M/s. Bil Metal Industries Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2075/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7908 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, *,* *,**,* *,* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2075/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. OPP. BHAILY RAILWAY STATION, BHAILY, BARODA 391 410 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BARODA. ! PAN/GIR NO. : AAACB 8085 H ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' RESPONDENT ) '$ APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. K. SHAH, AR #'% $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYANT JHAVERI, SR. D.R & ' (%) * / DATE OF HEARING 27/11/2017 +,-. %) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/12/2017 / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR CONFIRMING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, BARODA, VIDE APPEAL NO. CAB- I/023/2013-14 DATED 24/04/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005- 06, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.0 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMI NG THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR RS.1,40,000/- IS BAD IN L AW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS NEIT HER CONCEALED ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - INCOME NOR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS THE REOF AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IT IS S UBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.0 THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS BAD-IN-LAW ALSO FOR THE REASON THA T ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY LEARNED A.O. IS NOT SPECIFIC ABOU T THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) IS LEVIED. 3.0 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT APPELLAN T HAD GIVEN NOT ONLY BONA FIDE EXPLANATION, BUT HAD ALSO SUBSTANTIA TED THE SAME AND THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE AND HENCE TH ERE IS NO CASE OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4.0 WITHOUT PREJUDICED TO ABOVE, YOUR APPELLANT SUB MITS THAT THERE IS NO TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION- 4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND HENCE ALSO SUCH PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED AS THERE COULD NOT BE ANY LEVY OF PENALTY IN SUCH CASE S. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CA SE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/09/2008 DECLARING T OTAL LOSS AT RS.2,66,53,157/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 17/12/2007 AT ASSESSED LOSS OF RS 96,21, 985/- WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PENAL PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED ON THE FOLLOWINGS ADDITIONS: I. INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES RS.378754/- II. DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE RS.354740/- III. INTEREST ON EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX RS.45 3533/- IV. ESCALATION CLAIM RS 6256292/- 2.1 THE INITIAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17/12/2007. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER NO. CAB-I/347/07-08 DATED 18/08/2011 HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESP ECT OF INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES AND HAD DELETED THE REMAINING TH REE ADDITIONS AS ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - MENTIONED ABOVE. . THEREAFTER, FURTHER NOTICE U/S.2 71(L)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15/10/2012. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESS EE HAS FURNISHED A REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 06/11/2012. 2.2 THE CASE IS DISCUSSED AS UNDER: DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN LOANS/ADVANCES OF RS.31 LACS TO M/S BIL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD IN WHICH THE DIRECTORS ARE COMMON. FROM SCHEDULE 'R' T O PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED HUGE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.76,576 LACS ON TERM LOAN AND RS.1 60,70 LACS FOR WORKING THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED FUNDS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ITS DAY TO DAY RUNNING OF BUSINESS AND ALSO FOR LONG TERM E XPENDITURE. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE ITSELF TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS OWN FUND OF RS 6 CRORE WAS NOT UTILIZED AND WAS BLOCKED AS ADVANCE T O M/S. B. METAL WORKS, IN ANY CASE HAD NO ADVANCES GIVEN OR HAD THE ADVANCES THAT WERE BLOCKED RECOVERED OR HAD THE ASSESSEE CHARGED SOME INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE BURDEN OF INTERES T WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BORNE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE BORNE. THE AO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H. R. SUGAR FACTORY LTD (187 I TR 363) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWING OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III) STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EASILY AVOIDED ITS LIABILITY BY NOT GIVING INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO ITS GROUP CONCERNS. HAD THIS MONEY NOT BEEN ADVANCED TO THE D IRECTORS, IT WOULD ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINES S PURPOSES AND TO THAT EXTENT IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO BORROW FRO M THE BANKS. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CLEARL Y CONFIRMS THAT THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FREE TO USE THEIR INTERES T FREE FUNDS AS PER THEIR OWN WHIMS AND WHIFFS FOR NON INCOME EARNING PURPOSE S ON ONE HAND AND BORROW AND INCUR INTEREST EXPENSES ON THE OTHER HAN D AND LOAD THE BUSINESS WITH AVOIDABLE LOAD OF INCURRING OF INTERE ST EXPENDITURE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE LOANS AND PAI D THE INTEREST WHICH ACTUALLY SERVES THE PURPOSE OF NON BUSINESS PURPOSE . THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEK IND LT D 186 ITR 01 (P& H) WAS ALSO NOTED WHICH HAS HELD THAT THE ONUS WAS ENTIRELY ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT ALL THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.378754/- @ 12% IS CONSIDERED TO BE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENTS, AN A MOUNT OF RS.378754/- WAS DISALLOWED. 2.3 THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ASSESSEE ALLOTTED EQUITY S HARES TO THE ERSTWHILE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. BIL METAL WORKS IN THE RATIO OF THEIR CAPITAL AS PER CLAUSE 6 OF THE MERGER AGREEMENT. TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS.10 LAKH BY WAY OF SHARES WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO N INE PARTNERS INCLUDING BIL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD TO WHICH 5000 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED. THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DEBIT BALANCE OF BILL METAL WORKS AND THE LIABILITY OF RS.31.91 LAKH WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECEIVING ANY CONSIDERATION. NOT RECOVERING THE DEB IT BALANCE OF BILL ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - METAL WORKS PVT. LTD AND FURTHER ALLOTTING OF SNARE S TO THIS COMPANY SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH OR COMMERCIALLY EXPEDIENCE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.378764/- BEING INTERE ST COMPUTED ON FUNDS DIVERTED TO BILL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD, A RELA TED PARTY WHILE ASSESSEE CONTINUED PAYING HUGE INTEREST WAS JUSTIFI ED FOR CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE, ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN ABSENCE OF NECESSARY DETAILS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO ASCERT AIN WHETHER EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND MERELY BECA USE THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENSES I NCURRED WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS. 2.4 IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS AS FOLLOWS: ' RS.378764/- BEING NOTIONAL INTEREST AT 12% ON ADV ANTAGE GIVEN TO BILL METAL WORKS PVT LTD IS ADDED THE TOTAL INCOME. KINDLY NOTE THAT THE RECEIVABLE AMOUNT OF RS. 31.91 LACS IS RECEIVABLE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001 IS ON ACCOUNT OF T HE SHARE OF LOSS INCURRED AS A PARTNER IN BILMETAL WORKS PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH WAS MERGED WITH BILMETAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED IN THE YEAR 2000-01 AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 47 X (III) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT 1961 AND ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER AS PER AUDIT REPORT, PARA: 3(A).T HE COMPANY HAD SHOWN THE RS.31.91 LACS RECEIVABLE FROM M/S BILMETA L WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED. KINDLY NOTE THAT AS PER THE AUDITED BALANC E SHEET AS ON 31/03/2005, THE COMPANY IS HAVING ITS OWN SHARE CAP ITAL FUND OF RS.600 LACS LESS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DEBIT BALANCE OF RS 66.30 LACS, THUS NET OWNED FUND WAS OF RS.533,70 LACS. THE COMPANY HAD N OT GIVEN ANY AMOUNT TO BIL METAL WORKS PVT LTD THE AMOUNT WAS RE COVERABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE OF LOSS INCURRED AS A PARTNER. THI S IS THE NOTIONAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - THESE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE AS ADVANCES, T HE DEPARTMENT HAS NEVER CONSIDERED THESE ADVANCES FOR NOT BUSINESS PU RPOSE AND NEVER CHARGED AS NOTIONAL INTEREST OF THE COMPANY. WE MAY ALSO MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF S. A BUILDERS VS. CIT (2006) 158 T AX MAN 74, HELD THAT EVEN INTEREST BEARING FUNDS OF AN ASSESSEE CAN BE D IVERTED TO SISTER CONCERN AND NO OBJECTION TO THIS IN INCOME TAX ASSE SSMENT TAKEN PLEA OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY.' 2.5 THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED, HOWEVE R IT IS NOT TENABLE. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. A BUILDERS IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS MENTIONED BY THE LD.CIT( A) IN HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION OF HAVING OWN FUNDS OF RS.600 LAKH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAME AND ADVANCE TO B ILL METAL WORKS HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. IT HAS BEEN CLEARED THE ASSES SEE HAS TAKEN THE LOANS AND PAID INTEREST WHICH ACTUALLY SERVES THE SERVES THE PURPOSE OF OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE WRONG CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE CAME TO NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE O F SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO J USTIFY IT CLAIM NOT ONLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO . NO NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE IN IT SUBMISSION. THE SAME CONTENTION HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AS WELL. THE ISSUE AS MENTIONED ABOVE, HAS GONE THR OUGH THE TEST OF THE APPEAL. HAD THE CASE NOT BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY VERIFICATION AND ANALYSIS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE AO THE FACTS CONCER NING THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE HAD REMAINED UNDETECTED AND REVENUE WOULD HAVE HAD LOSS TO THAT EXTENT, AND THE JUDGMENT QUOT ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THUS IN THIS CASE THE ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - ASSESSEE NOT ONLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BUT ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME DEL IBERATELY. 2.6 AFTER ASSIMILATION OF ALL THE FACTS EMERGING FR OM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS VIS-A-VIS THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ONUS CAST UPON BY THE EXPL ANATION 1 BELOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS U/S.271(L)(C) HAVE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE EXPLANATION RENDER ED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENCE AGAINST CHARGE OF FURNISHIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND THUS CONCEALMENT FALL CONSIDERABL Y SHORT OF THE ATTRIBUTES MANDATED IN THIS REGARD BY THE SAID EXPL ANATION. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.378754/- WHICH WAS DISAL LOWED OUT OF THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF S ECTION 271(L)(C) REPRESENTS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IT HAS THU S CONCEALED THE INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271( L)(C) OF THE ACT. 2.7 THE PENALTY LEVIABLE IN THE CASE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: CONCEALED INCOME/INACCURATE PARTICULARS RS.378754/- ON WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIABLE TAX ON THE CONCEALED INCOME RS.138 595/- PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 100% ON THE CONCEALED INCOME RS.138595/- PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 300% ON THE CONCEALED INCOME RS.415785/- 2.8 CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE DY. CIT LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,40,000/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT SAME WAS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 17/12/2007 THE LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.31.91 LACS SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE F ROM M/S BIL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD. WERE INTEREST FREE. CLAIM OF THE IN TEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,78,754/- @ 12% ON ADVANCES OF RS.3 1.91 LACS, CONSIDERED TO BE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURP OSE OF THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, RS.3,78,764/- WAS DISALLOWED OUT OF TH E CLAIM OF INTEREST\EXPENSE AND CONSIDERED AS A CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS WELL AS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER U/S.271(L)(C) WAS PASSED ON 21/0 3/2013 LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.1,40,000/-. THEREAFTER, SAME WAS CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FURNISHING OF INACCURATE INFORMATION RELATE S TO FURNISHING OF FACTUALLY INCORRECT DETAILS AND INFORMATION ABOUT I NCOME. THE ADMISSION OR A REJECTION OF A CLAIM IS A SUBJECTIVE MATTER AN D WHETHER A CLAIM IS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHAT IS A CORRECT CLAIM AND WHAT IS INCORRECT CLAIM IS A MATTER OF OPINION. RAISING A LEGAL CLAIM, EVEN IF IT ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE LEGALLY UNACCEPTABLE, CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. A BONAFIDE CLAIM BY THE ASSE SSEE BEING VISITED WITH PENAL CONSEQUENCES ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, IS AN ABSURDIT Y. IN ANY EVENT THE CONNATION OF EXPRESSION INACCURATE PARTICULARS DO N OT EXTENT TO THE ISSUES ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - OF INTERPRETATION OF LAWS AND AS SUCH MAKING A CLAI M, WHICH IS FOUND UNACCEPTABLE IN LAW, CANNOT BE TREATED AS FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, NO INFORMATION /FIGURES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MA INTAINED AND AUDITED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY NOTIONAL INTEREST WAS CALCULATED AND WAS DISALLOWED FROM ACTUAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID TO BANK. DISALLOWANCE WAS MERELY ON ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF O PINION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS CLEAR THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). 5. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN THIS MATTER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/12/2017 SD/- SD/- IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/12/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.2075/AHD /2014 M/S. BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 012) & 3) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 3) 45 / THE CIT(A)-I, BARODA. 5. 67 8)'12 *12. 0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9: ( GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, # 6)) //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18/12/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/12/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER