Shri Ashokkumar S.Vaswani, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1527/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 152720514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA SR D R
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Audit objection; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 14A; 147

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .. , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1527/AHD/2012 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI C/O.KETAN H.SHAH 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX CG ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD & & & & / VS. THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD ( '# ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. :AAOPV 6849A ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KETAN SHAH ,-(+ / . ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P.VERMA, SR.D.R. &0 / # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 5.12.2012 12' / # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7.12.12 '3 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-6 AHMEDABAD DATED 12/06/2012 AND TH E GROUNDS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EAC H OTHER: ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED - 1. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE C.I.T. (APPEALS) DATED 05.06.2012 INTER ALIA ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE SO-CALLED REASONS RECORDED IS AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE CO MPLETE DETAILS REGARDING INTEREST INCOME AS WELL AS INTEREST EXPEN DITURE. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE REOPENING IS BASIC ALLY BAD IN LAW, VOID AB-INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. IN NOT APPRECIATING IN FACTS AND/OR LAW THAT IF THE REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION TH EN ALSO REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEA LS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT VERIFYING THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND SP ECIFIC REQUEST WAS ALSO MADE TO ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATE D 07.06.2012, AND AS SUCH, IT IS PRAYED THAT IF THE REOPENING IS MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION THEN THE WHOLE REOPENI NG PROCEEDING IS BAD IN LAW. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON MERITS, IT IS PRAYED THAT SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND MORE PARTICULARLY, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 05.06.2012. 2. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE LEGAL/TECHNICAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THIS APPE LLANT. IN THIS REGARD, LD.AR MR.KETAN SHAH HAS PLEADED THAT AN INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESS EE RECEIVED THE REQUISITE ORDER U/S.7(1) OF RTI ACT OF 2005 DATED 4 .9.2012, COPY PLACED ON RECORD. ALONG WITH THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT DATED 03/07/2009 AN D COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION. LD.AR HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT EARLIER AN ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS PASSED ON 11.12.2007. LATER ON, MERELY ON THE BASI S OF AN AUDIT OBJECTION ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. HE HAS, THE REFORE, ARGUED THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BASED UPON AN AUDIT OBJ ECTION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. FOR THIS LEGAL PROP OSITION, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON ITO VS. DUTTA CONSTRUCTION 137 TTJ 61 (AHD.)(UO). HIS SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT WAS THAT IN THE FIRST ROUN D OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPLICA BILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, THEREFORE IT WAS NOT PER MISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW TO CHANGE THE MIND AND ASSESS THE INCOME BY INV OKING SECTION 14A IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE 63 DTR 7 (GUJ.) . 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.Y.P.VERMA APPEARED AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE AR GUMENTS OF LD.AR. HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE INVOCATION OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 R.W.S.148 WERE WITHIN PURVIEW OF LAW. THE ASS ESSMENT WAS REOPENED WITHIN FOUR YEARS, THEREFORE THE PROVISO O F SECTION 147 WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND THE AO HAD ENOUGH POWER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT. LD.DR HAS CITED PARA 2.3 OF LD.CIT(A); REPRODUCED B ELOW:- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IT IS NOT IN D ISPUTE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED WITHIN FOUR YEARS AND THERE FORE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS NOT APPLICABLE. APPELLANT ARGUED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND THEREFORE REOPENING W AS LEGALLY NOT CORRECT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AND SPECIF ICALLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A AND THE REFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY OPINION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY CHANGE OF OPINION. THE RECENT DECISION OF DELH I HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. DATED A PRIL 24 TH , 2012 IS VERY RELEVANT ON THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSIO N OF THE SAME IS QUOTED BELOW- IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOS ED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS.173 LAKHS FOR TRANSFER OF EXCLUSIVE DIS TRIBUTION RIGHTS OF AC AND WATER COOLERS AND THAT IT WAS CREDITED TO CAPITAL RESERVE AND NOT TREATED AS INCOME. THE AO PASSED U.S.143(3 ) ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH HE DID NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE. SUB SEQUENTLY, AS THE REVENUE AUDIT RAISED AN OBJECTION, THE AO, WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE AY, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUN D THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CHARGEABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE TRIB UNAL, FOLLOWING KELVINATOR 256 ITR 1 (FB) (AFFIRMED IN 32 0 ITR 561 (SC)) , STRUCK DOWN THE REOPENING ON THE GROUND THAT IT W AS BASED ON THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS THAT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD , THERE WAS NO FRESH MATERIAL AND SO IT WAS A CASE OF LAPSE OF THE AO AND A CHANGE OF OPINION. ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, HELD: A CASE WHERE THE AO SPECIFICALLY EXAMINES ON ISSUE AND APPLIES HIS MIND POSES NO DIFFICULTY BECAUSE EVEN IF THE OR DER IS SILENT, IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. HOWEVER, IN A CASE WHERE THE AO DOES NOT NOTICE OR EXAMINE A PARTICULAR ASPECT IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DOES NOT RAISE ANY WRITTEN QUESTION OR QU ERY, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE DOCTRINE OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION IS APPLICABLE. THERE CAN BE DIFFERENT ASPECTS IN WHICH THIS QUESTI ON MAY ARISE INCLUDING CASES WHERE THE CLAIM MAY BE A REPETITION AND ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. TO WHAT EXTENT THE PRESUMPTION U /S 114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT APPLICABLE IS THE ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE AND WHEN THE PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTED. FURTHER, WHETHER THE SAID PRESUMPTION ONLY APPLIES TO PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OR EVEN TO SUBSTANTIVE ASSERTIONS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT. THOUGH IN KELVINATOR 256 ITR 1, THE FU LL BENCH HELD THAT S. 114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT WOULD APPLY AND THE AO WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND, S. 114 WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO BY THE SUPREME COURT NOR DID IT SPECIFI CALLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE FULL BENCH. ACC ORDINGLY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE EXAMINED BY A LARGER BENCH AND THE ISSUES REQUIRING CONSIDERATION ARE: ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - (I) WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM CHANGE OF OPINIO N? (II) WHETHER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE VALIDLY REOPENED U/S.147, EVEN WITHIN FOUR YEAR, IF AN ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WITH REFERENCE TO INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WH ETHER AND WHEN IN SUCH CASES REOPENING IS VALID OR INVALID ON THE GROUND OF CHANGE OF OPINION? (III) WHETHER THE BAR OR PROHIBITION UNDER THE PRI NCIPLE CHANGE OF OPINION WILL APPLY EVEN WHEN THE AO HAS NOT AS KED ANY QUESTION OR QUERY WITH RESPECT TO AN ENTRY/NOTE, BU T THERE IS EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAD RAISE D QUERIES AND QUESTIONS ON OTHER ASPECTS? (IV) WHETHER AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES S.114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT CAN BE APPLIED AND IT CAN BE HELD THAT IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION? FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANTS CASE I S NOT COVERED BY DECISIONS ON CHANGE OF OPINION. ACCORDINGLY THE RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS HELD TO BE VALID AND THIS GROUND IS D ISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERU SED THE IMPUGNED AUDIT OBJECTION AND THE REASONS RECORDED. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE AO HAD FORMED AN INDEPEND ENT OPINION IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE REASONS GIVEN FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 47 DATED 03/07/2009. IT COULD BE POSSIBLE THAT THE AO HAD OBTAINED THIS INFORMATION OF ALLEGED ESCAPEMENT OF ASSESSMENT FROM THE AUDIT PARTY, BUT THE AO HAS NOWHERE NOTED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ABOUT THE SAID AUDIT OBJECTION. WHICH MEANS THAT ON THE BASIS OF AN INFORMATION, TH E AO HAD FORMED HIS OWN OPINION AND BASED ON THAT OPINION HE HAS DECIDE D TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE PRECEDENT OF DUTTA CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) AS CITED BY LD.AR, HOWEV ER WE HAVE NOTED ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - THAT THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH HAD GIVEN A CLE AR FINDING THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE AND ME RELY SOUGHT TO VERIFY THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED UPON THE AUDIT OBJECTION. EVEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION ITSELF W AS VAGUE AND BASELESS. CONTRARY TO THIS, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL NOW BEFORE US, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS NOT VAGUE OR BASELESS. MOREOV ER, THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. DUE TO THIS REASON, WE FIND NO FORCE IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPELLANT, HENCE DISMISSED. 4.1.AS FAR AS GROUND NO.1 IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE PER USED THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE INITIALLY INITIATED WHILE PASSING THE AS SESSMENT U/S.143(3) DATED 11.12.2007. IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.12.2007 THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT. ALTHOUGH, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST RECEIVED AND INTEREST PAID, AND IN THAT REGARD A QU ERY WAS RAISED BUT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC QUERY ABOUT THE INVOCATION OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT. DUE TO THAT REASON, THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED COPY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND INTEREST RECEIVED ACCOUNT. THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS AND DEPOSITS AN D IN COMPLIANCE CERTAIN DETAILS HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, THE QUERY IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14 A WAS NOT RAISED. SINCE THERE WAS NO OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE AO, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION. WE THEREFORE HOLD TH AT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AN INDEPENDENT OPINI ON WAS FORMED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION BUT FORMATION OF AN OPINION ON THE BASIS OF A MATERIAL WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - THE NOTICE OF THE AO. DUE TO THE REASONS EXPRESSE D HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO FORCE IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. T HIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 5. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3, AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WOR TH TO MENTION THAT ALTHOUGH IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO HAD PROP OSED TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT, BUT WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT HE HAS ADOPTED AN ALTERNA TE REASON OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,25,147/- U/S.36(1) OF IT ACT. RELEVANT PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS ADJUDICATED THAT A PART OF THE INTEREST DEBITED HAD TO BE INCURRED DUE TO THE INVE STMENT IN THE ASSETS WHICH DO NOT GENERATE TAXABLE INCOME. HENCE , THE PORTION OF SUCH INTEREST BECOMES AN UNWARRANTED PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S.36(1) AND IS ALSO DISALLOWABLE U/S.14A. THEREF ORE, ` 9,25,147/- {(5271984 * 9115953) 51947602}, IS DISALLOWED AN D ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. 4. AFTER VERIFICATION THE TOTAL INCOME IS REASSESS ED AS UNDER:- INCOME ORIGINALLY ASSESSED ` 8,31,200/- ADD: DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A:- ` 9,25,147/- TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME : ` 17,56,347/- ROUNDED OFF TO :- ` 17,56,350/- 5.1. AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE THAT THERE WAS NO EXEMPTED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E YEAR UNDER ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - CONSIDERATION. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR S TO BE CORRECT BECAUSE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION, THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF EARNING OF AN EXEMPTED INCOME DURING THE YEAR. IF IT WAS SO, THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF IT ACT. AT THE TIME WHEN THE CASE WAS REOPENED, THERE WAS A N AUDIT OBJECTION AND IN THAT AUDIT OBJECTION IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT AS PER SECTION 14A, NO DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITU RE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INC OME. WHICH MEANS THAT THE AO WAS IN DOUBLE MIND WHEN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THAT WHETHER TO ASSESS U/S.14A OF IT ACT OR TO ASSESS TH E DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1) OF IT ACT. ON THE BOTH THE CO UNTS, THE ACTION OF THE AO SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. 5.2. AS FAR AS THE INTEREST ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED , LD.AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION THAT THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID AND INT EREST RECEIVED WERE DULY FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, ACCORDING TO WHICH RS.56,30,065/- WAS CREDITED AND RS.52,71,984/ - WAS DEBITED, HENCE THE RESULTANT CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.3,58,061/- WAS DULY CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US IS THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS NOT AT ALL CLAIMED, BUT IT WAS ADJU STED AGAINST THE INTEREST EARNED. AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN HIGHLIGHTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, THEREFORE IT WAS WRONG TO ALLEGE THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED FOR EARNING EXEMPT ED INCOME SPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEXUS. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AS ALSO THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE ITA NO. 1527/AHD/2012 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR S.VASWANI VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - OF INTEREST EITHER U/S.36(1) OF IT ACT OR U/S.14A O F IT ACT. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 7/ 12 /2012 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD 5. 49: ,& , , / LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <0 / GUARD FILE. '3& '3& '3& '3& / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DIRECT DICTATION ON COMPUTER 5.12.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.12.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S7.12.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7.12.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER