACH IS NEITHER LEGAL NOR PROPER. IT ONLY EXHIBITS THE ANXI ETY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS EVEN ON THOSE POINTS WH ICH DID NOT ARISE FOR DECISION OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN OTHER WORDS , INSTEAD OF CONCENTRATING ON THE ISSUES ALREADY DECIDED BY THE CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL ONLY CONCENTRATED ON THOSE GROUNDS WHICH HAD NOT BE EN TAKEN BEFORE CIT(A) AND THEN ANSWERED THEM IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY COMPLETELY ANNULLING THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT. THERE WOULD HAVE BE EN NO PREJUDICE CAUSED TO EITHER PARTY IF THE CASE HAD BEEN REMANDE D TO CIT(A) ONCE THE PRAYER TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WAS ALLOWED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. WHEN A LITIGANT HAS A RIGHT TO SEEK ADJUDICATION ON A PARTICULAR POINT FROM ONE MORE AUTHORITY [AS IN THI S CASE CIT(A)] AND AGAIN ACQUIRE A RIGHT TO REITERATE THE CHALLENGE BE FORE THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY (SUCH AS TRIBUNAL) IN CASE IF T HE CHALLENGE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEN IN SUCH EVENT, THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON AS TO WHY A LITIGANT IS DEPRIVED OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT AGREE TO SUCH AP PROACH RESORTED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 8. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER ISSUES, I.E., QUESTIONS ALREADY F RAMED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THOUGH URGED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RE VENUE ON VARIOUS LEGAL GROUNDS WITH REFERENCE TO DECIDED CASES OF SU PREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS BY CONTENDING THAT NONE OF THEM ARE LEG ALLY SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE, WE ANSWER ONLY ADDITIONAL QUESTION OF LA W FRAMED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE (RESPONDENT). A S A RESULT, THE APPEAL SUCCEEDS AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - IS SET ASIDE, SO ALSO THAT OF CIT(A) WHICH WAS SUBJ ECT-MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. INDEED, THIS BEING A CONSEQUENCE OF THE INDULGENCE GRANTED BY THE TRIB UNAL TO THE ASSESSEE IN PERMITTING THEM TO RAISE FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TO URGE THE SAME HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE CIT(A) IS NOW DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT (ASSESSEE ) AFRESH ON MERITS INCLUDING ON THE FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOWEVER MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT CIT(A) WOULD NOT TA KE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OF THE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON ANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E, NOR CIT(A) WILL BE INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CIT( A) WILL DECIDE THE APPEAL STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON MERITS, A S IF THERE IS NO FINDING ON ANY OF THE ISSUES EVER RECORDED BY THE T RIBUNAL BECAUSE ONCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEN SUCH ORDER IS REGARDED AS BEING NOT IN EXISTENCE AND CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO FOR ANY PURPOSE, NOR CAN BE RELIED ON OR REFERRED TO BY ANY AUTHORITY MUCH LESS AN AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE TO THE TRIBUNAL. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE, T HE FOUR ADDITIONAL ISSUES URGED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDE D BY CIT(A) KEEPING IN VIEW THE LAW LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS IN SEVERAL CASES HOLDING THE FIELD IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. LET THIS BE DONE WITHIN SIX MONTHS BY CIT(A) FROM THE DATE OF APPEARANCE. P ARTIES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 3RD APRIL, 2006. 4.1. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. REMI STEEL HOUSE IN TAX APPEAL NO.850 OF 2013 WITH TAX APPEAL NO.851 OF 2013, ORDER DATED HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6.01. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF DI SCLOSURE MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISPUTED THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY TREATING DISCLO SURE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IMPOSED PENALTY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE PREM ISE THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, IN APPE ALS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME C ONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL THAT THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSE E WAS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX AC T AND THEREFORE, CONSIDERING EXPLANATION 5(I) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ENTERTAINED THE SAID PLEA WHICH WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE IT AND H ELD THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT AND THEREFOR E, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPOSED. AS STATED ABOVE, AND IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NO SUCH CONTENTION THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS E VER RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR EVEN BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, AS SUCH OUGHT TO HAVE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID ASPECT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND WHEN IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, RATHER THAN CONS IDERING IT, WHICH WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE IT, MORE PARTICULA RLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. 6.02. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON THE AFORESAID GRO UND ALONE, THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND THE MATTERS ARE TO BE RES TORED TO THE FILE OF CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO CON SIDER THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX AC T AND FOR THAT, TO HOLD NECESSARY INQUIRY ON THE SAME AND THEREAFTER TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS. 7.00. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTH THESE APPEALS A RE ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE L EARNED ITAT IN ITA NOS.1546/AHD/2010 AND 1547/AHD/2010 DATED 5/4/2 013 IS HEREBY QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND THE MATTERS ARE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS AND TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - MADE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AFTE R HOLDING NECESSARY INQUIRY AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ON THE SAID ISSUE AND THEREAFTER TO PASS A REASONED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS, AS AFORESAID. BO TH THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD AFFORD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES. HENCE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT ARE ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH, AFTER DECIDI NG THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT GOES TO VERY ROOT OF THE CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON MONDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 12 /2015 0)..& , '.&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1128 /AH D/2012 JK PAPER LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 5'6 &23 , ) 23 , , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 689 :( / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, #5 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 02.12.15 (DICTATION-PAD 6- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..02.12.15 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. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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