The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2384/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3926 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH PATHAK
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80IB; 10B

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LK KK KOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] ] ] ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2384/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06) ACIT, CIR 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. / VS. M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD., MEHGMANI HOUSE, SHREENIVAS SOCIETY PALDI, AHMEDABAD 380 006. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM 0644 E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH PATHAK, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : MS. URVASHI SODHAN, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 11/07/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/10/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)2, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-2 /24/DCIT(OSD)- 1, CIR -4/2014-15 DATED 14.05.2015 ARISING IN THE M ATTER OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 27.03.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AR E AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DEL ETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF DE DUCTION U/S.10B WHICH HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTI NG TO RS.30,84,740/- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ' LD.CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO FOR RS.30,84 ,740/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING/TRADING BUSINESS OF DY ES ETC. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF TH E ACT FOR RS. 12,18,36,697/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE WHILE CALCULATING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT HAS TAKEN TOTAL SALE OF RS. 97,98,37 ,069/- AS AGAINST RS.1,11,58,00,109/- IN ITS DENOMINATOR. AS SUCH, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED THE SUM OF RS. 13,59,63,040 REPRESENTING TH E INTERDIVISIONAL TRANSFER INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL SALES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR RS.1,48,46, 107/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXCESS DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1,48,46,107/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - 4.1 ON APPEAL TO LD CIT(A), IT WAS DIRECTED TO EXCL UDE THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY FOR RS. 3,88,41,614.00 INCLUDED IN THE VALUE TOTAL TURNOVER. ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10B OF T HE ACT WAS REDUCED FROM RS. 1,48,46,107/- TO RS.84,29,981/- U/S 10B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE NOTICE DATED 16-12-2010. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE THERETO, SUBMITTED T HAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 10B OF THE AC T WAS FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME OR FURNISHED ANY IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4.3 HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME BY CLAIMING THE EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR RS.84,29,981/- ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY OF RS .30,84,740/- WAS LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BEING 100% OF THE A MOUNT OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED VIDE ORDER DATED 27-03-2014. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD CI T(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD COMMITTED A BONA FIDE MISTAKE IN TAKING THE TOTAL TURNOVER AFTER INCLUDI NG THE INTERDIVISION SALES/TRANSFER. ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - 5.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A CERTIFICATE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE QUALIFIED CA IN FO RM 56G. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED ON ACCOUNT OF MIST AKE COMMITTED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCEDED ITS MISTAKE FOR NOT EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF INTERDIVISI ON SALES. 5.3 THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2.3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE PENNAN T THE AO HAS IMPOSED A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B WAS REDUCED BY AN AMOUN T OF RS. 84.29 LACS. THE CLAIM WAS REDUCED AS THE EXCISE DUTY WAS REDUCED FROM THE TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10B. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL TO THE ITAT ON THE ISSUE AND THE AO HAS ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ACCEPTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B BASED ON THE AUDIT REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND REPORT IN FORM NUMBER 56G. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPEN ED AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SALES AND PURCHASES WERE BEING SHO WN NET OF INTERDIVISIONAL TRANSFERS. THE APPELLANT HAS, THERE FORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS ABOUT INTER DIVISIONAL TRANSFER INCOME PR OTECTION OF CLAIM AS PER AUDIT REPORT WAS CLEARLY STATED BY THE APPELLAN T AND NO INFORMATION WAS WITHHELD OR CONCEALED. IT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICALS 288 ITR 196, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONOURABL E COURT THAT A BONA FIDE CLAIM BASED ON THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT'S ADVI CE IS MADE, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED, BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS REJ ECTED. ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 5 - ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE FACTS OF THE C ASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSE SSMENT WAS REOPENED AND THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10B WAS REDUCED WAS ALR EADY THERE AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS ALSO A PART OF THE AUDIT REPORT. THIS HA D OCCURRED AS THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN SALES AND PURCHASES NET OF THE INTERDIVISIONAL TRANSFERS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MISREPRESENTED OR CONCEALED ANY FACTS. THE MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED AS THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN T WHO HAD ISSUED FORM 56G HAD WRONGLY CALCULATED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 1 OB ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF EARLIER ROUND OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY IS ELIGIBLE ON THE APPELL ANT UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY PLACED RELIANC E ON THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICALS, 28 8 ITR 196. THE OTHER JUDGMENTS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ASSOCIATED POWER STRUCTURE PVT. LTD, 35 FAXMAN.COM 310, IS ALSO IN T HE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN ALL T HE RELEVANT FACTS WERE FURNISHED BUT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB WAS REJECTED, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. FURTHER THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT S PRIVATE LIMITED,322 ITR 158, ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AND NO FACTS AND FIGURES FURNIS HED BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE OR INACCURATE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5.4 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) REVEN UE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF AO WHEREAS, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PA PER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 41 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE D EDUCTION U/S 10B WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF AUDITOR CERTIFICATE, WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 4 TO 7 ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 6 - OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD N OT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE AUDITOR. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/ S 10B OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE WAS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THU S, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO TH E EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10B OF THE ACT. ACCORDI NGLY, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7.1 THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT REPORT OBT AINED IN FORM 56G WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY BY THE MIST AKE COMMITTED BY THE AUDITOR. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDAN CE FROM THE JUDGMENT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SESA RESOU RCES LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 38 TAXMANN.COM 224 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 10B OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, WAS DENIED THE SAME. T HE ORDERS IN THIS REGARD HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. THE QUESTION IS, WHE THER MERELY ON ACCOUNT THEREOF THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY . ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 7 - 5. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED A LL THE FACTS. THE APPELLANT DID NOT CONCEAL ANY FACTS. BASED ON THE D ISCLOSED MATERIAL, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME AS A MATTER OF LAW. TH E TRIBUNAL WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS DENIED THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO PAY A PENALTY. 6. THE QUESTION RAISED IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. RELIANCE PE TROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 TAXMAN 322 AND A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, TO WHICH ONE OF US (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) WAS A PARTY DATED 14TH AUGUST, 2012 IN CIT V. ADITYA BIRLA NOVA LTD. [IT APPEAL NO .3899 OF 2010]. 7. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWE RED IN THE NEGATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 WE ALSO PLACE OUR RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANJIV MISRA REPO RTED IN 45 TAXMANN.COM 476 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND ON PE RUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDI TED AND THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B WAS CLAIMED BY FURNISHI NG THE REPORT IN FORM NO. 56G READ WITH RULE 16E OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962. SO, ALL THE FACTS WERE DISCLOSED TO THE AO. 10. FROM THE RECORD, IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE CLAIM DE NIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 10B WAS BASED ON THE FACTS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT TH AT UNCOLLECTED SUMS WERE EXPORT INCOME FROM THE SOFTWARE WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CLIENTS. SO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SAME IN TIME. AS AND WHEN PAYMENT RECEIVED, THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEP ARTMENT. 11. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT VIS-A-VIS THE CLAIM DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT, OCCURRED SOLELY OWING TO BONAFIDE R EASONS AS ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING T HE RETURN. NO MALAFIDE INTENTION OR ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, SO IT IS OUT OF THE AMBIT OF PENAL PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 8 - 12. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS AO HAS NOT COLLECTED INDEPE NDENT MATERIAL. BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE IS GENUINE. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEALMENT WAS MADE AS PER THE RATIO LA ID DOWN IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) V. CIT [2012] 25 TAXMANN.COM 400/211 TAXMAN 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) , CIT V. ATAR SINGH & BROS., 2008 (11) MTC 35 (ALL). TO THIS EFFE CT, THERE IS CONCURRENT FINDING OF BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIE S AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTER EFERE. 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS WERE FULLY FURNISHE D. SO, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AS AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLO WING CASES : (I) CIT V. NATH BROS. EXAM. INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2007] 288 ITR 670 (DELHI) ; AND (II) CIT V. INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL CO. [2007] 288 IT R 570 (DELHI) . 14. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL. HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS HEREBY S USTAINED. 15. THE ANSWER TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. 7.3 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE PENALTY CANN OT BE LEVIED IF ANY ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE AUDITOR BY GIVING A CERTIFICATE SPECIFYING THE WRONG AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. T HUS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY HIM U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.2384/AHD/2015 ACIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. A.Y. 2005-06 - 9 - 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/10/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/10/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 27/07/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 5 PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 24/09/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 01/10/2018 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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