Shri Priyavadan Panachand Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer (OSD)- II, Range-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 1200/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9417 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI PRAIYAVADAN P. SHAH, PROP. PRIYAVADAN HOUSING, 2 ND FLOOR BHAGWATI CHAMBERS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. ITO (OSD)-II, RANGE-9, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ALNPS 5954K APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/03/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABAD, DATED 12.03.2015. ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED ON 20/12/2010 U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 BY ITO(OSD)-II, RANGE-9, AHMEDAB AD. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1.1 THE ORDER, PASSED U/S.250 ON 12-3-2015 FOR A .Y. 2008-09 BY CIT(A)-5, A'BAD UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB(10) OF RS. 2,66 ,002/-, IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND T HE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD. CIT('A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80-16(10) OF RS.2,66,002. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB( 10) ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VERY ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELL ANT FOR A.Y.2001-02 BY ITAT AND FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY CIT(A) . 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E FILING REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB WAS NOT MANDATORY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB(10). IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE SAID REPORT. THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY S PECIFIC SHOW CAUSE IN THIS REGARD. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DEDUCTI ON U/S.80-16(10) OF RS.2,66,202 SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.2,66,002/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE A CT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ORGANIZER CUM PROJECT CO NSULTANT AND HAS BEEN ASSIGNED THE WORK AS PER THE PROJECT CONSULTAT ION AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH PRIYAVADAN CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY IN W HICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A FOUNDER MEMBER. THIS AGREEMENT W AS NOTARIZED ON 20.09.2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 BEIN G THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, AS PER TRIBUNALS O RDER PASSED IN ITA NO.1576/AHD/2005 DATED 12.4.2007. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 13.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,910/-. TH E CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS AND NOT ICE U/S 143(2) ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.7.2009 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE ALSO FURN ISHED TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB AND 3CD BUT NO REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE AC T WAS SUBMITTED. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FOR TWO REASONS NAMELY (I) ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DENIED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB(10) IN EARLIER YEARS AND MATTER BEING STILL SU B-JUDICE AND (II) NON- FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB OF THE ACT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.2,72,913/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSE E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE TASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S80IB(10) AMOUNTING TO RS.2,66,002/-. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED B Y THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONTINUED THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT NAMELY BHAGWATI NAGAR BY VIRTUE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 30.9.2000 WITH PRIYAVADAN HOU SING SOCIETY LTD,, AHMEDABAD, IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT IN A.Y. 2001-02 , THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DTD. 12.4,2007 IN ITA NO.L576/A/05 H AVE GRANTED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT IN A.Y. 2006-07 THE ID. CIT(A) VIDE HI S ORDER DTD. 13.4.2010 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL. ALONG-WITH THE SUBMISSION T HE APPELLANT HAD ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, AH MEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 IN ITA NO.862/AHD/2009 AND ITA NO.20 51/AHD/2010 DTD. 12.10.2012 WHEREBY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB( 10) HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFT ER EXAMINING ALL OBJECTIONS OF THE AO IN LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS 341ITR 403. ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 4.4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS F OUND THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT FILED THE AUDI TOR'S REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB AND 3CD. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) WAS TO FURNISH THE AUDIT OR'S REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED AND FILED TILL DATE. IN STEAD OF GIVING A SEPARATE REPORT IN FORM NO.LOCCB, THE AUDITOR IN 3CD REPORT AT COLUMN NO.26 REMARKED 'AS ADVISED TO US BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIM U/ S.80IB(10) WAS ADMISSIBLE.' FURTHER THE NOTES OF ACCOUNTS WAS ALSO MADE BY THE AUDITOR AS UNDER- (2) AS ADVISED TO US BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIM U/S.80IB (10) IS AVAILABLE AND 23 HAVE BEEN DISCLOSING THE SAME AS A REPLY TO POINT 2 6 OF THE FORM 3CD. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED US. TO CONTINUE WITH THE SAM E DISCLOSURE TILL TO THE DATE OF FINALIZATION & DISPOSAL OF APPEAL OF THE IN COME TAX DEPARTMENT WITH ITAT, AHMEDABAD. THEREFORE, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO SH OW THAT CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE VIEWED IN THE LIG HT OF ABOVE. 4.5. SO AO OBSERVED THAT FROM THE ABOVE NOTES GI VEN BY THE AUDITOR IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE AUDITOR HIMSELF WAS NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THE ELI GIBILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND HENCE HE HAS NOT ISSUED THE REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB 4.6. IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT IT WAS THE MANDATORY REQ UIREMENT FOR THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.L0CCB AS PER RULE- 18BBB READ WITH SECTION. 80IB(13) R.W.S. 80IA(7). THE AUDIT REPORT FOR ELIGI BILITY OF THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB HAS TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE APPELLANT BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ENCLOSED THE SAID REPORT IN FORM NO.L0CCB BESIDES THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB AND 3CD. EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE SAID AUDIT REPORT DESIRED FOR CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THUS, IT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT W AS NOT ENTITLED TO GET THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. : 4.7. ALTHOUGH IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED HE HA S ANALYZED THE TERMS/CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLIED WITH FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80I B(10) BUT THE SAME ARE NOT BEING LOOKED INTO FOR THE REASON THAT PRIMA-FACIE THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED THE STATUTORY CONDITIONS OF SUBMISSION OF THE AUDIT REP ORT IN FORM NO.3CCB. 4.8. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT IN THE AUDIT RE PORT 3CD COLUMN NO26 AND FROM THE NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS THE AUDITOR HAS NOT GIVEN HIS OWN OBSERVATIONS ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. RA THER THE ADVICE OF THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE CLAIM HAS BE EN SIMPLY DEPICTED. SO IT WAS NOT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUDITOR ON MERIT BU T WAS THE ADVICE OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER IN THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS HE HAS ALSO QUALIFIED HIS OBSERVATIONS. THUS THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGU LARLY CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND EVEN THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1576/AHD/2005 FOR ASST. YEAR 200 1-02 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12.4.2007 HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB OF THE ACT FOR CLAIMING DED UCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AS THE SAME WAS NOT MANDATORY T O BE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS E LIGIBILITY OF ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS ELIGIBILITY OF THE PROJECT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT I S CONCERNED THE FACT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N ITA NO.1576/AHD/2005 FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 VIDE ITS OR DER DATED ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 12.4.2007 WHICH HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME PROJECT BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT THE PROJECT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS WORKED UNDER APPEAL IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE MORE CONDITION PROVIDED IN SE CTION 80IB OF THE ACT THAT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ASSESSEE IS REQ UIRED TO FURNISH AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS REFERRED UNDER RULE 18BBB OF THE IT RULES , 1963 WHICH CAN BE INFERRED FROM FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF SECTIO NS OF THE ACT - SEC.80IB(13) THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5) AND SU B-SECTIONS (7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80-IA SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY TO THE ELIGIBLE BUS INESS UNDER THIS SECTION. SEC. 80IA (7) [THE DEDUCTION] UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) FROM PROFIT S AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN [UNDERTAKING] SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE UNLESS THE ACCOUNTS OF THE [UNDERTAKING] FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR W HICH THE DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 , AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES, ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND V ERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT. RULE 18BBB. (1) THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF AN A SSESSEE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (7) OF S ECTION 80-IA OR SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 80-I, EXCEPT IN THE CASES OF MULTIPLEX THEA TRES AS DEFINED IN SUB-SECTION (7A) OF SECTION 80-IB OR CONVENTION CENTRES AS DEFINED IN S UB-SECTION (7B) OF SECTION 80-IB 1 [OR HOSPITALS IN RURAL AREAS AS DEFINED IN SUB-SECTION (11B) OF SECTION 80-IB], SHALL BE IN FORM NO. 10CCB. (2) A SEPARATE REPORT IS TO BE FURNISHED BY EACH UN DERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I OR 80-IA OR 8 0-IB 1 [OR 80-IC] AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALA NCE SHEET OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE AS IF THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE WERE A DISTINCT ENTITY. (3) IN THE CASE OF AN ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BU SINESS OF DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAININ G AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, THE FORM SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE LOCAL AUT HORITY FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVEL OPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. (4) IN ANY OTHER CASE, THE FORM SHALL BE ACCOMPANIE D BY A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, APPROVAL OR PERMISSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO CARR Y ON THE ACTIVITY SIGNED OR ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR T HE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR CARRYING ON THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS.] ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 8.1 FROM GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WE FIND THAT IN SECTION 80IB(13) OF THE ACT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) AND 80IA (7) TO (12) SHALL APPLY TO THE ELI GIBLE BUSINESS MENTIONED IN SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. NOW FURTH ER GOING THROUGH THE SECTION 80IA(7) OF THE ACT WE FIND THAT THE DED UCTION FOR PROFITS AND GAINS ARRIVED FROM SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE UNLESS THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS CLAIM ED HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ACCOUNTANT AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB- SEC.(2) OF SECTION 388 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTAN T. THE RELEVANT PRESCRIBED FORM IS FORM NO.10CCB WHICH IS PROVIDED IN RULE 18BBB OF IT RULES WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. 9. FROM GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY WE FIND THAT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB WHICH WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED HAS NO T BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THIS IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE REPORT OF AUDITORS IN FORM NO.3CD RELATING T O AUDIT REPORT REQUIRED U/S 44AB WHEREIN THE AUDITOR HAS MADE A RE MARK THAT AS ADVISED TO US BY ASSESSEE CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) IS AVA ILABLE AND WE HAVE BEEN DISCLOSING THE SAME AS A REPLY TO POINT 2 6 OF THE FORM 3CD. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED US TO CONTINUE WITH THE SAME DISCLOSURE TILL TO THE DATE OF FINALIZATION & DISPO SAL OF APPEAL OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WITH ITAT, AHMEDABAD. THEREFO RE WE HAVE ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 CONTINUED TO SHOW THAT CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE, BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE. 9.1 AS ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN SUBMITTING THE AUD ITORS REPORT MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEDUC TION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 2/03/2016 MAHATA/- 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 ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.1200/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 16/02/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 17/02/2016 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: 2/3/16 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: