Rajnikant Associates, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 181/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1251 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R CHHATRE
• Assessee Lawyers: MJ RANPURA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Document seized; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 27; 148; 263; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH , RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) [CORAM: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM ] ITA NO.181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR: 1993-94 RAJNIKANT ASSOCIATES, C/O NILESHKUMAR LAKHANI, B- 31, OSCAR TOWER, B/H PARIJAT PARTY PLOT, RAJKOT. VS. ITO, WD-1(1), RAJKOT APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAIFR 6359K APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. RANPURA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI D. R. CHHATRE, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 28/6/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/6/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, RAJKOT DATED 1/1/2014 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-II/RJT/T376/09- 10 PASSED U/S 271B OF IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR ASST. Y EAR 1993-94 FRAMED ON 25/9/2006 BY ITO, WD-1(1), RAJKOT. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-LL, RAJKOT [HEREINAFTER AS THE 'CIT(A)') ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMI NG LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT OF RS. 39,270/-. THE PENALTY LEVIED MAY KIN DLY BE DELETED. ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 2 3. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW INN DISMISSING GROUND OF APPEAL - THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.271B OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONSEQUENT ORDER FOR IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE ACT I S BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 4.0 YOUR HONOR'S APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AME ND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ASSE SSMENT RECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 21.3.1996 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,000/-. THEREAF TER THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 2. 9.1996 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE ACT ON 28.11.1997 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,000/ - AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271B OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. THER EAFTER, LD. CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE ISSUED ON 19.1.2000 AND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED O N 27..3.2009 AMENDING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 28.11.1997 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT ASSESSE D INCOME AT RS.21,73,345/-. IN THE AMENDED ORDER ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271B OF THE ACT ON 29.3.2000. 3. WHEN THE MATTER RELATING TO QUANTUM ADDITION CAM E UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.138/RJT/2000, AS PER THE DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO COMP UTE THE INCOME BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.78,53,561/-. AS REGARDS INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 27 1B LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ORDER ON 25.9.2006 IMPOSING PENA LTY OF RS.39,270/- U/S 271B OF THE ACT WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 3 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY VERIFIED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND IT MERITORIOUS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME IS NOT CORRECT. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 13.03,2006, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 275(1 )(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING ORDER U/S. 271B OF THE I.T. ACT IS AVAI LABLE UPTO 30.09.2006. HERE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE ITAT, THEREFORE THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 271B OF THE I.T. ACT W AS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE PENALTY IS NOT RELAT ABLE TO THE INCOME COMPUTED IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. THE FINAL TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6,28.285/- HA S BEEN ARRIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT. THE TOTAL I NCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DETERMIN ED @ 8% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 78.53 LAKHS. THE MATTER RELAT ING TO GROSS RECEIPT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELEVANCE WITH HIS TOTAL INCOME. THERE FORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.275(A) IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6, IT IS NOT A FACT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT A GITATED BEFORE ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, RAJKOT AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS RELATABLE TO TH E INCOME COMPUTED. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION, THE CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE RS.36,19,000/- ANT 1 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE AUDITE D IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SUPPRESSED ITS CORRECT RECEIPTS FROM APM C, JETPUR BY RESORTING TO FABRICATED DOCUMENTS AND FALSE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE MAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN ITS CASE EXCEEDS RS. 40 LAKHS . 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 17 LB OF THE I.T. ACT FOR FAILURE TO GET BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED AN D TO OBTAIN AN AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. ACCORDINGLY, I IMPOSE PENALTY U/S.2 71B OF THE I.T. ACT AT RS. 39,270/- BEING ONE-HALF PERCENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.78,53,561/ - 4. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 27 1B OF THE ACT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS LD. CIT( A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6.2 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL THE ORDERS REFE RRED TO ABOVE AND THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE HER E THAT AFTER PASSING OF ORDER U/S.263 BY THE CIT, THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 GOT MERGED INTO THE CITS ORDER. THE CIT HAD DIRECTED TO NHANCE THE TOTAL REC EIPTS OF THE APPELLANT. AGAINST THE CIT'S ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAD PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BIE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH. THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, RAJFTOT ON 28/2/2006 AND THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 1 3/3/2006 BY THE CIT. THUS. IN MY OPINION, IT IS ONLY AFTER THE HON'BLE I TAT'S ORDER THAT THE MATTER BECAME FINAL. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THA T THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 4 DECIDED THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPTS BY THE APPELLANT WH ICH IS THE VERY BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B. THE TIME-BARRING DATE HAS TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BY THE CIT AND NOT FROM THE ORDER U/S.263 PASSED BY THE CIT, AS PER S.275(L)(A). THE ORDER U/S.271B HAS BEEN PASSED ON 25/9/2006, I.E. WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM TH E END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER IS RECEIVED BY THE CIT. IT IS THEREFORE H ELD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE TIME AS PER LAW. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THUS DISMISSED. ' 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- E) THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.39,270/- ALL EGING THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO GET HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S. 44A B OF THE ACT AND THEREBY COMMITTED DEFAULT U/S. 27 IB OF THE ACT. AT THE OUT SET THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 29.03.2000 WA S NOT AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER CONCLUSION OF ANY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE PENDING BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER JUST GI VING EFFECT TO THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2000 PASSED BY THE CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. LD. CIT, RAJKOT NOWHERE FOUND THAT THE ORDER US/ 143(3)/147 DATED 2 7.11.1998 WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE SO FAR AS AP PLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271B IS CONCERNED. THUS, SO FAR AS INITIATI ON OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271B IS CONCERNED, THE MATTER REACHED ITS FINA LITY ON PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 ON 28.11.2000 IN WH ICH THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271B OF THE ACT. F) ON THE ABOVE BACK GROUND IT MAY BE SEEN THAT DUE TO APPLICATION OF INCORRECT METHOD IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S BY THE ACCOUNTANT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FORE SEE THAT ITS ACCOUNTS NEED S TO BE GET AUDITED. THUS THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT GETTING ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44 AB OF THE ACT. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION WERE NOT GOT AUDITED AS THE TURNOVER WAS BELOW THE SPECIFIED LIMITS WHEN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME WAS FILED AS ALSO IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THUS, AO'S ACTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271B OF TH E ACT IS MECHANICAL AND ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 5 WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS ON RECORD. THU S, NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON THIS GROUND. G) IN THIS CONNECTION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'D' IN THE CASE OF BRIJ LAL GOYAL VS. A CIT 88 ITD 413 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL SALES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT YEAR ON THE BASIS OF THE ENT RIES IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS, SAME WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND ON THAT BASIS ALONE LIABILITY COULD NOT BE FASTENED ON ASSESSEE BY HOLD ING HIM TO HAVE COMMITTED DEFAULT. H) BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, HON'BLE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHANTILAL J . MAHESHWARI IN APPEAL NO. CLT{A)-IV/94R/CC-2/2008-09 DATED 13.01.2009. I) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI CRIMINAL IN NA TURE AND NOT AUTOMATIC. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HIN DUSTAN STEEL CO. LTD., 83 ITR 26 HELD THAT; 'AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEE DING, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBL IGE, EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OF WAS GUILTY OF CO NDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF IT S OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFU L TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORI TY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVA NT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHOR ITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF T HAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE S TATUTE '. J) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. E.C.C PROJECT (P.) LTD. [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 17 HAD HELD THAT; ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 6 'WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO RECORD ITS S ATISFACTION IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED AUD IT REPORT WELL ON TIME AND FURTHER, THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN SAID ASSE SSMENT ORDER REGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY, NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVI ABLE.' K) IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT'S ABOVE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE AO NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND M AY KINDLY BE UASHED. 6. LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL, RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S BALAJI WAFERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1280/RJT/2010 FOR ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON ESTIMATED INCOME. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN THE LIGHT OF LEGAL POSITION AND AL SO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION REFERRED AND RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT AT RS.39,27 0/- FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT . WE OBSER VE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, GR OSS TURNOVER FOR THE YEAR WAS SHOWN AT RS.30,19,000/- AND AS THIS TURNOV ER WAS LESS THAN THE TURNOVER PRESCRIBED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT, ASSESS EE DID NOT GET ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER OBS ERVE THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.3.1996 AND TURNOVER OF ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 7 THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER. FURTHER THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT WAS AGAIN FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT A ND IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TURNOVER OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT OBJECTED AND NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271B OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED WHICH FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE SUBMISSION O F ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF I.E. ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RE QUIRED TO BE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. IT WAS ONLY THEREAFTER IN PURSUANCE TO ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY LD. CIT WHEREIN DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE ASSESSED IN COME AT RS.21,73,345/- WHICH WAS EARLIER ASSESSED BY LD. AS SESSING OFFICER AT RS.14,000/-. WHEN THE MATTER RELATING TO QUANTUM AD DITION WENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.138/RJT/2000, LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME BY ESTIMATING NE T PROFIT @ 8% ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.78,53,561/-. WE FURTH ER OBSERVE THAT THIS CHANGE OF TURNOVER FROM RS.30,19,000/- TO RS.78,53, 561/- HAPPENED DUE TO APPLICATION OF INCORRECT METHOD BY THE ACCOU NTANT. 9. IN THE GIVEN FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF FOR N OT GETTING HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AS THE TURNOVER WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND IT WAS ACCEPTED TWICE BY TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE ACT AND IT APPEARS TO BE A REASONABLE CAUSE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT GET HIS ACCOUNT AUDITED AND, THEREFORE, IN SUCH SITUATION A SSESSEE SHOULD NOT ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 8 BE VISITED WITH PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT. WE DEL ETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 10. OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 30/6/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, RAJKOT. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT ITA NO. 181/RJT/2014 ASST. YEAR 1993-94 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 29/06/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 30/06/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 30/6/2016 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: