R. Umedbhai Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 221/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1246 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 133A; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.221/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. GOLD COIN HOUSE 234 CARAT MARKET, RAMNAGAR SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD / VS. THE DY.CIT (OSD) CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAECR 3830 J ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.L. THAKKAR, AR &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR * ) / DATE OF HEARING 28/08/2015 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/10/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-9, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 09/12/2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,99,35,135/- LEVIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEA RING OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,29,21,560/ - ON 31/08/2010. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 26/02/ 2013. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED AS PER RETURN DATED 31/08/2010. HOWEVER, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RES PECT OF THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.5,86,50,000/- ADMITTED BEING UN ACCOUNTED INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S.133A OF THE ACT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 01.07.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AM OUNTING TO RS.1,99,35,135/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS FURT HER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY OF RS.1,99,35,135/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTI ON OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS EX-FACIE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - UNJUSTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF SUCH RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AND DISC LOSED THE AMOUNT ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CASE-LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT A BARE-READING OF SECTION 271(1)( C) WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS UNJUSTI FIED, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT UNDER THE FACTS, NO PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) CAN B E INITIATED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT T HE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL PARTICULARS O F INCOME, THE INCOME SO DECLARED IS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, UND ER THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VOLUN TARILY DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN DETECT ED DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ON 01/07/2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUD ED THE AMOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.SR.DR, IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - MAK DATA (P.) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT [2013] 38 TA XMANN.COM 448 (SC). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGE FROM THE MATERIAL PLACE D BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 31/08/2010, I.E. BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF SUCH RETURN, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,29,21,560/-. A SU RVEY ACTION WAS CONDUCTED ON 01/07/2010 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.5,86,50,000/-. THE REVENUES C ONTENTION IS THAT, IN CASE, THE SURVEY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT MIGHT HAVE NOT INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IN TO ITS RETURN OF INCOME. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT WOULD APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW, FOR THE SA KE OF CLARITY. SECTION 271:- FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WI TH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) IF THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] OR THE [* * * * *] [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS)] OR THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (A). ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - (B). (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR [ * * * ] FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 4.1. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROCEED INGS CAN BE INITIATED WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALING THE PARTI CULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. T HE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD D ISCLOSED THE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE DULY PAI D THE TAX ON THE DISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEES DI SCLOSURE PERTAINS TO FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2009-10 AND THE SURVEY WAS COND UCTED DURING FY 2010-11, THE ASSESSEES DISCLOSURE CLEARLY PERTAINS TO AN EARLIER YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED, THIS MEANS THAT HAD THE SURVEY NOT BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,86,50,000/- WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WI THOUT PAYING A SINGLE RUPEE TAX ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THE AO FURTHER OB SERVED THAT THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN SUBSEQUENT INCL USION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND PAYMENT O F TAXES ON THE SAME WERE CLEARLY THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY. THERE FORE, THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION IN OUR VIEW, T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURM ISES. FURTHER, AS PER AO, THERE WAS AN OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME UNDER ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - THE MEANING OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS PER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, SINCE IT IS PURELY BASED UPON CO NJECTURES AND SURMISES. THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THE RETURN SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE AMOUNT WAS A V ALID RETURN AND SAME WAS DULY FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, UNLESS THE RETURN IS FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD NO T COME INTO PLAY FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) ENVISAGES TWO CONDITIONS; I.E., CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE AO HAS INITIATED T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. THE RETURN SO FILED IS NOT DECLARED AS ILLEGAL OR INVALID BY T HE AO. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS REASONING OF THE AO BY RELYING ON TH E JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.)LTD. VS. CIT[SUPRA]. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPLIED AND MISCONSTRUED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COUR T RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.)LTD. VS. CIT[SUPRA] AS THE FAC TS IN THAT CASE RECORDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT ARE AS UNDER:- 9. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THIS CASE IS NOT VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THE OFFER OF SURRENDER WAS MADE I N VIEW OF DETECTION MADE BY THE ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - AO IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTICED THAT C ERTAIN DOCUMENTS COMPRISING OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, BANK STATEMENTS, MEMORA NDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF COMPANIES, AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND BLANK SHARE TRANSFER DEEDS DULY SIGNED, HAVE BEEN I MPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON 16.12.2003, IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURVEY WAS COND UCTED MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS IN COME, IT WOULD HAVE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INCLUSIVE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SURRENDERED LATER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. C ONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE I NCOME. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY IT AND TO DECLARE ITS TR UE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE AO, IN OU R VIEW, HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.)LTD.[SUPRA] BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2004-05 ON 27/10/2004, WHEREIN ASSESSEE DECLARED A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.16,17,040/-, HOWEVER, BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ANOTHE R AMOUNT OF RS.40.74 LACS TO AVOID LITIGATION, BUY PEACE AND AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING AND INCLUDING THE AMOUNT ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED, ADMITTEDLY, PRIOR TO INIT IATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONDU CTED MORE THAN 10 ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DIS CLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, IT WOULD HAVE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INC LUSIVE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SURRENDERED LATER DURING THE COURSE OF TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE AMOUNT INTO THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF CONCEALING TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN ITA NO.1960/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07 I N THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD, VIDE ITS ORD ER DATED 27/02/2015 HAS CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE LD.CIT(A) BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER:- 6. . THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DR. S ATISH B GUPTA (42 SOT 48)(AHD). LD. CIT-DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AMOU NTING TO RS.41,73,000/- WAS DECLARED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE S URVEY ACTION BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ID. CIT -DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THIS INCOME IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, ALTHOUGH IT WAS BELATED RETURN. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1(L)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE ASSES SEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING THE INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE REFLECTED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILE D WERE INVALID. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BA SIS OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PARTICULARS FURNISHED THE REIN. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 4.3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPLIED AND MISCONSTRUED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.)LTD. VS. CIT[SUPRA] AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENT IRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.)LTD. VS. CIT[SUPR A], THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY. UNDER THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE GUILTY OF CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME. THUS, GROUND RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/ 10 /2015 2.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.221/AHD/ 2015 R.UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. DY.CIT(OSD) ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 10 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD 5. 7 8 &45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:; <* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 07.10.2015 (DICTATION-PAD 1 6+PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 07.10.2015 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.09.10.2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 09.10.2015 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