M/s. Jayraj Estate Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

ITA 15/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 1520514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGHSR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Date of conversion; Fair market value; Valuation report; Deemed dividend; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 A.Y.2007-08 JAYRAJ ESTATE PRIVATE LTD., ASHWAMEGH-II, SAMRAJYA COMPLEX, MUNJ MAHUDA ROAD, VADODARA. PAN: AAACJ 5505 E VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NR. RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARRODA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH,SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 4/9/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/09/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) V, BARODA DATED 29-10-2010, PAS SED IN CASE NO.CAB(A)/V/178/09-10 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADED I N THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES DEEMED DIVIDEND ADDITION OF RS. 3,81,43, 023/-U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT; MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OPENS UP H IS ARGUMENTS. HE SUBMITS THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) IS A DEEMING FICTI ON TO BE APPLIED IN CASE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE AVAILABLE TO A DEBTOR TH E EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN CASE SUCH AN ENTITY HOLDS S PECIFIED STAKES. HE SUBMITS THAT BOOKS OF THE CREDITOR ENTITY IN THIS C ASE I.E. HINDUSTAN EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD. (HEREAFTER HEMPL) HAD DEBIT BALANC E OF RS.94,57,542.71 AT PAGES 207 & 208, DEFERRED CAPITA L RESERVES OF RS.10,41,21,822/- AT PAGE 178 BEING CARRIED FORWAR D FROM A.Y. 1998-99 REPRESENTING NOTIONAL GAIN FROM CONVERSION OF THIS ENTITYS LAND FROM FIXED ASSET TO STOCK IN TRADE ON 5-1-1998. THE ASSE SSEES CASE IS THAT THE SAME RESULTED IN GROSS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF R S.42,46,343/- OUT OF WHICH SUM TOTAL OF RS.34,24,232/- STOOD DECLARED IN A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,90,491/-, RS.11,80,14 0/-, RS.7,88,417/-, RS.10,08,744/- AND RS.2,56,440/-; RESPECTIVELY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGED HOLDING ACCUMULATE D PROFITS IN THE HANDS OF M/S. HEMPL TO THE TUNE OF RS.6.3228 DOES N OT GRANT INDEXATION BENEFIT AS THE WHOLE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT STANDS CO NSIDERED AS COMMERCIAL PROFITS/CAPITAL GAINS 4. THE ASSESSEE DRAWS OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 2(22 )(E) EXPLANATION 1 AND ARGUES THAT THE SAME EXEMPTS CAPITAL GAINS ARIS ING IN SPECIFIED PERIODS ONLY AND INCLUDES THE REMAINING ONES BY NEC ESSARY IMPLICATION. IT QUOTES SECTION 45 R.W.S 48 (SECOND PROVISO) DEFININ G COST OF ACQUISITION TO MEAN INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ITS CASE IS THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARISE AS PER THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFTER ADJUSTING INDEXED COST AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. IT CONTENDS THAT COMMERCIA L PROFITS IN LIEU THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS IMPLY C APITAL GAINS ONLY AND ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - NOT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BUTTRESSES ITS ARGUMENTS BY QUOTING A CATE NA OF CASE LAW. THE SAME SHALL BE DISCUSSED IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. T HE ASSESSEE PRAYS ACCEPTANCE OF THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF ALL THESE SUBM ISSIONS. 5. THE REVENUE STRONGLY RELIES UPON THE CIT (A)S O RDER UNDER CHALLENGE AFFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING S MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS. IT RELIES U PON SEC. 2(22)(E) EXPLANATION 2 DEFINING ACCUMULATED PROFITS TO INCLU DE ALL PROFITS OF A COMPANY UPTO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OR PAYMENT IN QUESTION AND NOT ONLY CAPITAL GAINS. ITS CASE IS THAT M/S. HEMPLS R ESERVES AND SURPLUS IN QUESTION FORM PART OF ITS PROFITS ONLY. IT TAKES U S TO THE CASE FILE AND CONTENDS THAT M/S. HEMPL CONVERTED ITS FIXED ASSETS IN THE NATURE OF LAND TO STOCK IN TRADE, SOLD ITS PORTIONS, CREDITED VALUE THEREOF IN P & L ACCOUNT AND THEN TOOK THE SAME TO RESERVES AND SURP LUS. MEANING THEREBY THAT THIS SUM REPRESENT ITS PROFITS ONLY. IT FURTHE R ARGUES THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE ACT WITH A PURPOS E TO PREVENT INTENDED MISCHIEF OF CAMOUFLAGING DIVIDENDS IN THE SHAPE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE REVENUE ACCORDINGLY PRAYS FOR REJECTION OF THIS APPEAL. 6. WE AFFORDED THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF MAKIN G REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS. IT CONTENDS THAT THE CRUCIAL EXPRESSIO N ALL PROFITS IN EXPLANATIUON-2, SECTION 2(22)(E) PRESUPPOSES SURPLU S RELEVANT FOR TAXATION. IT TAKES US BACK TO M/S. HEMPL RESERVES AND SURPLUS CARRIED FORWARD AFTER CONVERSION OF LAND INTO STOCK IN TRAD E AT MARKET VALUE. IT STATES THAT THE SAME CAN IN NO WAY BE TREATED AS AC CUMULATED PROFITS. ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - 7. WE COME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOW. THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT. IT FIL ED ITS RETURN ON 15-11- 2007 STATING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOO K UP SCRUTINY. HE NOTICED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE AVAILED IMPUGNED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.3,81,48,023/- FROM M/S. HEMPL. IT HOLDS 18.63% O F THE TOTAL AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL IN M/S. HEMPL. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS LATTER ENTITY HAD RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS.10,52,87,499.82 WITH PROFITS DURING THE YEAR OF RS. 1,05,55,722.69. HE H ELD IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 24-12-2009 THAT FACTS OF THE CASE INDICATED SUF FICIENT ACCUMULATED PROFITS WITH M/S. HEPL SO AS TO ADVANCE THE ASSESSE E LOAN IN QUESTION. AND THESE LOANS FULFILLED ALL REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS. 8. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. THE CIT (A) HA S AFFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS CONCERNED. HE TREATS CONSIDERATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.6.3228 CRORES REALIZED FROM SALE OF M/S. HEMPLS LAND TO B E ACCUMULATED PROFITS AS UNDER:- 4.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE REMAND REPORT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS OWNER OF 18.63% SHARES OF HEMPL, A COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC I S NOT INTERESTED AND IT HAD OBTAINED LOAN OF RS.3.81 CROR ES FROM HEMPL. FURTHER, HEMPL WAS HOLDING 13,40,000 SQ. FT. OF LAND BEARING RS NO.33 OF AKOTA, BARODA AS CAPITAL ASSETS . IT WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK IN TRADE ON DATED 5-1-1998. TH E MARKET PRICE OF LAND ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.13,68,82,350/-. THE RESERVE WAS CREATED ACCORDIN GLY AT RS.10,41,21,822/-. I THE F.Y. ENDING ON 31-3-1998 A ND 31-3-1999 THERE WERE NO DEALING IN LAND. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 48 OF THE ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 5 - ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION AS P ER THE COST ESTIMATED ACCORDING TO COST INFLATION INDEX NOTIFIE D BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HEMPL HAS GOT VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI J.M. SAMPAT THE REGISTERED VALUER DATED 5-4-2000 DETERMINING TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CHARGEABLE PROFIT UNDER THE HEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN. A S PER THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.23 PER SQ. FT. AS ON 1-4-1981. THE TOTAL FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF LAND WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.3,08,20,000/- AS ON 1-4-1981. 4.3.1 BEFORE ME, FOLLOWING PLEAS WERE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT: 1. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO PLEAD ITS CASE. 2. THE CAPITAL RESERVE CREATED IS MERELY A BOOK ENTRY CREATING THE RESERVE TO ADJUST THE VALUE OF LAND AT MARKET RATE ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION AND A MERE REVALUATI ON WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ACCRUAL OF INCOME. 3. THAT HEMPL WAS A LOSS MAKING CONCERN AND NO AMOUNT OF PROFIT EARNED IN COMMERCIAL AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO AND THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT AS PER THE BOOK IS NIL. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE PROFIT OF CURRE NT YEAR OF RS.1,05,50,722/- AS SURPLUS BUT IS A DEFICIT IN P &L ACCOUNT OF RS.2,00,08,265/- AS ON 31-3-2006 AND THA T EVEN AFTER CONSIDERATION THE PROFIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR THE TRANSFER DEFICIT IN P & L ACCOUNT IS RS.94,57,542/- . 5. THAT BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE COMPANY ACCRUED ONLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THE CURRENT YEAR PROFIT ARE NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN ACCUMULATED PROFIT. 6. THAT AS PER SECTION 48, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION AS PER COST INFLATION INDEX AND THAT CONSIDERING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4- 1981 AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO LAND DEALINGS I N THE F.Y. 1997-98 AND THE F.Y. 1998-99. THE RESERVE CREA TED IN THE A.Y. 1999-00 IS SHOT BY RS.40,56,378/- AND T HUS NO ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 6 - PROFIT COULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM DEFERRED CAPITAL T O P & L ACCOUNT. 7. THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HEMPL IS NOT A LOAN TRANSACTION BUT A TRADE ADVANCE TO PURCHASE PROPERT IES I.E. IT IS A DEPOSIT PENDING NEGOTIATION WHICH DOES NOT FALL IN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. 8. THAT THE HEMPL IS THE MAIN BUSINESS CONCERN OF JAYR AJ GROUP AND THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF JAYRAJ GROUP IS RS .31.09 CRORES WHICH IS EXCEEDING THE TOTAL RESERVE CREATED AND THUS THE RESERVE CREATED IS LESS THAN OVERALL LIABI LITIES. 9. THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTE RESTED IN HEMPL AND HAS NO BENEFICIAL RIGHT IN THE PROPERT Y OF HEMPL IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 19-10-1995. 4.3.2. ALL THESE PLEAS ARE DISCUSSED IN SERIATUM IN SUCCEEDING PARAS. 1. THE FIRST PLEA IS NO LONGER RELEVANT AS SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED DURING APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATTER WAS ALSO REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE SECOND PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT MERE REVAL UATION OF THE ASSET AD ITS CONVERSION INTO STOCK IN TRADE IN F.Y. 1997-98 WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ACCRUAL OF INCOME IS ACCEPTED. SUCH TRANSFER TO CAPITAL RESULT OR REVALUATION IS NOT REAL INCOME . SUCH PROFIT AND GAINS ON TRANSFER WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS REAL PROFI TS ONLY IN THE YEAR OF SALE OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE. 3. THE THIRD PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT HEMPL WAS A LOSS MAKING CONCERN AND NO PROFIT WAS EARNED IN COMMERCI AL SENSE AND TRANSFERRED TO ACCUMULATED PROFITS IS NOT ACCEPTABL E. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTING RIGHTS IN HEMPL WHICH IS NOT A COMPANY IN WHICH PUB LIC WAS SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HA D RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.3,81,48,023/- FROM HEMPL DURING THE YEAR. THE ONLY KEY ISSUE IS WHETHER HEMPL HAS ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN E XCESS OF THE ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 7 - LOAN AMOUNT UPTO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE LO AN. THE TERM ACCUMULATED PROFITS HAS BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATI ON-2 TO SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 AS BELOW: THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN SUB-CLAUSE (A),(B),(D) AND (E) SHALL INCLUDE ALL PROFITS OF TH E COMPANY UP TO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OR PAYMENT REFERRED TO IN THOSE SUB-CLAUSES. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. URMILA RAMESH, 230 ITR 422 STATED THAT THE ACCUMULATED PRO FITS ARE TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES. S IMILAR OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT IS THERE IN THE DECIS ION OF THE P.K. BADIANI 105 ITR 642 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TERM PROFITS OCCURRING IN SECTION 2(6A)(E) OF THE 1922 ACT MEANS PROFITS IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE, THAT IS TO S AY, THE PROFITS MADE BY THE COMPANY IN THE REAL AND TRUE SENSE OF T HE TERM. THEREFORE, ACCUMULATED PROFITS ARE TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE AS ON THE DATE OF T HE ADVANCE. THE APEX COURT HAD ALSO OBSERVED IN THIS DECISION AS UN DER: A COMPANY NORMALLY DISTRIBUTES DIVIDENDS OUT OF IT S BUSINESS PROFITS AND NOT OUT OF ITS ASSESSABLE INCOME. THERE IS NO DEFINABLE RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME AND THE PROF ITS OF A BUSINESS CONCERN IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME-TAX IS BASED ON A VARIETY OF ARTIFICIAL RULES AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SEVERAL FIC TIONAL RECEIPTS, DEDUCTIONS AND ALLOWANCES. FURTHER WE THINK THAT THE TERM PROFITS OCCURRING IN SECT ION 2(6A)(E) OF THE 1922 ACT MEANS PROFITS IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE, THAT IS TO SAY, THE PROFITS MADE BY THE COMPANY IN THE REAL AND TRU E SENSE OF THE TERM. 4. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LAND WHICH WAS CONVERTE D INTO STOCK- IN-TRADE AND PARTLY SOLD DURING THE A.Y. 2000-01 TO A.Y. 2004-05 BY HEMPL ARE GIVEN BELOW. FURTHER, THE MARKET PRICE OF THE LAND ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 8 - ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION WAS RS.13,63,82,350/- FOR 1340000 SQ.FT. OF LAND RS.102.15 PER SQ. FT. THUS, THE COMMERCIAL GAINS WHICH ACCRUED TO HEMPL DURING VARIOUS YEARS WERE AS UNDER :- A.Y. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 AREA SOLD DURING THE YEAR 60282 SQ.FT. 373462 SQ.FT. 249499 SQ.FT. 34413 SQ. FT. 81152 SQ.FT. FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 RS. 23/- SQ.FT. RS. 23/- SQ.FT. RS.23/- SQ.FT. RS.23/- SQ.FT. RS.23 /- SQ.FT. LTCG DECLARED ON THE BASIS OF INDEXATION AT RS.3.16/- SQ.FT. RS. 190491 RS.11,80,140/- 7,88,417/- 1,08,744/- 2,56,440/- COMMERCIAL CAPITAL GAINS ACTUALLY ACCRUED AND RECEIVED 60282 X (102.15 23)= RS.47.71 LAKHS 373462 X 102.15 -23) = RS. 2.956 CRORES 249499 X (102.15 -23) = RS.1.975 CRORES 34413 X (102.15- 23) = RS.27.24 LAKHS 81152 X 102.15 -23) = RS.64.23 LAKHS 5. THE TOTAL OF THE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE PERIOD 2000-01 TO 2004-05 WAS RS.6.3228 CRORES. DESPITE, R EQUESTING FOR DETAILS ABOUT THE SALE OF STOCK OF HEMPL IN TRADE F OR A.Y. 2005-06 AND A.Y. 2006-07 THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE ME BY THE A.R. IN ANY CASE FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FO R THE A.Y. 2005-06 IT IS NOTICED THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS DISC LOSED ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL SALES OF REAL ESTATE, WAS SHOWN AND HE MPL MUST HAVE DISPOSED THE LAND ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTED PROPER TY BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF FIGURES FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND A.Y. 2006-0 7, I AM CONSIDERING THE FIGURE OF RS.6.3228 CRORES UPTO AY. 2004-05.THUS, FOR PURPOSES AT HAND THE COMMERCIAL GAINS WERE RS.6 .3228 CRORES UP TO AY. 2004-05. 6. THE LD. A.R. HAS VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT MEAGER CAPITAL GAINS HAD ACCRUED TO HEMPL DURING THESE YEARS AND T HUS THERE WERE NO ACCUMULATED PROFITS. WHAT HAS BEEN MISSED B Y LD. A.R. IS THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND INDICATED BEFORE ME WERE COMPUTED AFTER TAKING BENEFIT OF INDEXATION AS PER THE SCHEME AND MANNER PROVIDED IN ACT FOR PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WH AT IS RELEVANT ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 9 - IS PROFITS IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE, THAT IS TO SAY, THE PROFITS MADE BY THE COMPANY IN THE REAL AND TRUE SENSE OF THE TE RM. THE INDEXATION IS A BENEFIT PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-T AX ACT TO REDUCE THE TAX LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATION. B UT, THE TRUE PROFITS THAT ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT IN COMMERCIAL SENSE W ERE RS.6.3228 CRORES UP TO A.Y. 2004-05 AND FOR PURPOSES OF ACCUM ULATED PROFITS IN EACH OF THE YEAR FROM A.Y. 2000-01 TO A.Y. 2004- 05 THE RESPECTIVE COMMERCIAL PROFITS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TR ANSFERRED FROM THE CAPITAL RESERVE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS RESERVES . THUS UP TO A.Y. 2004-05 THE COMMERCIAL PROFITS OF RS.6.3228 CRORES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM NOTIONAL PROFIT OF RS.10.41 C RORES ON REVALUATION OF ASSETS OF AND ITS CONVERSION INTO ST OCK-IN-TRADE. 7. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT IN EXPLANATION 1 BELOW S ECTION 2(22)(E)IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS SHALL NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING BEFORE 1-4-1946 AND D URING 1-4-48 TO 1-4-56 MEANING THEREBY THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS AFTER 1-4-56 IS VERY MUCH PART OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 8. EVEN IF THE OTHER PLEA NO.5 OF THE APPELLANT THA T THE CURRENT YEAR PROFIT IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ACCUMULATED PROF IT IS ACCEPTED AND EVEN IF THE DEFICIT IN P & L ACCOUNT OF RS.2 CR ORES AS ON 31-3- 2006 IS SET OFF AS PER PLEA NO.4 AGAINST THE COMMER CIAL PROFIT OF RS.6.3228 CRORES THERE WOULD STILL BE PROFIT OF RS. 4.3228 CRORES WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE LOAN OF RS.3.8148 CRORES. AND HERE WE HAVE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL GAINS FOR AY. 2005-06 AND A.Y. 2006-07. PLEAS 3 TO 6 ARE THUS REJ ECTED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT ASSESSEES STAKE HOLDING IN M/S. HEMPL AND THE IMPU GNED LOAN AMOUNT TO BEING AVAILED. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TREAT THIS SUM IN ASSESSEES HANDS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E)OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT M/S. HEMPL HAD RESERVES AND SUR PLUS OF RS.10,52,87,499.82 AND PROFITS OF RS.1,05,55,722.69 TO BE TREATED AS ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THIS LAST FINDING STANDS MODIF IED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT THAT HE TREATS ONLY PROFITS ARISING FROM SALE OF M/S. HEMPL ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 10 - LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.6.3228 CRORES AS COMMERCIAL C APITAL GAINS. AND OBSERVES THE CORRESPONDING DEFERRED RESERVE OF RS.1 0,41,21,822 ARISING FROM NOTIONAL VALUE DUE TO CONVERSION OF FIXED ASSE T LAND TO STOCK IN TRADE AS RELEVANT FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE REVENUE DOES NOT CHALLENGE THIS CRUCIAL MODIFICATION TILL DATE. IT HAS ACCORDI NGLY ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSEES STAND THROUGHOUT IS THAT ALL OF M/S. HEMPL CONSIDERATION MONEY IN QUESTION OF RS.6.3228 CR. OR DEFERRED CAPI TAL RESERVE OF RS.10.41 CRORES IS NOT ITS PROFITS IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS SO AS TO BE TREATED AS ACCUMULATED PROFITS GIVING R ISE TO THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND. IT IS EVIDENT THAT M/S. HEMPL WAS OWNED LAND ADMEASURING 13,40,000 SQ. FT. IN R.S.NO.33 AT AKOTA, BARODA AS A FIXED ASSET HAVING BOOK VALUE OF RS.21,38,721/-. IT CONVERTED THIS CHU NK OF LAND INTO STOCK IN TRADE HAVING VALUE OF RS.13,68,82,350/- AS ON 5- 1-1998. THEREAFTER, GROSS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THIS CON VERSION WOULD BE COMPUTED AS RS.42,46,343/-. THEREAFTER, M/S. HEMPL TREATED DEFERRED CAPITAL RESERVE RS.10,41,21,822/- TO BE ARISING FRO M THE VERY CONVERSION RIGHT FROM A.Y. 1998-99 TILL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEAR. IT EXECUTED VARIOUS SALE DEEDS SELLING PORTIONS OF THIS LAND IN A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004- 05 HAVING SALE CONSIDERATIONS OF RS.47.71 LACS, RS. 2.956 CRORES, RS.1.97 CRORES, RS.27.24 LACS AND RS.64.23 LACS; RESPECTIVE LY TOTALING TO RS.6.3228 CRORES. IT ADOPTED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE LAND SOLD @ RS.23 PER SQ.FT. AS ON 1-4-1981 FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM C APITAL GAINS. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES REDUCED THIS VALUATION TO THAT @ RS.19 PER SQ.FT. THIS ISSUE CAME TO THE TRIBUNAL. M/S. HEMPLS VALUATION STOOD ACCEPTED. IT ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,90,491, RS.11,80,140, RS.7,88,417, RS.10,08,744 AND RS.2,56 ,440 IN THE ABOVE STATED RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS TOTALING TO RS.3 4,24,232. THIS IS NOT ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 11 - THE REVENUES CASE THAT M/S. HEPL HAS SOLD ANY FURT HER LAND. M/S. HEMPLS RELEVANT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FORMING PA RT OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS DEFICIT SUM OF RS.94,57,542.71 AS ON 31-03-20 07. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO DISPUTE ALL THESE FACTS. THE QUESTION THA T ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP IS WHETHER F OR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(22) (E) ACCUMULATED PROFIT WOULD MEAN THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN OR COMMERCIAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE OF LAND. 10. WE DEEM APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION READINGS AS UNDER:- SEC. 2(22) (E) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WHETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) [ MADE AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MAY,1987 BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL I NTEREST IN THE COMPANY, BY THE FINANCE ACT,1987, W.E.F. 1-4-1988 BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WH O IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITL ED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PART ICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER O R A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFT ER IN THIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN) ] OR ANY PAYMENT B Y ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS; BUT DIVIDEND DOES NOT INCLUDE (I) A DISTRIBUTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-CLAUSE ( C) OR SUB CLAUSE (D) IN RESPECT OF ANY SHARE ISSUED FOR F ULL CASH CONSIDERATION, WHETHER THE HOLDER OF THE SHARE IS N OT ENTITLED IN THE EVENT OF LIQUIDATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE S URPLUS ASSETS; ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 12 - [(IA) A DISTRIBUTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-CL AUSE (C) OR SUB-CLAUSE (D) IN SO FAR AS SUCH DISTRIBUTION IS AT TRIBUTABLE TO THE CAPITALIZED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY REPRESENTING BONUS SHARES ALLOTTED TO ITS EQUITY SHAREHOLDERS AFTER TH E 31 ST DAY OF MARCH,1964,[ AND BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL,1965];] (II) ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN MADE TO A SHAREHOLDER [OR THE S AID CONCERN] BY A COMPANY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, WHERE THE LENDING OF MONEY IS A SUBSTANTI AL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY; (III) ANY DIVIDEND PAID B Y A COMPANY WHICH IS SET OFF BY THE COMPANY AGAINST THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF ANY SUM PREVIOUSLY PAID BY IT AND TREATED AS A DIVIDEND WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SUB-CLAUSE (E), TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH I T IS SO SET OFF; [(IV) ANY PAYMENT MADE BY A COMPANY ON PU RCHASE OF ITS OWN SHARES FROM A SHAREHOLDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 77A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 195 6); (IV) ANY DISTRIBUTION OF SHARES PURSUANT TO A DEMERGER B Y THE RESULTING COMPANY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE DEMERG ED COMPANY (WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A REDUCTION OF CAP ITAL IN THE DEMERGED COMPANY). ] EXPLANATION 1 THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS , WHEREVER IT OCCURS IN THIS CLAUSE, SHALL NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL,1946, OR AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 1948, AND BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL,1956. EXPLANATION 2 THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN SUB- CLAUSES (A),(B), (D) AND (E), SHALL INCLUDE ALL PRO FITS OF THE COMPANY UPTO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OR PAYMENT REFERRED T O IN THOSE SUB- CLAUSES, AND IN SUB-CLAUSE (C) SHALL INCLUDE ALL PR OFITS OF THE COMPANY UP TO THE DATE OF LIQUIDATION, [ BUT SHALL NOT, WHERE THE LIQUIDATION IS CONSEQUENT ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISI TION OF ITS UNDERTAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT OR A CORPORATION OWNE D OR ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 13 - CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, INCLUDE ANY PROFITS OF THE COMPANY PRIOR TO THREE SUCCESSIVE PREVIOUS YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR IN WHICH SUCH ACQUISITION TOOK PLACE]. A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISION REVEALS THAT THE LEGISLATURE IMPOSES THIS DEEMING SECTION OF TREATING LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE TO A SHAREHOLDER HAVING SPECIFIED STAKES IN THE CREDITOR ENTITY. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS NOT ABSOLUTE; BUT APPLIES IN THE LIGHT OF E XPLANATION 1 & 2 ELABORATING AS TO WHAT AMOUNTS TO ACCUMULATED PROFI TS. THE FORMER EXPLANATION STIPULATES THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS AS N OT TO INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF A CREDITOR ENTITY PERTAINING TO SPECIFIED EXEMPTED TIME PERIOD. THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN ANY CASE IS NOT COVERED THEREIN. WE TREAD ON A CAUTIOUS NOTE AND SEE NO RE ASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS THAT THIS EXPLANATION NO.1 INTENDS TO MEAN ALL CAPITAL GAINS EXCEPT THOSE EXEM PTED. WE REPEAT FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND THAT TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS ARE ONLY OF RS.34,24,232/- IN M/S. HEMPLS CASE. WE FURTHER REITERATE THAT THIS ENTITY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET SHOWS DEFICIT BALANCE IN NEGATIVE FIGURE OF R S.94,57,542.71 (SUPRA). NEITHER OF THESE FIGURES DENOTES ANY COMMERCIAL PRO FIT ELEMENT THEREIN AS DEFERRED CAPITAL RESERVE IS A BOOK ENTRY AND LATTER ONE IS GROSS CONSIDERATION AMOUNT. WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS TH AT THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS TREATING THE GROSS SALE PRICE AS COMMERCI AL CAPITAL GAINS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SCHEME OF THE ACT DEFINING CA PITAL GAINS ONLY AND NOT COMMERCIAL CAPITAL GAINS. WE OVERRULE THIS REA SONING OF THE CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT M/S. HEMPL HAD DERIVED CAPITAL GAINS MUCH LESS THAN THOSE TREATED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. TO BE P RECISE, WE HOLD THAT AFTER ADOPTING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD O N 1-4-1981 AND ADJUSTING THE SAME AGAINST INDEXED COST OF ACQUISIT ION AS PER SECTION 45 ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 14 - READ WITH SECTION 48 (2 ND PROVISO), NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FIGURE IS ONLY RS.34,24,232/-. WE REVERSE THE CIT (A)S FINDI NGS ACCORDINGLY. 12. NOW WE COME TO JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE FIRST A ND FOREMOST DECISION QUOTED AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST IS ITO VS. SHORT BROTHERS (1966) 60 ITR 83 (SC). ITS A FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONB LE APEX COURT UNDER OLD ACT PRESCRIBING THE VERY DEEMING FICTION U/S. 2 (6A) (C). THEIR LORDSHIPS OBSERVE THAT ACCUMULATED PROFITS ARE THE PROFITS SO REGARDED IN COMMERCIAL PRACTICE AND CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE ACT . AND MERE REALIZATION OF APPRECIATED VALUE OF ASSETS IN COMME RCIAL PARLANCE IS REALIZATION OF CAPITAL RISE AND NOT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. 13. THE NEXT JUDGMENT QUOTED IS TEA ESTATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 785 (SC) UNDER THE OLD ACT. IT IS EV IDENT THAT HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF SH ORT BROTHERS (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT UNLESS APPRECIATED VALUE OF THE ASSET S WAS INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR BEING TREATED AS ACCUMULATED PROF ITS, THE SAME SHALL NOT BE ADDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS. THE H ONBLE APEX COURT UPHELD THIS REASONING. 14. THE THIRD CASE LAW REFERRED IS YET ANOTHER FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. URMILA RAMESH (199 8) 230 ITR 422 (SC). THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREIN HAD INVOKED SEC TION 41 (2) FOR TREATING A SUM OF RS.7,28,760 AS ACCUMULATED PROFIT S FOR MAKING ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS. THE SAID ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THIS AMOUNT DID NOT REPRESENT COMMERCIAL PROFITS IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE . THEIR LORDSHIPS TOOK INTO ACCOUNT OLD AS WELL AS NEW ACT ON THE ISS UE OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 15 - AND HELD THAT THE ABOVE SAID SUM COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE PROFITS FOR BEING DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS. 15. THE NEXT JUDICIAL PRECEDENT CITED BEFORE US IS P.K. BADIANI VS CIT (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC). THIS ONE ALSO HAPPENS TO B E A FULL BENCH DECISION UNDER THE OLD ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SET AS IDE A PART OF ITS PROFITS AS DEVELOPMENT REBATE. THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT TH OUGH THE SAID REBATE DID NOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSABLE PROFITS, THE SA ME WAS INDEED COMMERCIAL PROFITS IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE. CASE LAW OF TEA ESTATE (SUPRA) WAS ALSO RELIED UPON. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE TWO LATTER DECISIONS ALSO STAND QUOTED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. 16. THE ASSESSEE DRAWS OUR ATTENTION TO SMT. CHECHA MMA THOMAS VS. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 718 (KER) UNDER THE NEW ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVES THAT THE TRIBUNALS VIEW SUBJECT MAT TER OF ADJUDICATION HOLDING THAT THE CASE LAW OF SHORT BROTHER AND TEA ESTATE (SUPRA) UNDER THE OLD ACT NOT TO APPLY IN 1961 ACT; IS ERRONEOUS SINCE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS IN BOTH ACTS DO NOT DIFFER. THE RELEVANT RATIO IS AT PARA 7 PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 17. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE LAST JUDGMENT QUOTED OF CIT V/S. GROZ BECKERT SABOO LTD., (1979) 116 ITR 125 (SC) HOLDING THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE CONVERTS ITS CAPITAL ASSET IN TO STOCK IN TRADE AND STARTS DEALING IN THE SAME, TAXABLE PROFITS ON SALE THEREOF MUST BE D ETERMINED BY DEDUCTING FROM SALE PROCEEDS THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION AND NOT THE ORIGINAL COST. ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 16 - 18. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE ISSUE INVOLVED VIS--VIS THE STATUTORY PROVISION SEC. 2(22)(E) EXP LANATIONS 1 AND 2 IN THE ACT AND ITS INTERPRETATION FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HIGH COURTS STATED HEREINABOVE. THE CRUCIAL INTERPR ETATION OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS HAS BEE N HELD TO MEAN PROFITS IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE OR CAPITAL GAINS AS TAXABLE IN THE ACT. THE REVENUE DOES NOT POINT ANY EXCEPTION THERETO. WE OB SERVE AT THE COST OF REPETITION THAT M/S. HEMPL HAD CARRIED ITS DEFERRED CAPITAL RESERVE UPTO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND DECLARED A MEAGER SUM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN DEFICIT BALAN CE (SUPRA) WITHOUT LEAVING BEHIND ANY POSITIVE FIGURE SO AS TO BE TREA TED AS ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT IT DID N OT HAVE ANY ACCUMULATED PROFITS SO AS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE/ITS SHAREHOLDER ENJOYING 18.63% OF THE AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL. WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE ABOVE STATED CASE LAW TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ABOVESTATED GROSS CONSIDERATION SUM AS WELL AS THE DEFERRED CAP ITAL RESERVES ARE NOT COMMERCIAL PROFITS OR TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS. THIS L EADS TO A NECESSARY COROLLARY THAT THE ASSESSEES LOAN IN QUESTION AVAI LED FROM M/S. HEMPL TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,81,48,023/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY TR EATED AS DEEMED DIVIDENDS U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT BY BOTH THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS ARE ACCORDINGLY ACCEPTED. 19. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS DAY, THE 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGARWAL) (S.S. GODARA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATED 11/09/2015 ITA NO.15/AHD/2011 JAYRAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2007-08 - 17 - S.A. PATKI,SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! '# $ / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ () / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. '() **'# , '# , ,-! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. )./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 07.09.2015 DIRECT ON COMPUTER 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER- 8.9.2015 OTHER MEMBER 10-9-2015. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 10-9-2015. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 11-9-2015. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES TO THE SR.P.S. 11-9-2015. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK- 11-9-2015. 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