M/s. Honest Enterprise, Mehsana V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Mehsana

ITA 1616/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2047 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA SR D R
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Procedural lapse
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, MEHSANA M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE, NR. POLICE CHOWKI, HATADIA BAZAR, KHERALU, MEHSANA [ PAN NO.AAEFH 1626 F ] V/S . V/S . M/S HONEST ENTERPRISE, NR. PLICE CHOWKY, HATADIA BAZAR, KHERALU, MEHSANA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, MEHSANA / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI A.L. THAKKAR, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI Y. P. VERMA, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 02-05-2013 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-05-2013 ' ' ' ' / // / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 26-02-2010 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1327/AH D/2010. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS:- ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 2 1) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,17,532/- BEING CAPITAL INTROD UCED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS.18,582/- BEING PENALTY LEVIED BY THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT CASE OF THE ASSESS EE PERTAINING TO AY 2005- 06 WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE AS SESSMENT U/S.1 43(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) WAS FRAMED THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS UNEXPLAINED LOAN, SALAR Y AND INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS AND PENALTY EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.17,17,532/- THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS AND THE PENALTY OF RS.18,582/- WERE DELETED AND THE OTHER ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED AGAINST THIS BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE HAVE FILED CROSS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 4. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.17,17,532/- BEING CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS. LD. DR OF THE R EVENUE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE CAPACITY AN D GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF NEW CAPITAL INTRODUCED DU RING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN TAX REFERENCE NO. 241 OF 1993 DATED 06-07-2005 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES . 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.17,17,532/- IS MADE BY ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT THE INCOME EARN ED FROM THE MILK BUSINESS IS CONSIDERED AS GENUINENESS AND THE BALANCE CREDIT ENTRIES BEARING IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS TREATED AS CASH CREDIT NOT PROVED AS THE ASSESSEES DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING G ENUINENESS OF SAID TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE AD DITION ON THE BASIS THAT PERSONS ARE IDENTIFIED AND IT IS THE PARTNERS WHO A RE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE FIRM, THE MATTER BE PROBED I N THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS. WE FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TAX REFERENCE NO. 241 OF 1993 (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 13. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DET AILS WHICH WOULD DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE FICTITIOUS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CREDITS IN TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS WERE NOT DEPOSITS FROM THE PARTNERS. MOREO VER, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND YEAR OF THE FIRM, AND THAT IT WAS RUNNING IN LOSS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON BEHALF OF THE A IN RESPECT OF THE NEW DEPOSITS OR CASH CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS. TH E MERE NON- ACCEPTANCE OF THAT EXPLANATION DOES NOT, HOWEVER, P ROVIDE MATERIAL FOR FINDING THAT THE SAID SUM REPRESENTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. AS HELD BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD V. JAISWAL MOTOR FINANCE (SUPRA), IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THERE WERE PROFITS OF THE FIRM THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE PARTNERS ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. ONCE THE PARTNERS HAVE OWNED THA T THE MONIES DEPOSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS ARE THEIR OWN, THE INCO ME TAX OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO AND MAY PROCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AN D ASSESS THE SAME IN THEIR HANDS, IF THEIR EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND S ATISFACTORY. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD AS T O HOW THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 4 6. NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES OF RS.18,582/- BEING PENALTY LEVIED BY IRR IGATION DEPARTMENT. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN D ELETING THE PENALTY AS EXPENSES AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FO RM OF LETTER FROM OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, WHERE IN THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR LATE PAYMENT OF SALE DEEDS AND THE CONTE NTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THIS PENALTY WA S NOT LEVIED FOR ANY INFRINGEMENT OF LAW AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FOR WARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF AO LD. CIT(A ) HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE OF ANY INFRINGEMENT OF LAW AS FAR AS THIS EXPENSE IS CONCERNED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL, HENCE, SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. T HIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1616/AHD/2010 . 9. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF ASSESSING OFFICER INSTE AD OF R.F. STATUS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM TH AT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS DULY FILED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE & THE C ERTIFIED COPY THEREOF WAS AGAIN FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 10. THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE AS ASSOCIATION OF PERSON (AOP FOR SHORT) ON THE ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 5 BASIS THAT PARTNERSHIP DEED COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFIED COP Y OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS DULY FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D CERTIFIED COPY THEREOF WAS AGAIN FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS DULY FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION THE REOF IS ALSO ENCLOSED. HE POINTED OUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE LD. CI T(A) IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DED UCTION IS BEING FILED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 196 2. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTUM OF PRODUCTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 184(2) IS DIRECTORY IS IN NATURE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 2672/AHD/2009 DATED 25-10-2011 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DHARTI DEVELOPERS V. ITO. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT CASE LAW RELIE D BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. AR IN ITA NO. 2672/AHD/2009 (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE HA D IN FACT FILED OF PHOTO COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEDUCTION ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE IN HAND, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY PARTNERSHIP DEED D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE. WE FIND THAT HONBLE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 2672/AHD/2009 (SUPRA) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF ISHAR DASS SAHNI & SONS V. DCIT REPORTED IN 68 TTJ 125 (DEL) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE PROVISION ABOUT THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INST RUMENT ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN ON INCOME IS DIRECTORY IN NATURE AND ITS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE BY FILING UNCERTIFIED PHOTOSTAT COPY INS TRUMENT OF PARTNERSHIP ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND BY PRODUCING CERTIF IED COPY AT TIME OF ASSESSMENT, WOULD BE ENOUGH. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE BEING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CERTIFIED ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 6 COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ALONG WITH RETURN OF I NCOME AND ALSO FAILED TO FULFILL ITS MANDATORY OBLIGATION REGARDING STATUS A S FIRM BY FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS FURNISHED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS DULY VERIFIED THE SAME. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184((2) OF THE ACT IS DIRECTORY IN NATURE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED O N THE BASIS OF THIS PROCEDURAL LAPSES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS A PART NERSHIP FIRM WAS FALSE OR BASELESS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE AS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO.3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2,63,42 0/- FROM THE ALLEGED UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI KARIMKHAN M BAHELI M TREATING THE SAME AS CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 1961. 13. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALSO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT SHRI KARIMKHAN M BAHELIM DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 2,63,420/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AT KHERAL NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. AND ON THE SAME DAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE-FIRM. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM COULD NOT EXPLA IN AVAILABILITY OF CASH OF THE ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 7 SAME AMOUNT ON THE CHEQUE DATED 14-04-2004 WHEN THE SAME HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD DISCHARGED IT S ONUS BY GIVING IDENTITY, BANK ACCOUNT ETC., OF THE LENDER. IT WAS THEREFORE THE PRIMARY ONUS IS DULY DISCHARGED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT SOURCE OF THE SOURCES CANNOT BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- A. DAULATD RAM RAWATMULL (1073) 87 ITR 349 (SC) B. SAROGI CREDIT CORP. (1976) 103 ITR 344 (PAT) WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL A SPECT OF THE MATTER, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE CASH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS DEPOSITED BY THE LENDER IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED, HENCE, SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. T HIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO.4 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AS UNDER;- 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED I CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN RESPECT OF SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS OF RS.47,7 25/- AND RS.2,88,015/- RESPECTIVELY. 16. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISAL LOWANCES MADE ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A FIRM AND SAME WAS CONF IRMED BY LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON THIS ISSUE, SINCE GROUND NO .1 AND 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE DECL ARING THE ASSESSEE AS A FIRM. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS. ITA NO.1327 & 1616/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S. HONEST ENTERPRISE V. ITO WD-4, MEHSANA PAGE 8 18. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. IN COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMIS SED AND THAT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PRAMAD.KUMAR) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP #$%- 10/05/2013 ,-. / ' ' ' ' 001 001 001 001 21 21 21 21 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. $.$04 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5- / CIT (A) 5. 1 78 0004, 04!, ,-. / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8;< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ ?/, $ 04!, ,-. / STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 08/05 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 09/05 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 10/05 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION - - 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 10/05 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 10/05 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 10/05