Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0272 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-02-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
10-01-2013
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
20-07-2009
Judgement Text
ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO.2240/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YE AR: 2006-07) SHRI CHINTAN HARSHADRAY KALATHIA, PLOT NO.2572, DIAMOND CHOWK BHAVNAGAR. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR JAYSONATH CHOWK, NAKU BAG, BHAVNAGAR. (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NO.910/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07) ASSISTANT COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR JAYSONATH CHOWK, NAKU BAG, BHAVNAGAR. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI CHINTAN HARSHADRAY KALATHIA, PLOT NO.2572, DIAMOND CHOWK BHAVNAGAR. (RESPONDENT) C.O. N O.126/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.910/AHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07) SHRI CHINTAN HARSHADRAY KALATHIA, PLOT NO.2572, DIAMOND CHOWK BHAVNAGAR. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR JAYSONATH CHOWK, NAKU BAG, BHAVNAGAR. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADSPK 1407G ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE: MR. SANJAY R. SHAH. ON BEHALF OF REVENUE :MR. RAHULKUMAR SR.D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10-01-20 13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-02-2013 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. OUT OF THESE APPEALS ONE IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT (A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 5-5-2009 & DATED 31-12-2009 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DOING TRADING IN MARIN E MACHINERY PARTS UNDER THE NAME OF PRELUDE ENGG. AND ALSO ENGAGED IN EQUITY FUTURE & OPTIONS (F & O) AND COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS IN PERSO NAL CAPACITY. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16-11-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,98,210/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 23-12-2008 AND THE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 3 INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.29,34,590/-.AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A ) VIDE ORDER DATED 5-5- 2009 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL (ITA NO. 2240/AHD/2009). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS BAD IN L AW AND IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2 (I) THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE A.OS ACTION OF TREATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.6,89,223/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2(II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (A) E RRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT TREATING THE SURPLUS OF RS.5,86, 847/- FROM IPO INVESTMENT AND SECONDARY MARKET INVESTMENT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3(I) THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,17,285/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3(II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (A) E RRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION OF RS.72,032/- ON ASSETS OTHER THAN PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH ARE ALSO USED FOR ONE OF THE LINES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4(I) THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,47,509/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BY INVOKING RULE 8D OF THE A CT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PARTICULARS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 4 4(II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IF AT ALL IT IS H ELD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PR OVISION OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM A.Y. 2008-09 ONLY DO NOT A PPLY TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4(III) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (A ) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CALCULATION OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.69,372/- U/S.14A MADE BY THE APPELLANT ACCORDING TO RULE 8D. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. DID NOT PRESS FIRST GROU ND AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT ADJUDICATED AND IS DISMISSED. SECOND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO TREATING GAINS FRO M SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME: 5. ON PERUSING THE RETURN OF INCOME, A.O. NOTICED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM GAIN ON SHARES AND SECURITIES OF R S. 6,89,223/-. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN NUMEROUS COMPANIE S THROUGH A FEW BROKERS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE HOLDING PERIOD O F SHARES WAS VERY LESS, ALL THE SCRIPS PURCHASED WERE SOLD AND THERE WAS NO STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IN THE NOTES FORMING PART OF ACCOUNTS IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED ON BUSINESS OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE APPLICATION IN VARIOUS IPOS THROUGH VARIOU S INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND THE SHARES ALLOTTED WERE IMMEDIATELY SOLD ON ALLOTM ENT. A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DONE TRADING IN COMMODITIES AND F &O TRANSACTIONS. ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCH ASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THE INTENTION OF INVESTMENTS AN D THEREFORE THE PROFITS ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 5 EARNED BY HIM WERE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAINS W AS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. HE TREATED THE ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE O F SHARES AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHAR ES AMOUNTING TO RS.6,89,223/- WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE CIT (A). CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS O F THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WITH JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELI ED UPON BY HIM AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. IT IS SEEN THAT ON ONE HAND, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING MUCH EXPOSURE ABOUT SHARE MARKET STILL ALL OF A SUDDEN; HE STARTED AND INVESTED IN SHARES IN LARGE MAGNITUDE WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS HIS INTENTION TOWARDS TRADING IN SHARES. FROM THE DETAI LS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NUM BER OF INTRA-DAY TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE. IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE A.O. HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEALT WITH MORE THAN 120 SCRIPS THROUGH DIFFERENT THREE BROKERS. IT CLAR IFIES THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUDDEN PURCHASE OF SHARES IN THE MONTHS OF MARCH, 2005 IN LARGE MAGNITUDE AND NUMBER WAS WITH HIS FIR M INTENTION AND MOTIVE TO TRADE IN SHARES. IN THE GIVEN SET OF FACT S IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BEING DISTIN GUISHED ARE NOT HELPFUL TO THE APPELLANT. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,89,223/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 6 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANS ACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE IN SHARES WERE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A N INTENTION OF HOLDING THEM AS INVESTMENTS AND FURTHER NO BORROWED MONEY W AS USED FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS INVESTMENTS AND NOT AS STOCK IN TR ADE. THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND OF RS.8650/- ALSO PROVES THE INTENTION THA T THE SHARES WERE HELD AS INVESTMENTS. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO I NVEST IN SHARES AND HOLD IT AS INVESTMENT AND NOT TO TRADE IN IT. IT WA S DUE TO THE MARKET CONDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AND SOLD THE SHARES. HE THUS URGED THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER URGED THAT THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES ALLOTTED IN IPOS BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. POINTED TO THE CA TEGORICAL FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES PROVES THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARE S. THE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH RUN INTO 8 PAGES ARE LISTED AS A NNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH 3 BROKERS, ASSESSEE HAS D EALT IN NUMEROUS SCRIPS, HOLDING PERIOD OF SHARES IS VERY LESS, THE SCRIPS THAT WERE PURCHASED HAVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO DONE TRADING ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 7 IN COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS, DERIVATES AND FUTURES AN D OPTIONS. A.O. HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED MONEY TO R ELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO IN TURN APPLIED FOR SHARES IN IPOS IN THEIR NAM ES. ON ALLOTMENT OF SHARES, THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE SOL D IMMEDIATELY BY THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE THE SHARES WERE NOT ALLOTTED IN I PO THE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES REFUNDED THE MONEY BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. A.R. BY BRINGING ANY CON TRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, MAKING APPLICATION IN IPOS DIRECTLY AS WELL AS THROUGH RELATIVES AND ON ALLOTMENT SELLING THEM, TH E VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION DO NOT APPEAR TO BE AN INVESTMENT AC TIVITY BUT ON THE CONTRARY APPEARS TO BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF A.O. IN TREATING THE ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY CANNOT BE FAULTED AND THEREFORE T HE PROFIT AND SALE OF SHARES WERE RIGHTLY TREATED BY HIM AS BUSINESS INCO ME. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIRD GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DEPRECIATION . 10. A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION OF RS.1,46,864/- ON ASSETS OF PRELUDE ENGINEERING. H E FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BU SINESS ACTIVITY IN OXYGEN MANUFACTURING PLANT AND THE 250KVA HT CONNEC TION FOR RUNNING OXYGEN PLANT WAS DISCONNECTED AND DEPOSIT TAKEN BAC K. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MANUFACTURING OXYGEN SINCE A. Y. 2000-01 AND IN THE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 8 CURRENT YEAR THOUGH THERE WAS NO PRODUCTION OF OXYG EN BUT STILL THE MACHINERIES WERE KEPT READY FOR PRODUCTION. A.O. DI D NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THA T NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN INTENDING TO CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY WOULD SURRENDER THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WHICH WAS ESSENTIAL TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. HE THUS DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.1,46,864/-. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS O F THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WITH CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY HIM AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE BUS INESS OF TRADING IN GAS WAS NOT CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT AS IT HAS B EEN DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAS. SO FAR AS DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATIO N ON P&M IS CONCERNED, THE PRESENT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 32 USING THE PAST TENSE, USED AS REQUIRING PHYSICAL USE, HAS TO BE CONSIDE RED. SINCE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS OF OXYGEN GAS WAS NOT CARRIED ON AND MACHINERY WAS NOT USED, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIME D ON SUCH MACHINERY DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN VIE W OF AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWAN CE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,17,285/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF OXYGEN GAS SINCE A.Y. 2000-01.DUE TO NON AVAILABILI TY OF BUSINESS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL NO ACTIVITY OF OXYGEN BUSINESS WA S CARRIED OUT BUT HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS KEPT THE MACHINERY READY F OR USE. HE FURTHER ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 9 SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF PERMANENT CLOSUR E OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT A CASE OF TEMPORARY STOPPAGE DUE TO MARKET CONDITIO NS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WAS SURRE NDERED IN JANUARY, 2006 AND THEREFORE UPTO DECEMBER, 2005 THE ELECTRICITY C ONNECTION CONTINUED AND THE MACHINERY WERE KEPT READY FOR USE. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF ELECTRICITY THE ASSESSEE HAD USED DG SET AS AN ALTERNATE SOURCE OF POWER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON PARTIAL BLOCK. HE THUS URGED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. BE DELETED. HE ALSO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. (2021) 341 ITR 467 (DEL.) AND ALSO PLACED THE COPY OF THE DECI SION ON RECORD. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O. AND CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S IN THE BUSINESS OF OXYGEN GAS SINCE A.Y. 2000-01, THERE WAS NO BUSINES S ACTIVITY OF OXYGEN GAS DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL. THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WAS SURRENDERED IN JANUARY,2 006 AND TILL DEC.,2005 THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS CONDITIO NS HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN EARLIER YEAR THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE M ACHINERY WAS KEPT READY TO USE. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 10 14. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. ( SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- HEAD NOTE: AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT,1961, BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT & MISCELLANEOUS PRO VISIONS) ACT,1986, SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT ALLOWS DEPRECIAT ION ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF A BLOCK OF ASSETS. SECTION 2(11) OF T HE ACT DEFINES THE TERM BLOCK OF ASSETS. ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENT, T HE DEFINITION OF WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 43(6) WAS ALSO AMENDED. THUS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ALL THE ASSETS FALLING WITHIN THAT BL OCK OF ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. FROM THIS, ADJUSTME NT HAS TO BE MADE FOR THE INCREASE OR REDUCTION IN THE BLOCK OF ASSET S DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DEDUCTION FROM THE BLOCK O F ASSETS HAS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET, SOLD DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DESTROYED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, THE DEPR ECIATION IS ALLOWED ON THE BLOCK OF ASSETS, AND THE REVENUE CANNOT SEGR EGATE A PARTICULAR ASSET THEREFROM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WA S NOT PUT TO USE. INDIVIDUAL ASSETS HAVE LOST THEIR IDENTITY AND THE CONCEPT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS HAS BEEN INTRODUCED FOR CALCULATING DEPRECI ATION. ASSESSEES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PARTICULARS OF EACH AS SET SEPARATELY. THE REVENUE CANNOT CLAIM THAT FOR ALLOWING THE DEPRECIA TION, USER OF EACH AND EVERY ASSET IS ESSENTIAL EVEN WHEN A PARTICULAR ASSET FORMS PART OF A BLOCK OF ASSETS. MOREOVER, THE REVENUE IS NO T PUT TO ANY LOSS BY ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON A PARTICULAR ASSET, FOR MING PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS EVEN WHEN THAT PARTICULAR ASSET I S NOT USED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AS WHENEVER SUCH AN ASSET IS SOLD, IT WOULD RESULT IN SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH WOU LD BE EXIGIBLE TO TAX. 15. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF AFORESAID FACTS AND SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF AFORESAID DECISION LAID DOWN BY HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT AND RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 11 ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED NO.3.1, GROUND NO.3.2 DOES NOT SURVIVE . GROUND NO.4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A . 16. A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SHARE DI VIDEND (RS.8,850/-) AND DIVIDEND FROM MUTUAL FUND (RS.61,393/-) WHICH A RE EXEMPT U/S. 10. A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A AR E APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXE MPT INCOME HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE H AD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME, A.O. WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,47,509/- U/S. 14A BY FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BEN CH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL (ITA NO.8057/MUM/03). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROU GH THE CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APP ELLANT. HAVING VERIFIED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AMENDED RULE 8D, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,47,5 09/- U/S. 14A BY RELYING ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI ITAT CITED SUPRA IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT SECTION 14A HA S AN OVERRIDING EFFECT AND CAN BE APPLIED EVEN IF THE DEDUCTIONS ARE ALLOW ABLE UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) AND THAT SUB-SECTI ON (2) & (3) OF SECTION 14A, THOUGH INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4- 2007 READ WITH RULE 8D ARE PROCEDURAL AND CLARIFIC ATORY IN NATURE AND APPLY TO PENDING MATTERS ALSO. THE WORDS, IN RELAT ION TO IN SECTION 14A ENCOMPASS NOT ONLY THE DIRECT EXPENSES BUT ALSO THE INDIRECT EXPENSES WHICH HAS ANY RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOM E. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMENDED RULE 8DIS HAVING RETROSPECTI VE EFFECT AND THE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 12 A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION WHIC H IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 18. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., (2010) 32 8 ITR 81 (BOM.) HAS HELD THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE FROM, A.Y. 2008-09 AND SINCE THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 2006-07,PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCU RRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE. IN THE ALTERNATE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO WORK A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE. 19. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE OR DER OF A.O. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS A.Y. 2006- 07.THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLL OWING THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN RULE 8D. IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYC E MFG.CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2008-09.IT HAS FURTHER HELD AS UNDER:- THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES WHI CH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED W.E.F. MARCH 24, 2008, WOULD APPLY WITH EF FECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.EVEN PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE A.O. HAD TO EN FORCE THE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 13 PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION14A. FOR TH AT PURPOSE, THE A.O. IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHI CH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE A.O. MUST ADOPT A REASONA BLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 WOULD STAND REMANDED TO THE A.O. THE A.O. SHOULD DE TERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ( DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME/ INCOME FR OM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CON TEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A REASON ABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETE RMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT OR GERMANE MATERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 21. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN INTERA LIA IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE YEARS WHEN PROVISION OF RULE 8D WERE NOT APP LICABLE THE A.O. SHOULD MAKE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO WORK OUT A REASONAB LE DISALLOWANCE IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF G ODREJ & BOYCE (SUPRA) AND AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSES SEE. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO.910/AHD/10 FILED BY REVENUE. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 14 23. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O . NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 1,61,70,000/- FROM WIRANA PRIVATE LTD. WHICH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES OF R.L. KALATHIYA SHIP BREAKING PRIVATE LTD., A.O. WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WAS OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT AS IT WAS BY WAY OF JOURNA L ENTRY AND THEREFORE WAS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269T OF THE I.T. ACT. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS AN ADVANCE R ECEIVED IN APRIL, 2004 TOWARDS THE SALE OF SHARES OF R.L. KALATHIYA SHIP B REAKING PVT. LTD., AND THE PROCEDURE OF TRANSFER WAS DONE IN F.Y. 2005-06. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY A.O. AND HE AC CORDINGLY HELD THE ADJUSTMENT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269T AND THEREFORE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,61,70,000/- U/S. 271E. ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY BE HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND THE SUBMISSION, DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL WITH CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY HIM. IN THIS CASE, IT IS N OT A DISPUTED FACT THAT 98000 SHARES OF M/S. R.L.KALATHIYA SHIP BREAKI NG PVT. LTD., WERE SOLD ON 19-7-2005 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,61,70,0 00/- TO WIRANA PRIVATE LTD. FURTHER THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE S ALES TRANSACTION OF THE SHARES HAD ALSO BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELLAN T, WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. IT SHOWS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH W AS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED IN INCOME/REVENUE ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEE DINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES. THE ONLY DISPUTE WHICH EXISTS IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD REPAID THE LOAN OF RS.1,67,70,000/- O THERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BANK DRAFT TO WIRANA PVT . LTD. IN THE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 15 ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN FROM WIRANA PVT. LTD. IS ADJUSTED AGAINST SAL E OF SHARES OF M/S. R. L. KALATHIA SHIP BREAKING PVT. LTD. WHICH CLARIF IES THAT THERE IS NO REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN CASH. THE AMOUNTS OF ADVANCES EVEN IF TAKEN AS LOAN HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BY SELLING OF 98000 SHARES OF R. L. KALATHIYA SHIP BREAKING PVT. LTD. HERE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT BOOK ADJUSTMENT AS CARRIED OUT BY THE TAXPAYER IS A DEPOSIT OR LOAN, THERE BEING NO TRANSFER OF MONEY, IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT SUCH DEPOSIT OR LOAN COMES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT, IT IS NEC ESSARY THAT THERE SHOULD BE TRANSFER OF MONEY, WHICH IS NOT IN THE IN STANT CASE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE LD. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH C DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHELTER INN HOTEL PVT. LTD. RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. IN THIS CASE, THE LD. ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS ALREADY S TATED HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THE TRA NSACTION AS GENUINE AND HAS FURTHER TAXED THE SAME AS AN INCOME BY WAY OF GAINS ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, I HOLD THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDE R SECTION 271E OF THE ACT IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 24. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS AN ADVANCE AND NOT LOAN WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS HAS CLASSIFIED THE AMOUNT AS LOAN. FURTHER IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHE ET AS ON 31-3-2005, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,61,70,000/- IN THE NAME OF WIRANA PR IVATE LTD., WAS SHOWN ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 16 UNDER THE HEAD OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY SATISFACTORY REASONS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS W ELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT LOAN. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. 26. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS AN ADVANCE FOR SALE OF SHARES. IN THE T AX AUDIT REPORT ALSO THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS REPAYMENT OF LOAN OR D EPOSIT BY THE TAX AUDITOR. IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE DISCLOSURE OF LO AN WAS MADE AS PER THE METHOD PRESCRIBED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO INT EREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN REPAID IN CASH. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.269T COVER REPAYME NT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT ONLY. THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HISSAIRA BROS. (2007) 291 ITR 244, CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE (IT A NO.373 OF 2004) (AT PAGE 81 OF PAPER BOOK) AND OTHER DECISIONS. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SHARES OF R. L. KALATHIYA SHIP BREAKING PVT. LTD., WERE SOLD BY ASSESSEE TO WIRANA PVT. LTD . IN F.Y. 2005-06. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PROFIT EARNED ON S ALE OF SHARES WERE OFFERED TO TAX AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND THUS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT IN DOUBT. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES EVEN IF TAKEN AS LOAN HAVE B EEN ADJUSTED BY SELLING OF SHARES AND SINCE THERE WAS NO TRANSFER O F MONEY, IT CANNOT BE ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 17 SAID THAT SUCH DEPOSIT OR LOAN COMES WITHIN THE PUR VIEW OF SEC.269T OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIO N OF ASSESSEE THAT THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE BALANCE SHEET WAS CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956. 28. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORES (SU PRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE DELETION OF PENALTY WHEN THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY A CCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE AND WHEN NO TAX EVASION OF TAX AVOI DANCE WAS INVOLVED AND WHEN THE DEFAULT WAS OF TECHNICAL OR VENIAL NAT URE. 29. CIT (A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS HELD TH AT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY REVENUE, THE AM OUNT HAS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUB MITTED BY ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF MONEY AND DOES NOT COME WI THIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 269T. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 30. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF P & H HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND THUS CONFIRM HIS ORDER. TH US THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 18 31. SINCE THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED, THE C ROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY CIT (A)S ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 32. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-2- 2013. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) XX, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,A HMEDABAD ITA NO 2240/ AHD/2009 & ITA 910/AHD/2010 WITH C.O.126/10. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 19 1.DATE OF DICTATION 11 - 1 -2013 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 31 / 1 / 2013 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 1 - 2 -2013. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2013 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2013 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2013. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER `9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER
