Manan Movers Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Dy,CIT.,Circle-1, Surat

ITA 1159/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 115920514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 194C; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , , BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDEN T (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1159/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. B-401, PADAM ARCADE BESIDE HANDLOOM HOUSE NANPURA, SURAT - 395 001 / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-I SURAT ! '# ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCM 5017 H ( !% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'!% / RESPONDENT ) !%(' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. &'!%)(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR * +) ,# / DATE OF HEARING 23/02/2015 -./0 ) ,# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/03/2015 '/ 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 18/03/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- 1. LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DEALIN G WITH THE PLEA RAISED BY THE APPELLANT TO QUASH REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS DUE TO FAILURE OF AO TO PASS SEPARATE SPEAKING ORDER DISPO SING OF THE ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST NOTICE I SSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THA T THE REASSESSMENT ORDER HAD NO MENTION OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APP ELLANT THAT WERE TO BE DEALT WITH FIRST BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER BY A.O. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ORDER THAT IS ILLEGAL, VO ID AB INITIO AND AGAINST THE LEGAL PROVISIONS. 2. LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG ACTION OF AO IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL R ETURN OF INCOME WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. LD.CIT(A) OU GHT TO HAVE HELD THAT AO IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSE SSMENT IN ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH MATERIAL SIMPLY ON CHANGE OF O PINION. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT BY QUASHING REASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLD ING REASSESSMENT TO BE VALID IN ABSENCE OF SPEAKING ORDER ON ISSUES IN EARLIER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH APPLICATION OF MIND IN FORMING ANY OPINION BY AO. LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT AO BEING SATISFIED WITH DETAILED SCRUTINY OF MATERIAL DISCLOSED AND DETAILS FURNISHED FORMED AN OPINION THAT NO INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED RE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ABSENCE OF ANY FAILURE ON PART OF TH E APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. 4. LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING A DDITION MADE BY AO OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. LD.CIT(A) ERRE D IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS TRANSAC TION STOOD DISCHARGED BY SUBMITTING CONFIRMATION AND EVIDENCE. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED ADDITION. 5. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2005-06 AND THE ASSESSMENT U/ S.147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2008. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH THE OBJECTION AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSES SMENT. HOWEVER, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,75,01,024/- BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITI9ON O F RS.5 LACS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE APPE AL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN WRIT PETITION BEARING SPECIAL CIVIL APP LICATION NO.142 OF 2009 HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/01/2009 STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2008 IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) TRAVELLED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.110 OF 2011, DATED 10/0 9/2014, IN THE CASE OF M/S.GANESH SHIPPING AGENCY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ALONG WITH ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - OTHER TRANSFER CASES. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WA S PLEASED TO OBSERVE THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS INITIALLY AMENDED BY FINANCE BILL, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FRO M 01.04.2005. IN CONTINUATION OF THIS AMENDMENT, BY FINANCE ACT, 201 0, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FURTHER AMENDED. H AVING REGARD TO THESE AMENDMENTS AND THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN GROUP OF MATTERS BEING TAX APPEAL NO.412 OF 2013, COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX VS. OMPRAKASH R.CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS, THE GRI EVANCE OF THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, DUE TO STAY GRANTED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINC E THE ISSUE IS NOW DECIDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THEREFORE THE GR OUND BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. HE S UBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, A SPECIFIC OBJECTION WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE OBJECTION SO RAISED WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE AO BY WAY OF A SEP ARATE ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P.)LT D. VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT (2013) 354 ITR 244(GUJ.), THE OBJECTIO N RAISED AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE DECID ED BY A SEPARATE ORDER. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 MAY BE DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P.)L TD. VS. DY.CIT(SUPRA). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDITION GRO UND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER:- (1) THAT ON FACTS, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWA NCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON MERITS, AND IN DISMISSI NG IT AS INFRUCTUOUS FOR TECHNICAL REASONS. (2) THAT ON FACTS, AND IN LAW, IT BE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AS AMENDED W.E.F. 01/10/201 4 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS/EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 30/09/2004 AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED F OR U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 5.1. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WERE NOT ADJUDICATED ON TECHNICAL GROUND. THIS CONTENTION O F THE LD.COUNSEL FOR ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE LD.CIT(A) HA S RIGHTLY NOT ADJUDICATED THE GROUND IN VIEW OF THE STAY ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO ME RIT INTO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD.CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE PROCEEDED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUND DE HORS TH E INTERIM STAY OF OPERATION OF THE ORDER WHICH WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. HOWEVER, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.110 OF 2011 DATE D 10/09/2014. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY RESTORE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWA NCE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISIO N AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IN RESPEC T OF THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE ASSESSMENT IS NULLITY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE OBJECTION RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE NOT DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF A SEPARATE ORDER BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED B ACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE SAME. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1 ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.C IT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD A FFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES. ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - 6. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 ARE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCES WERE PLACED B EFORE THE AO AND THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND IN THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFO RE DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-O PENING IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 6.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE REPRE SETNATIVE OF THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD A ND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THESE GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 8.2. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION HAS BEEN EXAMINED. THE APPELLANT HA NOT ENCLOSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT O RDER IN ITS SUBMISSION. HOWEVER, THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISS UE OF CHANGE OF OPINION HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONSOLIDATED PHOTO FINLEASE LT D. REPORTED IN 281 ITR 393. THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T ARE AS UNDER:- AO HAVING INDICATED THE BASIS ON WHICH INCOME EXIG IBLE TO TAX HAS IN HIS OPINION ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACTION OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION AND, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE SAID ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - TO BE INCOMPETENT OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER, THE PRINCI PLE OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SITUATION S WHERE THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN A CONSCIOUS D ECISION ON A PARTICULAR MATER IN ISSUE. THEREFORE, APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT RE-OPENING A MOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT CORRECT, AS THERE IS NO EV IDENCE THAT THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE ISSUES B Y WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER, ESTABLISHING THAT THERE WAS AN APPL ICATION OF MIND IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUES. THE APPELLANT HAD RECEI VED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.5,00,000/- IN CASH. EVEN D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO FURNISH DETAILS AS TO WHETHER THE SHARES WERE ACTUALLY ALLO TTED OR NOT? MOREOVER, ALL THESE PARTIES WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE GU JARAT AND APPLICATION FOR SHARES IN CASH OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUN TS IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. THE SAME APPLIES TO UNSECURED LOANS. THE MAIN REASON FOR RE-OPENING WAS THE CLAIM OF NON-VERIFIAB LE TRANSPORT EXPENSES OF RS.11,49,89,112/-. 8.3. THE BANK STATEMENT REFLECTED HUGE WITHDRAWALS IN CASH DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, TOTALLING TO RS.38.75 LA KHS. SINCE MAIN EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT ARE UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORT EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED A REASON T O BELIEVE THAT THESE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED IN CASH IN VIOLATI ON OF SECTION 40A(3). AT THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148, I T IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE A FINAL FINDING R EGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF PAYMEN T TOWARDS TRANSPORT EXPENSES IN CASH, WHICH VIOLATED THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, EXISTED. THIS GROUND ALONE IS S UFFICIENT FOR FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - 7.1. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY TH E LD.CIT(A). THE BASIS OF NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ENCLOSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN RE GULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) C ANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE SAME IS NOT BASED ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS. TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THIS GROUND IS RESTORED TO HIM FOR DECISION AFRESH. IT IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT AS TO HOW THE AO FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRY AND APPLY HIS MIND ON THE ISSUES WHICH RESULTED INTO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT ALL EVIDENCES WERE AVAILABLE AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN ANOTHER OPPO RTUNITY, HE WOULD PLACE ALL EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE AGAINST THE SETTLED LAW. AF TER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THIS GROUND IS A LSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - 9. GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 10. GROUND NO.6 IS AGAINST INITIATION OF PENALTY U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS PRE-MATURE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 03 /2015 4,..* , .*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'!% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 9 :&*67 , ,670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. : <= + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ' 9& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.1159/AHD /2013 MANAN MOVERS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 11 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 18.3.15(DICTATION-PAD 11- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 18.3.15 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.27/3/15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27/3/15 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