Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat V. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 1527/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5757 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 263; 43B; 143(3); 234B; 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years : 2015-16 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Kapodara Char Rasta, Surat, Guajrat-395006 PAN : AABCD 8912 C Vs Pri. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Ahmedabad / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR /Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 /Date of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara-1, Vadodara (“PCIT” in short) dated 29.07.2019 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short). 2. The assessee, in the present case, is a company which is engaged in the business of distribution of electricity. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.09.2015 declaring total income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. Nil after setting off unabsorbed depreciation loss to the extent of Rs.59,86,49,724/-. In the said return, book profit under Section 115JB of the Act was declared by the assessee at Rs.98,48,83,000/-. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.11.2017, the total income of the ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 2 assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,73,17,97,724/-; and, after allowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss to that extent, the total assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs. Nil. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the concerned PCIT and on such examination, he was of the view that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.11.2017 suffered from the following error which was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue:- “On verification of records, it is seen that during the year under consideration, you have claimed additional depreciation of Rs.58,57,95,373/- and the same was allowed during the assessment proceedings. The assessee company is engaged in the distribution of electricity. As per section 32(1)(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assesses engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii). Since, the assessee company is engaged only in distribution of electricity and additional depreciation is allowable to companies engaged in business of either generation of power or 'generation and distribution' of power. So, the claim of additional depreciation allowed to assessee was not correct as assessee did not qualify to claim deduction for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act and accordingly, additional depreciation of Rs.58,57,95,373/- allowed during assessment is required to be disallowed and added to the total income.” 3. The learned PCIT accordingly issued notice under Section 263(1) of the Act to the assessee on 24.05.2019 pointing out the above error and seeking explanation of the assessee. In reply, the following explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee in the matter:- "................. As explained at the time of assessment, earlier the claim of additional depreciation was allowable only to the manufacturing concerns. ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 3 The generation of power was also treated as manufacturing activity and hence the claim was also extended to the Generation Companies by the Courts. Accordingly, to settle down the controversies and in order to further encourage investment in the Power Sector amendment was made to the relevant section 32(1)(iia} of the IT Act by including the words "generation or generation and distribution of power. It may, thus, be noted that the legislative intent behind introducing/amending the provision was broadly to extend the benefit to the Power Sector. This apart, the addition of word "distribution" itself clarifies that the claim is intended to be extended to the Distribution Companies also. It may not be out of the place to mention that the eligibility of claim cannot be decided merely on the basis of the words used in the Statute. The wordings of the Act are drafted with particularly underlying intention and motive of the Government and the same are to be interpreted in liberal and unambiguous manner. In the Power Sector, the process of reforms and restructuring began in the early 1990's and with the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the 2003 Act"), all the states enacted state level legislations for restructuring of integrated State Electricity Boards (SEBs). As a result of restructuring almost all the States formed different combination of entities for generation, transmission and distribution. The Govt. of Gujarat also enacted the Gujarat Electricity Industry (Reorganization and Regulation) Act, 2003 to demerge into seven companies i.e., one Generation Company, one Transmission Company and four Distribution Companies and one with the residual functions. It can be seen that it is only the organization, set-up decided by the States to have separate utilities. With the above facts, if the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act relating to additional depreciation are interpreted merely on the basis of wordings used therein, it will lead to the conclusion that only the States of Tamil Nadu, Punjab and HP will be eligible for the additional depreciation as only these three States have (Generation + Distribution) Companies. This obviously must not be the intention of the Legislature to provide the benefit only to these states and to deprive the other states from the benefits.....” 4. The learned PCIT did not find the explanation offered by the assessee in the matter to be acceptable. He noted that the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board was split into seven different companies and the assessee- company was one of those seven companies which was engaged only in the distribution of electricity. He referred to the amendment made in Section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2012 whereby the assessee engaged in the ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 4 business of generation or generation and distribution of power was made eligible to claim additional depreciation. Relying on this amended position applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16, the learned PCIT held that the assessee engaged only in the business of distribution of power was not entitled to claim additional depreciation and it became entitled to claim such additional depreciation subsequently with effect from 1 st April 2017 as per the amendment made again by the Finance Act, 2016 in the provision of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The learned PCIT noted that the said amendment by Finance Act, 2016 was explicitly made effective from 1 st April 2017 and the benefit of the same, therefore, was not available to the assessee for AY 2015-16. He held that the plain reading of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, did not give rise to any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency and since the benefit of the same was applicable only to the assessee engaged in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power, the same could not be extended to the assessee-company which was engaged only in the business of distribution of power. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned PCIT relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT (SC) 237 ITR 589 ii) CST Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, (SC) 25 STC 188 iii) IPCA laboratory Ltd vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 iv) Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr Vs. CIT & Anr, (SC) 266 ITR 1 5. The learned PCIT accordingly held that there was an error in the order of the Assessing Officer dated 17.11.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act in allowing additional depreciation of Rs.58,57,95,373/- to the assessee; and, setting aside the said order by exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 263 of the Act, he directed the Assessing ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5 Officer to frame the assessment afresh. Aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was earlier available only to the manufacturing concerns and in order to further encourage investment in power sector; the amendment was made in Section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 st April 2013 by inserting words “generation or generation and distribution of power”. He contended that the legislative intention behind the said amendment was to extend the benefit to the power sector and although the said benefit was initially not given to the assessees engaged only in the business of distribution of power, Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was again amended by Finance Act, 2016 making the assessee engaged only in the business of distribution of power eligible to claim additional depreciation. He contended that even though the said amendment by the Finance Act, 2016 is made with effect from 1 st April 2017, keeping in view the legislative intention behind making the said amendment, it has to be treated as retrospective in nature. He invited our attention to the Memorandum explaining the legislative intention behind the said amendment to point out that the same was made in order to rationalize the incentive for power sector. He contended that the eligibility of claim cannot be decided merely on the basis of words used in the statute and the intention and motive underlining the amendment made in the provision should be considered while interpreting the amended provision. 7. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that if the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as amended from time to time, relating to ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 6 additional depreciation are interpreted merely on the basis of words used therein, it will lead to a situation where the electricity companies of only few States will get benefit because of the organizational set up decided by them; whereas, the electricity companies of other States will be deprived of such benefits. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd., [2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC), he contended that if legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant to give a retrospective effect. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Atom Extrusion Ltd, [2009] 185 Taxman 416 (SC), wherein it was held that the legislative amendment which is curative in nature would operate retrospectively. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran, [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171 (Madras), wherein it was held that the amendment made in the statute which seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship should be taken as retrospective. He also cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC), wherein it was held that the amendment made by Finance Act 2010 to provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature should be given retrospective operation. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd., [2013] 31 taxmann.com 378 (Guj.), wherein it was held that the amendment to Section 234B made for the purpose to remove the ambiguity was required to be held as retrospective in nature. ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 7 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was correctly allowed by the Assessing Officer by taking into consideration the relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as amended from time to time and there being no error in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) allowing the said claim as alleged by the learned PCIT, the impugned order passed by him revising the said order is liable to be cancelled being not tenable in law or in the facts of the case. 10. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the impugned order passed by learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act. He contended that the assessee, in the present case, is engaged only in the business of distribution of power and it was, therefore, not entitled to claim additional depreciation as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16. He contended that, as per the relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) applicable to the year under consideration, only the assessee engaged in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power was entitled for additional deprecation and this benefit was extended to the assessee engaged only in the business of distribution of power by Finance Act, 2016 only with effect from 1 st April 2017. He contended that this amendment made by Finance Act, 2016 is not clarificatory in nature and, as rightly held by the learned PCIT, the same cannot be given retrospective effect. He contended that the relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) as amended from time to time are very clear and there being no ambiguity whatsoever, nothing can be read into the same to give retrospective operation as sought by the learned Counsel for the assessee especially when it is made clear by the legislature that the amendment made by the 2016 Act is effective only from 1 st April 2017. He also contended that there is no hardship involved in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 8 this case which is attempted to be removed by the Finance Act, 2016 and therefore, the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee are not applicable in the present context. He contended that the benefit of additional depreciation available under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is extended also to the assessees engaged only in the business of distribution of power after certain date and if at all the intention of the legislature was to give retrospective effect to the said amendment made by 2016 Act, it would have been made clear. 11 We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. We have also carefully gone through the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both the sides in support of their stand. It is observed that the assessee, in the present case, is a company which engaged only in the business of distribution of electricity and the additional depreciation of 20% in respect of new plant or machinery as claimed by it in the return of income was allowed by the Assessing Officer as per the provision of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the assessment completed vide an order dated 17.11.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The concerned learned PCIT, on examination of the records of the said assessment, however noted that the assessee-company engaged only in the business of distribution of electricity was not entitled to claim additional depreciation as per the relevant provision of Section 32(1)(iia) as applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16. He accordingly set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act by exercising his powers under Section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh. The relevant provision of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as relied upon by the learned PCIT to arrive at his conclusion as amended by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 st day of April 2013 read as under:- ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 9 “.......in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31 st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing 41 [or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power], a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii).....” 12. It is manifest from the provision of Section 32(1)(iia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 st April 2013 that additional depreciation was allowed in respect of cost of new plant or machinery acquired and installed by certain assessees engaged in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power and the assessees engaged only in the business of distribution of power/electricity, like the assessee in the present case, was not allowed the benefit given under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As per the provision of Section 32(1)(iia), as amended by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 st April 2013 which is applicable to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16, the assessee- company engaged only in the business of distribution of electricity thus was not entitled to claim additional depreciation of 20% in respect of the cost of new plant or machinery acquired and installed by it and this position is not even disputed by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. He, however, has relied on the amendment again made in Section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1 st April 2017 whereby the benefit of additional depreciation of 20% in respect of cost of new plant or machinery acquired and installed is also extended even to the assessees who are engaged only in the business of distribution of electricity. He has contended that this amendment is made in Section 32(1)(iia) in order to rationalize the incentive for power sector and the same, therefore, is required to be given retrospective effect. In support of this contention, he has relied on various judicial pronouncements. ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 10 13. We have carefully gone through the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his contention. In our opinion, the same are distinguishable on facts and the ratio of the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. First of all, the language used in the provision of Section 32(1)(iia), as amended by Finance Act, 2012 and again by Finance Act, 2016, as rightly contended by the learned DR, is very clear and there being no ambiguity whatsoever therein, the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, cannot be of any help to the assessee as in the said case it was held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in question to Section 234B being for the purpose of removal of the ambiguity was required to be held as retrospective in nature. 14. In our considered opinion, the amendment made by Finance Act, 2016 to the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, going by legislative intention behind making the said amendment as explained in the relevant memorandum, cannot be said to be curative in nature and therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company (supra) has also no application in the present case as in the said case the relevant amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) being curative in nature was given retrospective operation with effect from AY 2005-06 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Likewise, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee will not be of any help to the assessee as the second proviso to Section 43B was deleted by the Finance Act 2003 to bring about uniformity in the first proviso to Section 14B and the same being curative in nature, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it would operational with effect from 01.04.1988. Moreover, it is ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 11 not a case where the purpose of amendment made to provision of Section 32(1)(iia) by the by Finance Act, 2016 can be said to relieve the assessee from undue hardship so as to give retrospective effect to the said amendment as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vummudi Amarendran (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 15. In the last case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the legislation is for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation, the same can be given a retrospective effect. In the present case, the purpose of amendment made to the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2016, as explained in the relevant memorandum, was to extend the benefit of additional depreciation in respect of the cost of new plant or machinery acquired and installed even by the assessees engaged only in the business of distribution of power in order to rationalize the incentive to power sector and the same, therefore, not being of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation, cannot be given retrospective effect. On the other hand, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the assessee renders support to Revenue’s case inasmuch as it was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein that of the various rules guiding how legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. Explaining further, it was observed by their Lordships that the idea behind the rule is that the current rule is governed current activities and the law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. Reference was made by the Hon’ble ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 12 Apex Court to one principle of law known as lex prospicit non respicit which means law looks forward and not backward. 16. In the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT (supra), relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled rule of construction that, in the first instance, the grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to and only if that is contrary to or inconsistent with any expressed intention, or declared purpose of the statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or abridged so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further. It was held that the elementary rule is that the words used in a section must be given their plain grammatical meaning. In another case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the statute, provisions cannot be interpreted to confer benefit on assessee. In his impugned order, learned CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr Vs. CIT (supra), wherein it was held that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself and the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. 17. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that if the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as amended from time to time are interpreted merely on the basis of words used therein, it will lead to a situation where the electricity companies of only few States will get benefit because of the organizational set up decided by them thereby ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 13 causing hardship to the electricity companies of other States, we are unable to accept the same. In our opinion, the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as amended from time to time, relating to the additional depreciation are applicable to the electricity companies across all the States on the basis of nature of business carried on by them and the benefit of the same thus is available uniformly to all the electricity companies irrespective of their States on the basis of the nature of their activities, notwithstanding the organizational set up decided by them. It, therefore, cannot be said that there is any hardship or discrimination causing to the electricity companies on the basis of their State if the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as amended from time to time, are interpreted on the basis of language used therein which is plain, clear and unambiguous and applied accordingly. 18. Having regard to the language used while making the amendment to the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) by the Finance Act, 2016 which is plain, clear and unambiguous and keeping in view the legislative intention behind the said amendment as explained in the relevant memorandum to extend the benefit of additional depreciation in respect of the cost of new plant or machinery acquired and installed even by the assessees engaged only in the business of distribution of electricity/power from a certain date, i.e. 1 st April 2017, we are of the view that the same cannot be treated as declaratory/curative in nature so as to give retrospective effect to it as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee. The said amendment made effective by the legislature clearly from 1 st April 2017; thus is applicable in relation to Assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent Assessment Years; and the same, therefore, cannot be applied to the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2015-16, to allow the assessee additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act allowing the said claim of the ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 14 assessee thus was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue; and, the learned PCIT, in our opinion, was fully justified in revising the same by his impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the said order of the learned PCIT and dismiss this appeal of the assessee. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 30 th March, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 30/03/2022 *Bt /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ! / The Appellant 2. "# ! / The Respondent. 3. $%$&' # # ( / Concerned CIT 4. # # ( ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. + , # &' , # # &' /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. , ./ 0 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह # $ज (Asstt. Registrar) # # &' ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation- ...22.03.2022 ...13 pages dictation pad attached.... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ......25.03.2022...... Other member ...28.03.2022.................. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ...28.03.2022............... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement ...30.03.2022. 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk...30.03.2022......... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................