The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Sales India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2172/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0847 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Notional interest; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 12

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2172/AHD/2013 (REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014 AY 2010-11 (ASSESSEE) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010- 11) THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD / VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCS 6857 N ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT AND CROSS OBJECTOR ) $&) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR.DR '($&*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN, AR +* / DATE OF HEARING 25/07/2016 ,-./* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/08/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDAB AD DATED 05/06/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY)2010-11 AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION THEREOF. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSUMER DOMESTIC HOUSE-HOLD APPLIANCES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 ON 28/09/2010 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.82,89,632/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') VIDE ORDER D ATED 18/02/2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,31,01,8 60/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 05/06/20 13 (IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A) XIV/DCIT, CIR.8/336/2012-13) GRANTED SUBS TANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION THEREOF. 2.2. THE REVENUE IN APPEAL BEARING NO.2172/AHD/20 13 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.25,75,940/- MADE IN RESPECT OF SHOW-ROOM EXPENSES AS REVENUE EX PENDITURE. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 2) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE NOTIO NAL ADDITION OF RS.3,96,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S.36(1) (III) OF THE ACT. 3) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.18,29,568/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES U/S.40A(2 )(B) OF THE ACT. 4) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.10,715/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTR IBUTION TO P.F. AND E.S.I.C. 5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDA BAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-A-SI DE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2.3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN I TS CROSS OBJECTION BEARING NO.38/AHD/2014:- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN TAKING THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN TREATING EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF SHOW ROOM EXPENSES AS REV ENUE EXPENDITURE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN TAKING THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE NOTIONAL ADDITION OF RS.3,96,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN TAKING THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,29,568/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVER TISEMENT EXPENSES U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN TAKING THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,715/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAY MENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P.F. AND E.S.I.C. 3. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2172 /AHD/2013. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE IN RES PECT OF SHOW-ROOM EXPENSES. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS.28,62,156/- ON AC COUNT OF RENOVATION OF DIFFERENT RENTED SHOW-ROOMS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSING THE NARRATION OF THE EXPENDITURE AS GIVEN IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, AO CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE OF CAPITAL IN NATU RE. HE ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES BUT HOWEVER, ALLOWED 10% DE PRECIATION AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED NET EXPENDITURE OF RS.25,75, 940/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TREATED IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY OBSERVING THAT THE SHO WROOM RENOVATION PERTAINS TO GHATLODIA SHOW ROOM AND OTHER SHOW ROOM S AND ACCORDING TO HIM IT WILL NOT REQUIRE REPAIRS AND RENOVATION A T ONE PARTICULAR TIME ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - AND ACCORDING TO HIM AS PER NARRATION OF THE LEDGER THESE ARE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DETAILS OF SHOWROOM RENOVATION EXPENSES IT IS SEEN THAT THE EX PENSES RELATE TO VARIOUS SHOW ROOMS OF ASSESSEE AND IN THE EARLIER Y EARS THESE EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY OTHER CONCERNS NAMELY M/S. SALES INDI A, M/S. SANTOSH TRADING CO., M/S, SALES CENTRE AND M/S. JOSE JONES WHOSE BUSINESS NOW STANDS MERGED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. ALL SHOW ROOMS IN QUESTION ARE ON RENTED PREMISES. THE MAJOR REPAIRS EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR RELATE TO SHOW ROOM AT GHATLODIA. AS PER AGREE MENT WITH THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. THE APPELLANT HAS TO ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING COST AND RISK TO OPERATE THE C- STORE IN ALL RESPECTS LIKE CARRYING OUT INTERIORS (FLOORI NG, FALSE CEILING AIR- CONDITIONING, ELECTRICAL POINTS, PLUMBING, ETC), SO URCING INVENTORY, STORAGE AND SALES FOR PURPOSES OF COMMERCE, TO INST ALL AND MAINTAIN TELEPHONE CONNECTION, TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT, DRAINAG E AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM TO RUN THE BUSINESS. FURTHER THE APPELLANT I S NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY OUT ANY STRUCTURAL OR OTHER ALTERATIONS OR ADDITION S OR CHANGES WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT. FURTHER THE APPELLANT IS MERELY PERMITTED TO USE THE PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING C-STORE DURIN G THE AGREEMENT AND IT DOES NOT GET ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER IN THE SAID PREMISES OR ANY PART OR PORTION THEREOF . KEEPING IN VIEW THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED IMPUG NED EXPENDITURE IN THE RENTED PREMISES TOWARDS FALSE CEILING, FIXING T ILES, REPLACING GLASSES, WOODEN PARTITIONS, ELECTRIC WIRING EARTHING/REPLACE MENT OF GL PIPES ETC. TO MAKE THE TENANTED PREMISES MORE SUITABLE AND CON DUCIVE TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT HAS NOT BROUGHT ABOUT ANY NEW ASSET AN D MORE IMPORTANTLY IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TO BRING ABO UT ANY NEW CAPITAL ASSET. THE EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED BY THE APPEL LANT WERE TOWARDS REPAIRING THE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEASE SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE CONDUCIVE TO ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT IS SEEN THAT THESE EXP ENDITURES ALSO INCLUDES EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF REPLACEMENT /REPAIRING OF OLD EXISTING FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND MODIFICATION MADE TO FACILITATE TH E DISPLAY OF CHANGED MODELS OF PRODUCTS OF COMPANIES WHOSE GOODS ARE SOL D BY IT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR APPELLANT ITSELF HAS CAPI TALIZED EXPENDITURE RELATING TO FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,58,138/-. ALL THE SHOW ROOMS ARE IN RENTED PREMISES EXCEPT SHOW ROOM AT DHARNIDHAR, ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - PALDI AND AHMEDABAD. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF WELL KNOWN ORGANISER LTD. WHEREIN THE ITAT RELIED UPON GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT IF THE OUTGOING OR EXPENDITURE IS SO RELATED TO THE CARRYING ON OR CON DUCT OF BUSINESS THAT IT MAY BE REGARDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PROFIT EA RNING PROCESS AND NOT FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET OR A RIGHT OF A PERMANE NT CHARACTER, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A CONDITION OF CARRYING ON O F THE BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE REGARDED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIGH LINE PENS PVT. LTD. [306 ITR 182 (DEL.)] HAS RULED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE U/S.30 (A)(I) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY CIT(A) - XIV, AHMEDABAD IN A. Y. 2008-09. CONSIDERING ALL THESE F ACTS IN TOTALITY, I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE OF 25,75,940/- ON REPAIRS AND RENOVATION OF SHOW ROOM S IS DIRECTED TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BEING IN THE NATU RE OF CURRENT REPAIRS AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR PASSED FOR AY 2008- 09. HE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT( A) FOR AY 2008-09, REVENUE HAD PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD). TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN I TA NO.972/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09) VIDE ORDER DATED 13 /06/2014 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND THUS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2008-09, NO INTERFERENC E TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO AL LOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO RENOVATION OF EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS TO MAKE TENANTED PREMISES MORE SUITABLE AND CONDUCIVE TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND BY INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE NO NEW ASSET HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ALSO INCLUDED EXPENDITURE BY W AY OF REPLACEMENT /REPAIRING OF OLD EXISTING FURNITURE AND FIXTURES A ND MODIFICATION MADE TO FACILITATE THE DISPLAY OF CHANGED MODELS OF PRODUCT S OF COMPANIES WHOSE GOODS ARE SOLD BY ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) VIDE ORDER DATED 13/06/2014 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.972/AHD/2011 FOR A Y 2008-09 ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON PERUSING THE COPIES OF THE BILLS HA S GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BY WAY OF ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - REPLACEMENT/REPAIRING OF OLD EXISTING FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND MODIFICATION MADE TO FACILITATE THE DISPLAY OF CHAN GED MODELS OF PRODUCTS OF COMPANIES WHICH ARE SOLD BY ASSESSEE. CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF WELL-KNOWN ORGANIZERS LTD. AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US LD.D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS WE FIND NO REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5.1. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR HAS PL ACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 HAS BEEN SET ASI DE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. SECOND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST. 6.1. AO ON PERUSING THE BALANCE-SHEET NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DEPOSIT OF RS.33 LACS AS FURNITURE SECURITY DEPOSIT . HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT INCLUDED RS.5 LACS GIVEN TO SH RI JOHN J. VARGEESE PROPRIETOR OF SANTOSH TRADING COMPANY AND RS.28 LAC S GIVEN TO S/SHRI JOHN J. VARGEESE AND JOSE JOHN, PARTNERS OF SALES I NDIA PVT.LTD. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF R S.4.87 CRORES ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.33.55 LACS WAS PAID. HE THERE FORE CONCLUDED THAT ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST-FREE FURNITURE DEPOSIT TO ITS DIRECTOR WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST PAID O N THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO DIRECTORS, ACCORDING TO HIM, WAS NOT ALLOWABLE A S BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT INTEREST @ 12% OF RS.33,00,000/- (BEING THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSI T AND DISALLOWED RS.3,96,000/- U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3. DECISION I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPE LLANT IS CONSIDERED AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTICED THAT TH IS DISALLOWANCE IS MADE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM INTEREST FREE FURNITU RE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT THIS IS A OLD FURNITURE DEPOSIT GIVEN TO M/S.SALES INDIA AND M/S.SANTOSH TRADING FOR USING THE EXISTING FURNITUR E OF THESE CONCERNS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF RENT AND FURTHER IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.39,26,520/- FOR FURNITURE MENTIONED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PERTAINS TO FURNITURE OF COMPANY ITSELF AND FOR THIS FURNITU RE NO SECURITY DEPOSIT HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE DEPOSIT AND DECISION OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE NOTIONAL ADDITION OF INTEREST OF RS.3,96,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.3. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CI T(A) AND FURTHER ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 10 - SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE I N FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF LD.CIT(A) PASSED FOR AY 2008-09. HE SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVE NUE HAD CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDAB AD) AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 13/06/2014 IN ITA NO.972/AHD/2011 DISMISSED THE GROUND OF REVENUE. HE POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FIND INGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ON FURNITURE DEPOSITS. WE FIND THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE DEP OSITS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND FURTHER IT WAS FOR USE OF EXISTING FURNITURE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE WAS NOT PAYING ANY RENT. WE ALS O FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 ( IN ITA NO.972/AHD/2011) WHERE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING AS UNDE R:- 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT THE FURNITURE DEPOSIT WAS OLD AMOUNT GIV EN TO SALES INDIA AND M/S.SANTOSH TRADING FOR USING THE EXISTING FURNITUR E OF THESE CONCERNS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF RENT. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THERE WA S NO JUSTIFICATION OF ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 11 - DISALLOWING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST. BEFORE US, LD.D .R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GR OUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR HAS PL ACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 HAS BEEN SET ASI DE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THIRD GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING THE ADD ITION MADE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 9.1. AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.1,21,97,119/- TO ARTS INDIA (A RELATED PARTY) COVERED U/S.40A(2)( B) OF THE ACT FOR ADVERTISEMENT. AO OBTAINED THE DETAILS FROM THE DI FFERENT ADVERTISING AGENCIES WHEREIN HE OBSERVED THAT ARTS INDIA WAS GE TTING 15% DISCOUNT ON EACH AND EVERY ADVERTISEMENT BUT ASSESSEE HAD PA ID FULL AMOUNT TO ARTS INDIA. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY ARTS INDIA AND WHICH WAS NOT PASSED ON TO ASSESSEE WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE AND ATTR ACTED THE PROVISIONS ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 12 - OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DI SALLOWED A SUM OF RS.18,29,568/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.3. DECISION : I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISS IONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. FROM PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 15% OF ADVERTISEME NT EXPENDITURE INCURRED THROUGH M/S.ARTS INDIA. IT ALSO SEEN THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS FOR WHICH ASSES SMENT WAS ALSO FRAMED AFTER SCRUTINY. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) FOR AY 1990- 91, IT IS NOTICED THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 25% OF ADVERT ISEMENT EXPENSES THROUGH M/S.ARTS INDIA WAS DELETED BY RECORDING FIN DING THAT BEFORE INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), NO COMPAR ABLE CASE WAS GIVEN, WHERE SIMILAR WORK HAS BEEN GOT DONE AT LOWE R RATES AND THEREFORE IT WAS INCORRECT TO ARBITRARILY DISALLOW 25% OF THE PAYMENT TO A ASSOCIATE CONCERN SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PAYMENT HAPP ENS TO THE ASSOCIATE CONCERN. THE ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY C IT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD IN AY 2008-09. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED B Y THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE PAYMENT A ND THE FACT THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS EXC EPT IN AY 1990-91 WHICH WAS ALSO DELETED AND APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE O F CONSISTENCY TO THE SIMILAR FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS.18,29,568/- U/S.40 A(2)(B) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 13 - 9.2. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL DISALLOWA NCE WAS MADE BY THE AO IN AY 2008-09. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESS EE AND THEREAFTER REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 13/06/2014 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2008-09, NO INTERFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS CALLED FO R. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT NO DISALL OWANCE OF EXPENDITURE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE SCRUTI NY ASSESSMENT EXCEPT FOR AY 1990-91 AND EVEN THE ADDITION MADE WAS DELET ED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE, FURTHER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR OF AY 2008-09, DELETED THE ADDITION. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING THE RELI EF HAS NOTED THAT THE SIMILAR EXPENDITURE AID FOR ADVERTISEMENT TO ARTS INDIA HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS IN SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT EXCEPT ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 14 - IN AY 90-91 WHERE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% WAS MADE BY A O BUT THE SAME WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). BEFORE US NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR AY 90-91. REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNA L MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY REVENUE AND HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. BEFORE US NO MATERIAL H AS BEEN BROUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESS EE TO ARTS INDIA WAS EXCESSIVE. BEFORE US, LD.DR HAS NOT BROU GHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 10.1. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) NOR HAS PL ACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 HAS BEEN SET ASI DE BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. FOURTH GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS WITH RESPE CT TO DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESIC. 11.1. ON PERUSING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AO NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESIC WAS PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE PR ESCRIBED FOR ITS ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 15 - PAYMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION U/S.2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT OF RS.10,715/- BEING THE DELAYED CONTRIBUTI ON. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.3. DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WERE DEPOSITED AFTER THE DUE DATE BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND THEREFORE, TH E DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT AHS ALSO RELIED ON SEVER AL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. RECENT JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 306 IS RELI ED. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS JUDGMENT BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND FIND THAT THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENT U/S.43B, BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILI NG WAS AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE BUT WAS NOT AVAI LABLE FOR ANY CONTRIBUTION TO LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS (PF ESIC). A S PER JUDGMENT, THE SAME BENEFIT IS NOW AVAILABLE W.E.F. 01/04/2004 BY THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2003. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 43B WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND, HENCE, RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1988. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ONCE AGAIN THAT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, NOT ONLY THE SECOND PROVISO IS DELETED B UT EVEN THE FIRST PROVISO IS SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED BY BRINGING ABOUT A N UNIFORMITY IN TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE ON THE ONE HAND VIS--VIS CONTRI BUTIONS TO WELFARE FUNDS OF EMPLOYEE(S) ON THE OTHER. THIS IS ONE MOR E REASON TO HOLD THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, IS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATIO N. MOREVER, THE JUDGMENT IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) I S DELIVERED BY A BENCH OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE COUR T. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE, I S CURATIVE IN NATURE AND, HENCE, IT IS RETROSPECTIVE AND WOULD OPERATE W ITH EFFECT FROM 1-4- 1988 WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO CAME TO BE INSERTED. I N VIEW OF JUDGEMENT ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 16 - OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, AS THINGS STAND TODAY, TH E CONTRIBUTION TO PF/ESIC BOTH BY EMPLOYEES OR EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIO N TOWARDS EMPLOYEES PF/ESIC ARE ALLOWABLE U/S.43B PROVIDED T HE SAME ARE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF I NCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AND THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS, T HEREFORE, ALLOWED. 11.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11.3. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE R OF AO NEEDS TO BE UPHELD IN VIEW OF THE BINDING DECISION OF HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CO RPORATION REPORTED IN (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO BE UPHELD. LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LD.CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESIC. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESIC HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AFTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 17 - GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'ANY SUM WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AS MENTIONED IN S. 36(1)(VA), ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCT ION OF SUCH SUM TOWARDS THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IF THE SAME IS D EPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES AND IN THE CONC ERNED FUND SUCH AS PROVIDENT FUND, ESI CONTRIBUTION FUND, ETC PROVIDED THE SAID SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTS IN THE. RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE 'DUE DATE' UNDER THE PROV IDENT FUND ACT, ESI ACT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CONTRACT OR SERVICE OR OTHER WISE. ..' 12.1. IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE EMPL OYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESIC HAS NOT BEING PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA ) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLD THE DE CISION OF A.O. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 13. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.38/AHD/2014 FOR A Y 2010-11. 13.1. BEFORE US, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES CR OSS OBJECTION IS JUST SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND NEEDS NO I NDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIO N OF LD.AR, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2172/AHD/2013 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.38/AHD/2014(BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 18 - 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/08/2016 SD/- SD/- () () (RAJPAL YADAV) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/ 08 /2016 3..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 89:'56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<=+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (8' //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. (DICTATION-PAD 17- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 03.08.2016/11.8.16 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.12.08.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.08.16 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