M/s. R.P.K. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1401/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9481 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: U S BHATI
• Keywords: Sham transactions; Speculative transactions
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 22 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM] ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD ..................AP PELLANT 601, ANURAG APARTMENT, B/H. VIDYAMANDIR SCHOOL, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD [PAN : AAACD 4123 C] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ...........................RESPONDENT WARD 5(3), AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: US BHATI, FOR THE APPELLANT MUDIT NAGPAL, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 14.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 11.06.2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 12 TH FEBRUARY 2015, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S:- 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY. 2.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT M/S VISHAL AGROTECH IS A SIST ER CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BECAUSE OF ITS OFFICE IN THE SAME PREMISES AND M/S ADITYA MARINE LIMITED IS ALSO A SISTER CONCERN BECAUSE OF ITS DIF FERENT KIND OF NATURE OF WORK. ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 22 3.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEEDS WERE SHAM TRANSACTIONS AND THEREBY EXCLUDING THE TOTAL PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM THE WORKING OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 4.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,66,58,916/- AGAINST THE RETURNED LOS S OF RS.28,03,216/-. 5.0 THE APPELLANT MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WAREHOUSE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.42,17,319/-, WEIGH BR IDGE INCOME OF RS.3,67,915/-, TRUCK HIRING INCOME OF RS.14,40,000/- AS ALSO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,39,35,612/- ON SALE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THESE I NCOMES HAVE BEEN WIPED OFF ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOSS IN CASTOR SEED AND CASTOR O IL TRADING. WHEN THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE PROBED FURTHER, IT WAS NOTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY STORAGE FACILITY FOR CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEED, AND THAT THERE WERE NO OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME . IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NINE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF CASTOR OIL, THAT ON ALL THESE OCCASIONS PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM ONE VISHAL AGROTECH OPERAT ING FROM THE SAME PREMISES FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OPERATING, THAT ON ALL T HE OCCASIONS CASTOR OIL WAS SOLD TO ADITYA MARINE LTD ON THE SAME DATE IN THE SAME QUAN TITY BUT ON A SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER RATE, AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, SEEMED DUBIOUS. IN RESPECT OF CASTOR SEED TRANSACTIONS ALSO, THE STORY WAS ON THE SAME PATTER N. ALL THE THREE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS FOR CASTOR SEED WERE FROM GOLDEN TULIP HOTELS & APARTMENTS PVT LTD, ALL THE THREE SALE TRANSACTIONS WERE TO RPK AGROTECH EX PORTS AND VISHAL AGROTECH, AND ALL THESE CONCERNS WERE OPERATING FROM THE SAME PRE MISES FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO NOTICE AS TO WHY LOSS INCURRED ON THESE TRANSACTIONS NOT BE DISALLOWED, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED AT ARMS LENGTH AND THE PARTIES ENJOYED THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE FOR EASE OF WORK, AND THE SAME HAS BEEN USED FOR A SHORT SPAN BUT THEIR DIFFERENT ADDRESSES WERE ALSO FURNISHED . REJECTING THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS FOLL OWS:- ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 22 8. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSES HAS BEE N CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD DONE PUR CHASE AND SALE OF CASTOR SEED AND CASTOR OIL BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT ALREADY ENTERED INTO IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS OBLIGATORY CONTR ACT, THE ASSESSES HAS FURNISHED COPY OF 'SALE ORDERS ON SIMPLE PAPER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED M/S. ADITYA MARINE LTD, VISHAL AGROTCH AN D RPK AGROTECH EXPORTS (P) LTD TO SUPPLY CERTAIN GOODS. THE PHOTO COPY OF THESE SO CALLED CONTRACT NOTES WHICH ARE EIGHT IN NUMBER ARE ANNEXED TO THI S ASSESSMENT ORDER (NUMBERED 1 TO 8) AND SHALL FORM PART OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD, AS PER INVOICES FURNISHED, SOLD CASTOR OIL TO M/S. ADITYA MARINE LTD BUT AS PER THESE SALE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUES TED M/S. ADITYA MARINE LTD TO SUPPLY CASTOR OIL. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD, AS PER COPY OF INVOICE, SOLD CASTOR SEED TO M/S. R.P.K. AGROTECH EXPORTS (P ) LTD BUT AS PER THESE SALE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED M/S. R.P. K. AGROTECH EXPORTS (P) LTD TO SUPPLY CASTOR SEED. THESE PAPERS ARE ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND FAILS TO PROVE THE SO CALLED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER PARTY. THEREFORE, THESE PAPERS TO PROVE 'CONTRACT SALE AR E REJECTED THESE DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE TO PROVE OBLIGATION TO SALE. AS FAR AS ADDRESS OF M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOTELS & APPTS (P) LTD, M/S. VISH AL AGROTECH AND M/S RPK AGROTECH ARE CONCERNED, THESE HAVE BEEN SHOWN BASED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ONLY AS PER THE INVOICES FURNISHED IN WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS. PHOTO COPY OF THESE INVOICES ARE ALSO ANNEXED TO THIS ORD ER (NUMBERED 9 TO 11) AND SHALL FORM PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ADMITTEDL Y, M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOTELS & APPTS (P) LTD AND M/S. RPK AGROTECH PVT. LTD. ARE ASSOCIATE CONCERN ALSO. THUS THE THEORY OF 'CONTRACT SALE' OR OBLIGATORY S ALE' CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEES IS REJECTED AND THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE IN CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEEDS TRADING TRANSACTIONS IS IGNORED AND AL L TRANSACTIONS IN CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEEDS ARE HELD AS SHAM TRANSACTIONS. PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS INITIATED FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ALL THE TRANSACT IONS IN CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEEDS ARE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AS THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE DELIVERY OF GOODS OF ALLEGED TRADING SINCE THE PURCHASED ITEM WAS SOLD ON THE SAME DAY IN THE SAME QUANTITY AND ALSO THAT THE RE IS NO TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSES. 4. THE LOSS ON THESE TRANSACTIONS WAS THUS DISALLOW ED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A), IN A VERY ELABORATE AND WELL REASONED ORDER , CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 6 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 7 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 8 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 9 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 10 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 11 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 12 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 13 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 14 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 15 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 16 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 17 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 18 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 19 OF 22 ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 20 OF 22 5. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. ALL THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED BEFOR E US IS THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THESE ENTITIES WERE OPERATING FROM THE SAME PREMISE S CANNOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THESE WERE SISTER CONCERNS OR THE TRANSACTIONS WERE COLLUSIVE. HE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE ELABORATE DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND SUBMITS THAT THIS DOCUMENTATION CANNOT BE IGNOR ED. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE REITERATED. 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEA RNED COUNSEL ARE SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL AND MISS THE FUNDAMENTAL GENUINENESS AS PECT AS HAS BEEN WELL ELABORATED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN AN ERUDITE ANALYSIS . THE VARIATIONS IN CASTOR OIL AND CASTOR SEED PRICES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE AUTHORI TATIVE DATA REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A). THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, SHOWING REPEATED L OSS TRANSACTIONS, DO NOT MAKE SENSE EITHER. IT IS ALSO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND TH AT WHEN ULTIMATE BUYER AND THE SELLER OPERATE FROM THE SAME PREMISES, WHY IS THE ASSESSEE ROPED IN EVERY TIME, AND EVERY TIME THAT HAPPENS, ASSESSEE INCURS A LOSS. T HERE IS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF OFFICE SHARING ARRANGEMENT OR THE NATURE OF THEIR ASSOCIATION. THE EASE OF BUSINESS FOR EVERY CONNECTED PARTY OPERATING FROM THE SAME PREMISES IS TOO VAGUE AN EXPLANATION TO MERIT JUDICIAL APPROVAL. 9. AS WE HOLD SO, WE ARE REMINDED OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT'S OBSERVATION, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540, TO THE EFFECT THAT 'SCIENCE HAS NOT YET INVENTED ANY INSTRUMENT TO TEST THE REL IABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE A COURT OR TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE COURTS A ND TRIBUNALS HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES'. SIMILARLY, IN A LATER DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT [ 1995] 214 ITR 801/80 TAXMAN 89 (SC), HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE THEORY THA T IT IS FOR ALLEGER TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT AND NOT REAL, AND OBSERVED THAT, THIS, IN OUR OPINION, IS A SUPERFICIAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSI DERED IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. ...............SIMILARLY THE OBSERVA TION .................. THAT IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT THESE TICKETS WERE OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEAN S, IT IS UPON THE ALLEGER TO PROVE ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 21 OF 22 THAT IT IS SO, IGNORES THE REALITY. THE TRANSACTION ABOUT PURCHASE OF WINNING TICKET TAKES PLACE IN SECRET AND DIRECT EVIDENCE ABOUT SUC H PURCHASE WOULD BE RARELY AVAILABLE ......................................... ...............IN OUR OPINION, THE MAJORITY OPINION AFTER CONSIDERING SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM AB OUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNING FROM RACES IS NOT GENUINE. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS HAS BEEN R EJECTED UNREASONABLY'. WE WILL BE SUPERFICIAL IN MY APPROACH IN CASE WE SIMPLY GO BY THE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OVERLOOK CLEAR THE UNUSUA L PATTERN IN THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRETEND TO BE OBLIVIOUS OF THE GROUND REALITIES. AS HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED, IN THE CASE OF DURGA PR ASAD MORE(SUPRA), .......IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF- SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS T O EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUT ED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBI NG WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAX ING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS P RODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS'. AS A FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SUPERFICIAL IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF GENUINEN ESS OF A TRANSACTION, AND THIS CALL IS TO BE TAKEN NOT ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACE VA LUE OF THE DOCUMENTS SIGHTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE SURRO UNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND GROUND REALTIES. GENUINE NESS IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION BUT ESSENTIALLY A CALL ON GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACT ION IS TO BE TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF WELL SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES. THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCE I N SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION ON SUCH ISSUES, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, BUT THAT CANNOT B E A REASON ENOUGH FOR THE FACT FINDING AUTHORITIES TO AVOID TAKING SUBJECTIVE CALL S ON THESE ASPECTS, AND REMAIN CONFINED TO THE FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF IRREFUTABL E EVIDENCES. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS, IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE (SUPRA), OBSE RVED THAT 'HUMAN MINDS MAY DIFFER AS TO THE RELIABILITY OF A PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IN THAT SPHERE THE DECISION OF THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY IS MADE CONCLUSIVE BY LAW'. THIS FAITH IN THE TRIBUNAL BY HON'BLE COURTS ABOVE MAKES THE JOB OF THE TRIBUNAL EVEN MORE ONEROUS AND DEMANDING AND, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IT DOES REQUI RE THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN THE LIGHT OF SURROUNDING CIR CUMSTANCES, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND GROUND REALITIES, RATHER THAN BEI NG SWAYED BY THE NOT SO CONVINCING, BUT APPARENTLY IN ORDER, DOCUMENTS AND EXAMINING TH EM, IN A PEDANTIC MANNER, WITH THE BLINKERS ON. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DECLI NE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. ITA NO. 1401/AHD/2015 RPK WAREHOUSING PVT LTD VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 22 OF 22 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 11 TH JUNE, 2019 SD/- SD/- MS. MADHUMITA ROY PRA MOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, THE 11 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .....ORDER PREPARED AS PER 7 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE VP- ATTACHED......11.06.2019.. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: .... 11.06.2019... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 11.06.2019... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .... 11.06.2019... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......