The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Ferromatik Milacron (I) Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2222/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1911 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KUREIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS URVASHI SHODHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD VS. FERROMATIK MILLACRON INDIA LTD. 53, MADHUVAN, NR. MADALPUR UNDERBRIDGE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AABCC 0881D APPELLANT BY MR. JAMES KUREIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY MRS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR DATE OF HEARING: 8/2/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/04/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD, DATED 18.07.20 12 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-VIII/DCIT/CIR.4/20/11-12. PENALTY ORDER F OR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 30/3/2011. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING PENALTY OF RS.41,51,041/- U/S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CORROBORATE ITS CLAIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEED INGS ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 2 WHICH GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT BONA FIDE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURING AND DEALING WITH PLASTIC PROCESSING M ACHINERY. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28.10.2005 SHOWING TOTAL INC OME AT RS.NIL AFTER CLAIMING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND TAX WAS P AID ON THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143(3) WAS ISSUED ON 26.7 .2006. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE WAS COMPLETED ON 16.12 .2008 AND AFTER ADJUSTING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TAXABLE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,25,26,430/- AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. HOWEVER, AFTER THE ADDITION, TAX ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME WAS LESSER THAN THE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED:- I) PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY RESTRICTED TO RS.43,32,3 00/- II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES RS.70,1 1,674/- III) DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENSES OF RS.5,07,6 00/- ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 3 SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR IM POSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FRA MED THE ORDER ON 30 TH MARCH, 2011 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY IMPOSING PE NALTY OF RS.41,51,041/- ON THE FOLLOWING TWO ADDITIONS CONFI RMED BY LD. CIT(A)- I) PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY RESTRICTED TO RS.43,32,3 00/- II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES RS.70,1 1,674/- 4. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AGAINS T THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT PASSED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.4. THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF T HE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN SEEN CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALT Y OF RS. 41,51,041/-.THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITION OF(1) PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY RS.49,53,778/- (2) AL LEGED SUPPRESSION OF SALES RS. 70,11,674/--. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT FOR A.Y. 2 003-04 AND FOR A.Y. 2004-05, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEVIED PENALTY ON IDENTICAL C ASE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HA S DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR DISALLOWANCE FOR WARRANTY FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AS WELL AS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BY ORDER DATED 06/12/2010 AND DATED 27/02/2009 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT FOR A.Y, 2004-05, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD L EVIED PENALTY ON IDENTICAL CASE FOR ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF SALES. THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BY ORDER DATED 27/02/2009. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LIMITE D 327 ITR 543, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT- 'THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 115 JB AND NOT UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE HAVE TO SEE AND EXAMINE THE APPLICATION OF EXPLANATION 4.25 . JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GOLD COINS (SUPRA), OBVIOUSLY, DOES NOT DEA L WITH SUCH A SITUATION. WHAT IS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THA T CASE IS THAT EVEN IF IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LOSS ES ARE SHOWN, PENALTY CAN STILL BE IMPOSED IN A CASE WHERE ON SET TING OFF THE CONCEALED INCOME AGAINST ANY LOSS INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE UNDER ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 4 OTHER HEAD OF INCOME OR BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIE R YEARS, THE TOTAL INCOME IS REDUCED TO A FIGURE LOWER THAN THE CONCEA LED INCOME OR EVEN A MINUS FIGURE. THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT T HE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED' WILL MEAN THE TAX CHARGEABLE NOT AS IF IT W ERE THE TOTAL INCOME. ONCE, WE APPLY THIS RATIONALE TO EXPLANATION 4 GIVE N BY THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. REASON IS SIMPLE. NO DOUBT, THERE WAS CONCEALMENT BUT THAT HAD ITS REPERCUSSIONS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE UNDER THE NORMAL PROCEDURE. THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE NOR MAL PROCEDURE WAS, HOWEVER, NOT ACTED UPON. ON THE CONTRARY, IT I S THE DEEMED INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT WHI CH HAS BECOME THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AS IT WAS HIGHER OF THE TWO . TAX IS THUS PAID ON THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. HENCE, WHEN THE COMPUTATION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT , THE AFORESAID CONCEALMENT HAD NO ROLE TO PLAY AND WAS TOTALLY IRR ELEVANT. THEREFORE, THE CONCEALMENT DID NOT LEAD TO TAX EVASION AT ALL' . ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, P ETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO(S). 18564/2011 IS DISMIS SED ON 04/05/2012. / 2.5. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE INCOME CO MPUTED AS PER THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS LESS THAN THE INCOME DETERMINE D BY LEGAL FICTION NAMELY 'BOOK PROFITS' UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE A CT, ON THE BASIS OF NORMAL PROVISION, INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITIONS THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT A PROFIT OF RS. 1,25,26,433/-. ON THE OTHER HAND, UND ER SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT RESULTED IN CALCULATION OF PROFITS AT RS.10,26,55,4 19/-- ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS PAID TAX AS THE INCOME UNDER THE BOOK PROFIT WA S MUCH HIGHER THAN THE INCOME CALCULATED AS PER NORMAL PROCEDURE. AS RATIF IED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS THAT 'ONCE, WE APPLY THIS RA TIONALE TO EXPLANATION 4 GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE PRESENT CASE; IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. REASON IS SIMPLE. NO DOUBT , THERE WAS CONCEALMENT BUT THAT HAD ITS REPERCUSSIONS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESS MENT WAS DONE UNDER THE NORMAL PROCEDURE. THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS, HOWEVER, NOT ACTED UPON. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE DEEMED INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BECOME TH E BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AS IT WAS HIGHER OF THE TWO. TAX IS THUS PAID ON TH E INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, HENCE, WHEN THE COMPUTATI ON WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, THE AFORESAID CONCEALMENT HAD NO ROLE TO PLAY AND WAS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. THEREFORE, THE CONCEALMENT DID NOT LEAD TO TAX EVASION AT ALL'. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLANT CASE IS IDENTICAL AS THE INCOME COMPUTED AS PER THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS LESS THAN THE INCOME DETERMINED BY LEGAL FICTION NAMELY 'BOOK PROFITS' U NDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSORS IN EARLIER YEARS, AND ALSO ON THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT CASE IS ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 5 SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS, THE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE THE AO IS DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 41,51,041/--. THE GROUND OF THE APPEL LANT IS ALLOWED, 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRED AND RELIED O N THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE NO.25/2015 [F.NO.279/MISC. /140/2015/ITJ] DATED 31.12.2015 WHICH WAS ISSUED BY CBDT SUBSEQUEN T TO THE DECISION OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LIMITED (SUPRA). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE D ELETION OF PENALTY BY LD. CIT(A) AT RS.41,51,041/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR DISALLOWANCE OF WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF RS.43,32,300 /- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES OF RS.70,11,674/-. 9. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.NIL ASSESSEE PAID TAXES ON T HE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE MAIN REASON FOR ASSESSEES RE TURNED INCOME BEING NIL WAS DUE TO SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUS INESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THEREAFTER ON COMPLETION O F PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS ASSESS ED AT RS.1,25,26,430/-, HOWEVER, TAX PAYABLE ON THE ASSES SED INCOME WAS ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 6 LESSER THAN TAX PAID BY ASSESSEE ON MAT UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITIO NAL TAX WAS PAYABLE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. 10. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF APPEAL ABOUT PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,43 ,974/- (RS.43,32,300/- + RS.70,11,674/-), WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. 327 ITR 543. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DISMISSED BY HON. SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4 TH MAY, 2012 IN SLP TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.18564 OF 2009 CONFIRMING THE DELHI HIGH COURTS RULING HE LD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR BEARING NO.25/2015 (S UPRA) DATED 31- 12-2015, WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DE CISION OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- CIRCULAR NO.25/2015 [F.NO.279/MISC./140/2015/ITJ], DATED 31-12-2015 SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR LEVY OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX ON COMPANIES, INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2000 WITH EFFEC T FROM 1-4-2001. 2. UNDER CLAUSE (III') OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTIO N 271 OF THE ACT, PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME IS DETERMINED BASED ON THE 'AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED' WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED INTER-ALIA, AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY TH E AMOUNT OF CONCEALED INCOME OR INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH INACCURATE PARTICULARS H AD BEEN FILED. ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 7 3. IN THIS CONTEXT, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 26-8-2010 IN ITA NO. 1420 OF 2009 [2010] 194 TAXMAN 387 (DELHI) IN THE C ASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. (AVAILABLE IN NJRS AS 2010-LL-0826-2), HELD THAT WH EN THE TAX PAYABLE ON INCOME COMPUTED UNDER NORMAL PROCEDURE IS LESS THAN THE TA X PAYABLE UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, THEN PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONS /D ISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS. THE JUDGMENT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 4 TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2015, WHI CH PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED F OR SITUATIONS EVEN WHERE THE INCOME DETERMINED UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS IS LESS THA N THE INCOME DECLARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE SUBSTITUTED EXPLAN ATION 4 IS APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 1-4-2016. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT JUD GMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF EXPLANATION 4 OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT WITH PROSPE CTIVE EFFECT, IT IS NOW A SETTLED POSITION THAT PRIOR TO 1-4-2016, WHERE THE INCOME T AX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS LESS THAN THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, THEN PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, IS NOT ATTRACTED WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCE S MADE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IN CASES PRIOR TO 1-4-2016, IF ANY ADJUSTMENT IS MADE IN THE INCOME COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAT, THEN THE LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, WILL DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF ADJUSTMENT. 6. THE ABOVE SETTLED POSITION IS TO BE FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF SECTION 115JC OF THE ACT ALSO. 7. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO AP PEALS MAY HENCEFORTH BE FILED ON THIS GROUND AND APPEALS ALREADY FILED, IF ANY, ON THIS I SSUE BEFORE VARIOUS COURTS/TRIBUNALS MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED UPON. THIS MAY BE BROU GHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL CONCERNED. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WE FIND THAT FAC TS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.25/2015 [F.NO.279/MISC./140/2015/ITJ] WHICH CLEA RLY SAYS THAT WHERE THE INCOME TAX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS LESS THAN THE T AX PAYABLE ON THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, THEN PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS NOT ATTRACTED WITH REFEREN CE TO ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND SAM E IS THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAV E BEEN VISITED ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 8 WITH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFOR E, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPH OLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OR REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/04/2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 01/04/2016 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, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 2222/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR2005-06 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 8/02/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 15/02/2016 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: 1/4/16 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: