The ACIT, Circle-3, Surat V. M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation, Surat

ITA 1955/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 195520514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1955 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06.) ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURAT VS. M/S.RAVI SALES CORPORATION, 3-4, ISHWAR KRUPA APT. NEAR GAIL TOWER, RANDER ROAD, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AADFR5029H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RASESH SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 28.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) - V, SURAT DATED 31.03.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN - A. RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. OF R S.9,44,0107- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE FROM STAFF SALARY, BONUS AN D STAFF EXPENSES -TO RS.8,46,609/-. B. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,35,992/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE MAINTENANCE, OFFICE RENT AND MOBI LE EXPENSES. C. RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,16,306/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES TO RS.58,153/-. D. DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O, OF RS.5, 89,824/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. DISCLOSED IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION AS COMPARED TO IMMEDIATE EARLIER YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 2 E. DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.4 ,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. F. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.28,558/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSET FOR WHICH NO BILLS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. REGARDING ALL THE GROUNDS, LD. D.R. OF THE REVEN UE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 3. REGARDING GROUND NO.1(A), WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD CIT(A) AS PER PAGES 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER AND TH E RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW: L HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE FINDIN GS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO IN THE; R EMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT DURING T HE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A TOTAL SALES OF RS.5,40,59,264/- WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED .WITHOUT AN OFFICE SE TUP, FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY THE LOCAL AUTHORI TY, COPY OF I.T. RETURN OF THE EARLIER YEARS, AS ALSO BILLS RAISED B Y L & T LTD., EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT DURING TIE YEAR IT HAD AN OFFICE SETUP AT THE GIVEN A ADDRESS. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE NATURE OR -D UTIES PERFORMED BY THEM, THE AMOUNT OF SALARY PAID TO THE M, THEIR CONFORMATIONS ALONG WITH IDENTIFICATION PROOF IN TH E: FORM OF EITHER DRIVING LICENSE OR ELECTION CARD, HOWEVER, THE A,0, HAS MADE NO FURTHER INQUIRY IN THE SAID MATTER AND HAS HELD THA T THE SALARY PAID TO SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IS E XCESSIVE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE EMPLOYEES FOR EXA MINATION, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHAR GED ITS ONUS BY NOT ONLY GIVING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE EMPLOYE ES BUT ALSO THEIR IDENTITY PROOF AND IN CASE OF DOUBT, THE A.O. COULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER, WHICH IS NOT DONE BY HIM AND HENC E, IN ABSENCE OF I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 3 ANY INQUIRY, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SALA RY EXPENSES IS BOGUS. MOREOVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE STAFF SALARY & BONUS AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS.9,44,010/- IS NOT 1.7% OF TH E TOTAL SALES OF R.5.40 CRORES AS AGAINST 2% OF THE TURNOVER IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HA PRODUCED THE COMPLETE DETAIL S OF SALARY EXPENSES, IT IS A FACT THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE SALARY REGISTER OR VOUCHERS SUPPORTING THE SAID EXPENSES A S BEING DESTROYED IN FLOODS AND ON THIS GROUND I UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT O 10% OUT OF STAFF SALARY & BONUS AND ST AFF WELFARE EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS.9,44,010/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.94,401/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8,49,609/- STANDS DELE TED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASP ECTS AND HE ALSO HAS CONFIRMED PART DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT O 10% OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON STAFF SALARY AND BONUS AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSE S ON THIS BASIS THAT SINCE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND REGISTERS ETC. WERE D ESTROYED IN FLOODS, HE IS UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10%. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO.1(B) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON PAGES 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE FINDIN GS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ALSO IN THE REM AND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENS ES OF RS.1,46,436/- ARE AMOUNT OF RS. 42,000/- IS TOWARDS OFFICE RENT W HICH STANDS CONTRA CONFIRMED AND FOR WHICH THE A.O, HAS NOT OFF ERED ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN THE REMAND REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, THE OFFICE RENT EXPENSES OF RS.42,000/- IS FULLY ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,436/-, I UPHOLD THE DISAL LOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.10,444/- AND TH E BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.93,992/- STANDS DELETED. HENCE, OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.L,46,436/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,35, 992/- (RS.42,000 -T- RS.93,992) STANDS DELETED AND AN AMO UNT OF I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 4 RS.10,444/- STANDS CONFIRMED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. FROM THE READING OF THIS PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.42,000/- REGARDING OFFICE RENT HAS BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THIS EXPEN DITURE STANDS CONTRA CONFIRMED AND THE A.O. HAS NOT OFFERED ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN THE REMAND REPORT. REGARDING THE BALANCE EXPENSES OF R S.1,04,436/-, HE HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AND DE LETED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS A LSO REJECTED. 7. REGARDING GROUND NO.1(C), WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PAGE 6 OF HIS ORDER AND THE R ELEVANT PARA OF HIS ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS HEL D EARLIER, I UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF R.5,81,528/- INSTEAD OF 20% AS MADE BY THE A.O. TH US, OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,.16,306/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.58,153/- STANDS DELETED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.58,153/ - STANDS CONFIRMED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS PART LY ALLOWED. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD, CIT(A), WE FIND THAT OUT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF 20%, CIT(A) HAS RE STRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AND SINCE BOTH A RE ON ESTIMATE BASIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, 10% DISALLOWANCE IS REASONABLE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.1(D) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON PAGED 7-8 OF HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE .OBS ERVATIONS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS AL SO THE REMAND I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 5 REPORT AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SE EN THAT THE G.P. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED TO RS.29.10 LACS IN THE CURRENT YEAR FROM RS.17.97 LACS IN THE EARLIER YEAR, FURTHER THE CASH PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND PARTNERS APPROPRIATION HAS ALSO MO RE THAN DOUBLED TO RS.11.19 LACS IN THE CURRENT YEAR FROM RS.5.31 L ACS IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND THUS, THE BOOK REST. IT; OF THE ASSESSEE H AVE; IMPROVED IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE FALL IN THE G,,P, PERCENTAGE BY FURNISHING IT:; DATE AS REGARDS THE FALL IN MARGIN PER CEMENT BAG T O RS.7.22 PER BAG FROM RS.8.34 PER BAG AND IN THE EVENT OF THE PU RCHASE AND SALES PRICE BEING CONTROLLED BY L &T LTD. FALL IN M ARGIN STANDS EXPLAINED. AS REGARDS THE NON PRODUCTION OF BILLS; AND VOLU HERS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THOUGH THE SAME WERE DESTRO YED IN FLOODS, IT WAS ABLE TO SAVE ITS COMPUTER FROM WHEREIN AIL T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SUCH AS CASH BOOK, BANK BOOK, PURCHASE REG ISTER, SALES REGISTER, GENERAL LEDGER, ETC,, WERE PRODUCED BEFOR E THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION AND THEREFORE,, THIS 'IS NOT A CASE WH EREIN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT ALL HAVE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. FU RTHER, NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRED ANY OPENING STOCK OR CLOSING STOCK AND THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF T HE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY CLOSING STOCK IS NOT COR RECT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SOME PORTION OF THE EXPENSES ALREADY STAN DS DISALLOWED IN THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF G.P. ON THIS COUNT SINCE, THE BOOK RESULTS HAVE ALSO IMPROV ED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,89,824/- FOR FALL IN G.P. AS MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND O F APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 10. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE GP OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSOLUTE TERMS HAD INCREASED TO RS.29.40 LACS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS AGAINST RS.17.97 LACS IN THE EARLIE R YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CASH PROFIT BEFORE DEPRE CIATION AND BEFORE PARTNERS APPROPRIATION HAS ALSO INCREASED TO RS.11 .19 LACS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS AGAINST RS.5.31 LACS IN THE EARLIER YEAR AN D, THEREFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE IMPROVED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. REGARDING THE FALL IN G P RATE, IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SHOWING THAT THE MARGIN PERBAG OF CEMENT HAS FALLEN TO RS.7 .22 PER BAG FROM I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 6 RS.8.3 PER BAG IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND SINCE THE PU RCHASE AND SALE PRICE ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY L & T LTD., THE FALL IN GP STAN DS EXPLAINED. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUN D OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 11. GROUND NO.1(E) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) O N PAGES 8 & 9 OF HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE OBSER VATIONS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO T HE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. ON 2.11. 2007 IN RESPONSE TO THE SCN DATED 18.10.2007 AND FOR THE IN TERVENING PERIOD HAD ALSO REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT SINCE, IT S AR WAS BUSY WITH FINALIZATION OF TAX AUDITS AND FILING OF I T R ETURNS, HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 2.11 .2007 AND PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.10.2007. ACCORDINGLY, DURIN G THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AN OPPORTUNITY WAS FURNISHED TO THE A. O. TO GIVE HIS COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T RULES. HENCE, IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED THE IDENTI TY OF THE DEPOSITOR, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS AL SO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,25,000/- U/S 68 AS MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY DELETED. THUS, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 12. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CI T(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSI TOR, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION ALONG WITH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 H AVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. GROUND 1(F)) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 9 OF HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE OBSER VATIONS OF THE A.O. AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO T HE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 7 SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASES OF ASSETS IN T HE FORM OF REGISTRATION BOOK FOR PURCHASE OF MOTORCYCLE, BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF MOBILE PHONE AND COMPUTER, HOWEVER, WHEN OPPORTUNIT Y WAS FURNISHED TO THE A.O. TO GIVE HIS COMMENTS ON THE E VIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2.11.2007 BUT NOT CONS IDERED BY HIM, THE A.O. HAS MERELY HELD THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T RULES WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS ON MERITS. HENCE, IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED THE BILLS FOR PURCHAS ES OF ASSETS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.28,558/- AS MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 14. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CI T(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCES FOR PURCHASE OF ASSETS IN THE FORM OF REGISTRATION BOOK FOR PURCHASE OF MOTORCYCLE AN D BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF MOBILE PHONE AND COMPUTER BUT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE MERITS OF THESE EVIDENCES AND HE S IMPLY STATED THAT THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T RULES. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS BASIS THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE O F NEW ASSETS. AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THESE BILLS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE SAME WERE CONFRONTED TO THE A.O. IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND NO ADVERSE COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THIS G ROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 16. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP I.T.A.NO.1955/AHD/2009 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 28/2 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28/2.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 28/2 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.29/2 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29/2/2012 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. .