The ITO, Ward-3, Navsari V. M/s. Metro Motors, Navsari

ITA 2333/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9794 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM . ITA NO.2333/AHD/2011 ALONG WITH CO NO.229/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI VS. M/S METRO MOTORS, ASHANAGAR SOCIETY, GRID ROAD, KALIYAWADI, NAVSARI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA NO.AAEFM 2430N APPELLANT BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 27/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/01/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A) VALSAD,, DATED 25.07.2011 PASSED FOR ASSTT.YEAR 200 8-09. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30/09/2008 DEC LARING INCOME OF RS.54,577/-. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A DEALER OF H ERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE SCHOOTER, MOPED AND SPARE PARTS AND ALSO RUNNING WORKSHOP AND SERVICE STATION FOR HERO HONDA VEHICLE S. THE CASE OF ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.33,66,890/-, AFTER MAKING FOLLOW ING ADDITIONS OF RS.33,12,310/-:- 1. DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES RS.29,44,689/- 2. OUT OF PF AND ESIC EXPENSES RS.5,161/- 3. OUT OF BROKERAGE AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES RS.3,62,460/- RS.33,12,310/- 3. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DE LETED THE ADDITION OF RS.29,44,689/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) AND PARTLY SUS TAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE AND SALES PROMOTION EXPEN SES AT RS.1,40,997/-. ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND A GAINST ADDITION OF RS.5,161/- OUT OF PF & ESIC EXPENSES. 4. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.31,66,152/- BY L D. CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 BY LD. CIT(A) AT RS.1,40,995/- BY WAY OF DISALLOWAN CE OF 25% ON SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.5,63,982/-. 5. REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APP EAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,44,689/- IN RESPE CT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGED DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40( A)(IA) R.W.S. 194C OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AS THE SAME WAS COMPULSORILY APPLICABLE AS PER BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8.8.1995. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.2, 21,463/- @ 25% OF TOTAL BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.8,85,853/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORD ER OF AO. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD AND RESTORED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO AFTE R HEARING THE LD. DR WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. WE OBSERVE THAT IN BETWEEN THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.10.2015 AND BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE COME ACROSS A CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DA TED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY CBDT IN RELATION TO REVISION O F MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME- ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT ITAT). THE ABOVE M ENTIONED CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 [F NO 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT)] NEW DELHI THE 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT : REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FIL ING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COUR TS AND SLP BEFORE SUPREME COURT MEASURES FOR REDUCING LITIGATION REG. REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO 5/2014 DATED 10.07.2014 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEP ARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WERE SPECIFIED. 2. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, IT H AS BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS MAY BE FILED ON MERITS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW TH E MONETARY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED I N CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/- 2 BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILIN G OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, TAX EFFECT MEANS THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CH ARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS D ISPUTED ISSUES). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON, EXCEPT WHERE CHAR GEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASES WHERE RETURNED LO SS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX ON DISPUT ED ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEALED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX E FFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ON E ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS I N WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIE D IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTH ORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EV EN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S), I F IT IS DECIDED TO FILE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONET ARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER/ JUDGEMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE A SSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OR A COURT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT S PECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY RECORD THAT EVEN THO UGH THE DECISION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, APPEAL IS NOT BEING FILED ONLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THIS INSTRUCTION. FURT HER, IN SUCH CASES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQU IESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NO T BE PRECLUDED FROM FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT S. 7. IN THE PAST, A NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE COME T O THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD, WHEREBY AN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RELIEF FROM THE TRIBUNAL OR TH E COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY NOT FILIN G AN APPEAL ON THE SAME DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES/COUNSELS M UST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT THE AP PEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS NOT FILED OR NOT ADMITTED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF THE TAX EFFECT BEIN G LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT T HE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THEDEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHOU LD IMPRESS UPON THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE ANY PRECEDENT VAL UE. AS THE EVIDENCE OF NOT FILING APPEAL DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE PRODU CED IN COURTS, THE JUDICIAL FOLDERS IN THE OFFICE OF CSIT MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEMIC MANNER FOR EASY RETRIEVAL. 8. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISS UES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT : (A) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROV ISIONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, OR (B) WHERE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTIO N OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES, OR ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 (C) WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, OR (D) WHERE THE ADDITION RELATES TO UNDISCLOSED FOR EIGN ASSETS/ BANK ACCOUNTS. 9. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE SHALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY RELEVANT PROVISION S OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER, FILING OF APPEAL IN CASES OF INCOME TAX, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE CASE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUSTS OR INSTI TUTIONS UNDERSECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES MAY BE TAKEN ON MERITS OF A PA RTICULAR CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY T O PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEA LS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 11. THIS ISSUES UNDERSECTION 268A (1) OF THEINCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ABOVE R EFERRED CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 WE FIND THAT T HESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED PROHIBITING SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIE S FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APP LICABLE ON PENDING APPEALS ALSO. FROM GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT APPEAL WE FIND THAT TOTAL TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF CIT(A)S OR DER AGAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRES ENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BEING TREATED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN TH E AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS FURT HER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL, SUCH FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CASE, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT THE END O F THE AO, IT CAME TO ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 THE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE OR IT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DE PARTMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF TH IS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, F OLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD.CIT(A), VALSAD HAS ERRED IN DIR ECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW 25% OUT OF SALES PROM OTION EXPENSES OF RS.5,63,982/-. THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD E RRED IN GIVING ABOVE DIRECTION WITHOUT POINTING OUT SPECIFI C EXPENSES DEBITED TO SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES BY THE APPELLAN T NOT PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS. 2. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE DIRECTIO N PASSED BY CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE A NY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE AP PEAL. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE SUSTAINANCE OF ADDITION BY LD. CIT(A) IN REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OUT OF SALES PROMOTIO N EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,63,982/-. 10. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ABOUT THE OVERALL GENUINENESS OF THE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.5,63,982/-. THE ASSESSEE RATHER THAN PROVIDING C OMPLETE DETAILS ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE SALES PROM OTION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT JUST GAVE A GENERAL SUBMISSION THAT S UCH EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY DUE TO CUT THROAT COMPETITION IN THE MARKET TO WHICH THE DEALER IS CO MPELLED TO SPEND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES ON PUBLICITY, ADVERTISEMEN T, ETC. AT DIFFERENT PLACES AND IN MANY CASES EXPENSES HAVE BE EN PAID BY CHEQUES. 11. DUE TO THIS GENERAL SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED RS.1,40,997/- BEING 25% OF THE SALES PRO MOTION EXPENSES AT RS.5,63,982/-. 12. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROV IDE ANY FURTHER SUBSTANTIAL DETAILS AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES AND LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED 25% OF SALES PROMOTION EXPEN SES AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE CROSS OBJECT ION IS DISMISSED. 13. OTHER TWO GROUNDS OF THE C.O. ARE OF GENERAL NA TURE, WHICH DO NOT REQUIRED ANY ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/01/2016. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 08/01/2016. 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 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 5/1/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 6/1/2016 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: 8/1/2016 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: