Shivganga Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 1498/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4341 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPESH R SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 115JB; 274

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1498/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. BLOCK NO. 530, VILL: SAMPA DEHGAM MODASA HIGHWAY, DEHGAM, DIST: GANDHINAGAR / VS. ITO WARD-4 GANDHINAGAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAN CS2 086 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : RUPESH R. SHAH, AR / RESPONDENT BY : LALIT P. JAIN, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING 03/01/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/03/2019 $%/ O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD - JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-3/GNR/171/2015-16 D ATED 13.05.2016 ARISING FROM OUT OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.08.2015 FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ORIGINAL RETURN OF IN COME WAS FILED ON 29/09/2012, DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 11,68,290/- ON AC COUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 18.12.2012, REVISING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO RA. 11,92,811/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS AND ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - ASSESSMENT ORDER 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 PASSED ON 17.02.2015. AS PER REPORT IN FORM 29B, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY MAT OF RS. 5,08,290/- ON BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 26,67,487/-. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF BOOK PROFIT AN D MAT CALCULATION U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME OR REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MAT PAYABLE WAS DETERMINED AS U NDER: TOTAL INCOME AS PER REVISED ROI RS. NIL UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION C/F/(-) RS. 11,92,811/- BOOK PROFIT FOR MAT RS. 26,67,487/- MAT RS. 5,08,290/- PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 17.02.2015 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.02.2015 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALT Y U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 02.07.2015 . THE GIST OF THE SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IF TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS NO ADDI TION OF THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED IN COME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS THE MAT ONLY WHICH WAS NEITHER CALCULATED NOR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ORIGINAL OR REVISED RETURN. THE MAT RELATED DEMAND AS RAISED BY THE THEN A.O. H AS BEEN PAID IN FULL. IN OUR OPINION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED B Y THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE, DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED LOSS OF RS. 11,68,290/- AND RS. 11,92,811/ - RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF BOOK PROFIT AND MAT CA LCULATION U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1)- QUESTIONAIRE, DATED 11.12.2014, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH MAT CALCULATION. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2014 FURNISHED AUDIT REPORT, DETAILS U/S.115J B OF THE ACT IN FORM 29B DATED 30.09.2012, SHOWING BOOK PROFIT OF R S. 26,67,487/- AND MAT PAYABLE THEREOF RS. 5,08,290/-. 5. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FOREGOING PARAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE AUDIT REPORT, AND DETAILS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT SHOWING MAT CALCULATION ONLY ON 23.12.2014 THAT ALSO WHEN Q UERY WAS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THOUGH THE AUDIT REPORT WAS DATED 30.09.2012. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO ADDITION ON THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED INCOME . EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO ADDITION ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE , BUT REVENUE AUTHORITY CONTENDED THIS IS A CASE OF FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF TA XABLE BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 26,67,487/- AND THUS SOUGHT TO EVADE TAX OF RS. 5,08,290/- BEING MAT PAYABLE ON THE BOOK PROFIT AND CONTENDED THAT I F NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE D ISCLOSED THE TAXABLE BOOK PROFIT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DEFAULT COMMITTE D BY IT. AND A PENALTY OF RS. 5,08,290/- WAS LEVIED BY THE AO. 6. THEREAFTER, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AUDIT REPORT, MAT CALC ULATION. THE ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - ASSESSEE CONTENDED THERE IS NO ADDITION ON THE INCO ME OF THE COMPANY WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED INCOME. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO ADDITION ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY UNDER NORMAL PROVISION, SO THIS SEC. 115JB HAS BEEN BECOME APPLICABLE AND DEEMED TOOK PROFIT HAS COME TO TAX @ 18.50 AND DEEMED TAX LIABILITY HAS RAISED. ASSESSEES CONTEN TION IS DEEMING FICTION CANNOT BE DRAGGED TO PENALTY PROVISION AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION ASSESSEE CITED AN ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF RENOIR CONSULTING (I) PVT. LTD. V/S DEPARTMENT O F INCOME TAX, ITA NO. 3257/MUM/2009 AND RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED: 2.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONING OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS AR IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS MADE OUT IT CASE THAT DUE TO HEAVY WORK PRESSURE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN THE REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S. 115JB COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED AND AS SUCH, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PAY THE TAX LIABILITY . IN FACT, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO OMISSION/NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APP ELLANT AND IT WAS MAINLY DUE TO OMISSION AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE APPELL ANTS CA WHO ARE GENERALLY ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF FILING THE TAX RETURN OF THE APPELLANT. ONCE, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE APPELLANT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ABOUT ITS LIABILITY U/S. 115JB THE APPE LLANT HAD FILED THE REQUIRED REPORT AND PAID THE TAXES. BESIDES, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT TAX AS WORKED OUT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB IN FA CT IS POSTPONEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT GET S CREDIT FOR THE TAXES PAID AGAINST THE FUTURE LIABILITY WHENEVER THERE IS A POSTPONEMENT OF INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR C ONCEALED PARTICULARS WHICH HAD EFFECT OF INCREASING ITS INCOME AND THERE BY TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT IS ENHANCED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AS PUT FORTH. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT IT WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT FOR NOT ENCLOS ING THE COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY U/S 115JB AND HENCE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT TH E AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO LEVY PENALTY ON THE APPELLANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANC ES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND PENALTY AS LEVIED IS CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE S UCCEEDS ON ITS GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ALL PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOOK PROFIT CORRECTLY AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOOK PROFIT, DETAILS OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS AVAILABLE ON THE REC ORDS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB ALSO CONTAINS THE ABOVE FACTUAL DET AILS. HOWEVER, DUE TO OVERSIGHT, THE WORKING OF BOOK PROFIT AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 115JB COULD NOT BE ATTACHED WHICH WAS GENUINE OMISSION AN D NOT WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON THE ISSUE. ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115JB WHICH WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE AND THEY HAVE NEITHER OFFER ED INCOME NOR PAID THE TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE A CT. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED A REPORT U/S 115JB IN FORM A/O.29B WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE ISSUE OF NOT FILING OF REQUIRED REPORT U/S 115JB. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD CORRECTLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C). 12. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN WITHOUT COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE MISTAKE HAD HAPPENED IN THE CA'S OFFICE AND THE OMI SSION AND NEGLIGENCE AS NOTICED WAS GENUINE AND INADVERTENT AND THERE WA S NO WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE ACT AT LEAST ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS THE CA WHO WAS RE SPONSIBLE IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY Q UALIFIED CA ON ITS PAY ROLL. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOOK PROFIT IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED BASED ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS. BESIDES, NO FURTHER ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO OTHER THAN THE PROFIT AS DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. HENCE, THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 13. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. S. DHAN ABAN [(2009) 309 ITR 268 (DEL.)] HAS ALSO CANCELLED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHICH WAS IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF HIGHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CLAIM ON THE BAS IS OF INCORRECT ADVISE GIVEN BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEEP TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED [(2005) 274 ITR 603 (P&H)]. 14. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. TEKSONS COOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 7128/MUM/06 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.03.2009 DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S. 80-IA WHICH WAS BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR. 15. FURTHER THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R ELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (322 ITR 158) HAS HELD THAT IN ORDER TO AT TRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 27191)(C), THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY THE ASSESSE E AND IF NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR IN ACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS AND SE. 217(1)(C) PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THE APEX COUR T CONSIDERED DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (306 ITR 277 SC) AND DILIP SHROFF AND HELD THAT THE WORDS CONCEAL AND INACCURATE CONT INUOUS TO BE GOOD LAW FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AN D EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WAS OVERRULED IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP SHROFFS CASE WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). 16. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE BOOK PROFITS ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND HAD NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR COMPUTATION OF THE BOOK PROFITS. NO I NFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INACCURATE AS THE BOOK PROFITS FINALLY DETERMINED IS ON THE BASIS OF FIGURES AVAILABLE IN THE PRINTED ACCOUNTS. THUS THE MISTAKE OF THE ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - ASSESSEE IN NOT COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS IS AN IN ADVERTENT ERROR. THE ASSESSEE FILING THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A CCOUNT HAS GIVING ALL THE PARTICULARS FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFITS U/ S. 115JB. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT FAILURE TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFITS IS ONLY AN INADVERTENT OMI SSION AND ALL THE MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPUTING THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A). 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. SO, HAVING PARITY WITH THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT WE DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,08,290/-. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAH AVIR PRASAD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICI AL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/03/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY !' #' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. $ / ASSESSEE 3. ) *+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) 5. 012 33*+, *+#, 56$)$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $% , ;/5 *+#, 56$)$ < THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/03/ 2019 ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT& SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO: 1498/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. BLOCK NO. 530, VILLAGE: SAMPA DEHGAM MODASA HIGHWAY, DEHGAM, DIST- GANDHINAGAR V/S ITO WARD-4 GANDHINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAN CS2 086 A APPELLANT BY : SHRI RUPESH R SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LALIT P. JAIN, SR. D.R. CORRIGENDUM PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THE REVENUE MOVED AN APPLICATION DATED 18/07/2019. IT IS STATED IN THE SAID APPLICATION THAT THE ASST. YEAR HAS WRONGLY BEE N MENTIONED AS '2014- 15' AT THE HEADING OF THE ORDER INSTEAD OF ASST. YEA R 2012-13 AND MADE REQUEST TO RECTIFY THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL BY FRESH ORDER MENTIONING A CORRECT ASST. YEAR, AS '2012 -13' IN THE HEADING IN PLACE OF A.Y.2014-15. ITA NO.1498/AHD/2016 [SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 8 - 2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AN APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE FOR ISSUANCE OF CORRIGENDUM AND OUR ORDER REFERRED ABOVE AND F IND THAT THE ERROR IS APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION: (I) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE MAKE CORRECTION THAT ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15 TO BE READ AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE CAPTIONED OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22.03.2019. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20/08/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITA T,AHMEDABAD 1.D ATE OF DICTATION ON 12.03.2019 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 13.03.2019 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 22.03.2019 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 22.03.2019 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 22.03.2019 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.03.2019 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER