The ITO, Ward-14(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Ankit Maheshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 2294/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50597 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K VOHRA
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., !'# $ $ $ $ %% % &, ' ( # BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER $./ I.T.A. NO.2294/AHD/2009 ( * * * * / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ITO WARD-14(4) AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH A/204, ALOK FLATS SHANTIVAN NR. P.T. COLLEGE PALDI, AHMEDABAD-380 007 '+ (, $./- $./ PAN/GIR NO. : BBDPS 1092 M ( +. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) +. 1 ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. VOHRA, SR. D.R. /0+. 2 1 ( / RESPONDENT BY : NONE % 3 2 &, / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 14/09/2011 45* 2 &, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/09/2011 (6 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XXI AHMEDABAD DATED 25/05/2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,85,000/- AND RS.3,40,520/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN ENTERTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEP OSITED IN BANKS WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THUS VIOLATING RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT IN T HE PAST NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED BUT NO ONE APPEARED FROM THE SI DE OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. AN ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 14/09/2011 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED AS PER THE ACKNOWL EDGEMENT OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT IS ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT TH E RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO DEFEND THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, DUE TO REGULAR NON- APPEARANCE, WE HEREBY PROCEED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR MR. R.K. VOHRA ; APPEARED FROM THE SIDE O F THE REVENUE. 3. THIS IS A CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ASSESSED VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S.RAJSHAH ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. AND DECLARED SALARY INCOME AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. AS PER THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THAT A SUM OF RS.17,85,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. IN CASH ON FOLLOWING D ATES:- DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT RS. 18.01.2006 5,00,000 19.01.2006 85,000 23.01.2006 6,00,000 24.01.2006 6,00,000 TOTAL .. 17,85,000 ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - 3.1. A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO ENQUIRED ABOUT CERTAIN CHEQUES OF RS.65,35,572/- FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE DEVEL OPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., C.G. ROAD BRANCH, AHMEDBAD, A SAVING BANK ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS THAT HE W AS PROVIDING CONSULTANCY TO SOME CLOSE GROUP OF PERSONS FOR APPL YING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO SUBSCRIBE IN PUBLIC ISSUES OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE USED TO ISSUE HIS OWN CHEQUES WI TH SHARE APPLICATION FORMS BUT THOSE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF CL OSE GROUP OF PERSONS. THOSE GROUP OF PERSONS IN RETURN GAVE CASH BEFORE THOSE CHEQUES CAME FOR CLEARING IN THE BANK. SO, THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON BEHALF OF THE CLOSE GROUP OF PERSONS AND THE CHEQUES WERE ALSO ISSUED ON THEIR BEHALF. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFO RMED THAT HE HAS CHARGED RS.250/- PER APPLICATION FORM OF PUBLIC ISS UE , HENCE SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.19,500/- WERE DISCLOSED AS PER THE RE TURN. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO DEMAT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS MAIN ALLEGATION WAS THAT THE SA ID EXPLANATION AS ALSO THE CORRECT EVIDENCES WERE FABRICATED ONE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SEV ERAL DATES OF HEARING AND THEREAFTER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBE RATELY AND CONSTANTLY AVOIDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET , CAPITAL ACCOUNT, ETC. WERE NOT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT HAD THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEN THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT THERE ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. O NE MORE FACT WAS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EVEN THE SE RVICE CHARGES OF RS.19,500/- WERE NOT DISCLOSED AS PER THE RETURN FI LED ON 15/09/2006. HOWEVER, FROM THE SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, IT APPEARS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ACTUALLY P RODUCED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RATHER THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF CASH BOOK, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ALL THE CASH AMOUNTS SHOWN TOWARDS CREDIT SIDE WERE DELIBER ATELY BELOW RS.20,000/- TO AVOID THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE IT ACT. CERTAIN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED FROM THOSE PARTIES , HOWEVER, AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER THOSE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT PRODUCE D FOR VERIFICATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS AND EVIDEN CES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH OF RS.17,85,000 /- WAS, IN FACT, OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE HE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF THOSE PERSONS, THEREFORE APPLYING THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF M.SUNDARAM VS. ACIT, 287 ITR 145 [MAD.] , THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TAXED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE I.T.ACT. AN ANOTHER DISCREPANCY WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED A BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDF C BANK, PALDI BRANCH, AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SAID BANK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, AN INFORMATION WAS REQUISIT IONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER US/.133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT. IN C OMPLIANCE, HDFC BANK HAS FURNISHED THE REQUIRED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT. ON SCRUTINY, IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ON SEVERAL DAT ES, CASH WAS DEPOSITED TOTALLING TO RS.3,40,520/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOTED THE SEVERAL DATES AND THE AMOUNTS OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.3,40 ,520/- DEPOSITED IN ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 5 - THE BANK. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT REMAINED UNEXPLAIN ED, THEREFORE AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SURRENDERED BY THE AS SESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN T HE BANK. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF SHARE INV ESTMENT HENCE HE PROVIDED CONSULTANCY SERVICE TO CERTAIN CLOSE GROUP OF PERSONS. ON THEIR BEHALF, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED IN PUBLIC ISSUES O F SHARES. IT WAS AGAINST REITERATED THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SH ARE APPLICATION WERE ON BEHALF OF THOSE GROUP OF PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH FROM THOSE PERSONS AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK BEFORE THO SE CHEQUES WERE PUT FOR CLEARING. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ONLY EARNED SALARY INCOME AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THEREFOR E, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE I.T.ACT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN INSUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE THOSE CASH DEPOSITORS, HENCE, HE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THEM. RATHER, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THOSE PERSONS COULD HAVE BEEN SUMMONED U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINES S AND THE GENUINENESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THOSE DEPOSITORS WITH THEIR PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAN CARD. IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HDFC BANK OF RS.3,40,520/-, IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM MAHENDRABHAI B.VAGHELA HUF. THROUGH A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, PERMA NENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) AND THE ADDRESS OF THE SAID CREDITOR W AS FURNISHED BEFORE ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 6 - LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID PERSONS, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE HUF HAD HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN SUPPORT OF EXTRACT OF 7/12 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SUBMITT ED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT CONSIDERING THE CHRONOLO GY OF THE EVENTS AND THE FACTS STATED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, IN HIS VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE ALL THOSE PERSONS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS SAID THAT IN HIS OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MISSED TO CONSIDER THE MODES OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS OPINION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED AS AN ADVISOR TO SMALL INVESTORS THEREFO RE THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED ON THEIR BEHALF FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC ISSUE, HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MISSED OUT TO FIND O UT THE FACT THAT WHETHER THOSE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE OR WERE ALLOTTED TO THOSE GROUP OF PERSONS. AS PER CIT(A), WHETHER THE REFUND RECEIVED BACK WAS CREDITED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OR IN THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE BANK OF THOSE PERSONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE THAT REFU NDS WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THOSE PARTIES FOR WHOM THE APPELLAN T HAD SERVED AS A CONSULTANT. IN SHORT, AFTER APPRECIATING CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCE S, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. HE HAS ALSO AGREED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID HUF HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEREFORE THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HDFC BANK WAS THUS EX PLAINED. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) AND CHALLENGED THE ORDER BEFORE US. ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 7 - 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. R.K. VOHRA HAS PRIMARILY CONTESTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS) ON TWO GROUNDS. HE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46 A OF I.T. RULES, 1962. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MR.VOHRA DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVE NUES APPEAL . HE HAS EMPHASISED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IT IS EVIDENT THAT CERTAIN NE W EVIDENCES WERE ENTERTAINED BY HIM AT THE BACK OF THE REVENUE EITHE R WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR BY ASKING FOR A REMAND REPORT. HIS SECOND CONTENTION IS THAT EVEN THE MANDATE OF SECTION 250(1) OF THE I.T.ACT WAS NOT AD HERED TO BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BECAUSE AS PER THE IMPUGNED OR DER, THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WAS SERVED W ITH A NOTICE OF HEARING TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BECAUSE OF THESE TWO PRELIMINAR Y VIOLATION OF LAW BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY PLEADED TO SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE RE-EX AMINED. 6. HAVING HEARD THESE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS AFTER CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ONE HAND AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO SCRUTINIZE THE MATTER BUT DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE, ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 8 - IT REMAINED UNSCRUTINIZED. BUT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ENTERTAINED THOSE EVIDENCES THAT TOO WITHOUT CONFRO NTING THOSE EVIDENCES TO ASSESSING OFFICER AND GRANTED THE RELI EF. AS FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE NO TWO OPINIONS THAT AN APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ANY EV IDENCE WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCE D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSING O FFICER. CERTAIN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDED ARE, NAMELY, WHE RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THOSE EVIDEN CES, OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRO DUCING THOSE EVIDENCES. THIS RULE FURTHER PRESCRIBES THAT NO NE W EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED UNLESS LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY NEW EVIDENCE UN LESS ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAM INE THE EVIDENCE OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PR OCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FURTHER, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE MR.VOHRA HAS ALSO RAISED AN OBJECTION THAT THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS INFRINGED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(1) OF THE I .T.ACT WHICH PRESCRIBES THAT CIT(APPEALS) SHALL FIX A DAY AND PL ACE FOR THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHOS E ORDER THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF MR. VOHRA, SINCE THE ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 9 - LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER NOR EVEN CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THER EFORE, CONSIDERING THE STRONG OBJECTION RAISED FROM THE SI DE OF THE REVENUE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(APPEALS). SINCE CERTAIN NEW EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT AN INVESTIGATION APPEARED TO BE NECE SSARY THEREFORE NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS TO RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE S BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION, N EEDLESS TO SAY AFTER PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HEREBY ALSO DIRECT THIS ASSES SEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY PRODUCING ALL TH OSE EVIDENCES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO PLACE RELIANCE IN SU PPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH SEPT 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/ 09 /2011 7.. , . ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 2294/AHD/2009 ITO VS. SHRI ANKIT MAHESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 10 - (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ & %9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. %9() / THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 5. 8<= /& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >3 / GUARD FILE. (6 % (6 % (6 % (6 % / BY ORDER, 08& /& //TRUE COPY// ! !! !/ // / $ $ $ $ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 14/09/2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14/09/2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.16/09/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16/09/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER