The ITO, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Saurabh Sharad Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 2588/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6634 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G M CHAUHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Difference of opinion; Block assessment
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 04/05/2011 DRAFTED ON: 09 /05/2011 ITA NO.2588/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 THE ITO WARD-10(4) AHMEDABAD VS. SAURABH S.SHAH C/O.ARIHANT TRADING CORPN OPP.NAVRANGPURA BUS STAND AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : ADFPS 9262 G ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.M. CHAUHAN, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WHI CH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AH MEDABAD DATED 03/07/2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND T HE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND READS AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LAW IN CANCELING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF RS.2,79,829/- AS THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON HIM AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDI NG PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 29/03/2007 AND THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 26/03/2004 ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 2 - WERE THAT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 1984 WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THUS, THEREUPON DISCLOSED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED COST OF ACQUISITION AS A FAIR MARKET VALU E AS ON 28/12/1984 AT RS.13,01,409/- AS AGAINST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DETERMINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.1,05,560/-. IT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF CONCEALMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, IN THE IMPUGNE D PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCLOSED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.23.5 LACS, HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE SALES CONSIDERATION AT RS.97.5 LACS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WHEN THE MATTER WA S CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE QUANTUM ADDITION IN RESPE CT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION, I.E. RS.74 LACS WAS DELETED . THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THAT ISSUE BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, SINCE IN RESPECT OF THE QUESTION OF COMPUTATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS N OT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE A SECOND APPEAL WAS ALSO FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 3. NOW BEFORE US AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001- 02 THE ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD [IN IT(SS)A NO.48/A HD/2006, ITA NO.526/AHD/2006 & ITA NO.637/AHD/2006] DATED 13/08/ 2009 IS PLACED ON RECORD, WHEREIN DELETION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION PERTAINING TO DIFFERENCE IN SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN APPROVED AS PER THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH:- ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 3 - 5. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST BOTH THE O RDERS OF THE CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15-5-2009 IN IT(SS)A NO.50/AHD/2006 AND ITA NO.672/AHD/2006 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KALYANBHAI L.VASA (HUF), WHICH IS THE CASE OF THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.75.00 LAKHS FROM THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND RS.74.00 LAKHS FROM THE RE GULAR ASSESSMENT OF KALYANBHAI VASA, HUF. SO FAR AS THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN EFFECT ENDORSED THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) IN THAT CASE AND WE MAY MEN TION TAT THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO THE SAME. AS REGARDS THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, HERE AGAIN THE TRIB UNAL HAS ENDORSED THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) IN THAT CASE, WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. ON THIS BASIS THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DELETI NG THE ADDITIONS MADE BOTH ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND ON PROTECTIVE BA SIS. IN OTHER WORDS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIG HT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ON-MONEY FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND. SINCE THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS THE CO-OWNER OF THE SAME LAND AND SINCE THE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE REASONING REL IED UPON BY THE AO IS THE SAME AS I THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 3.1. AS PER THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF QUANTUM RELIEF, HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPT ED. IN VIEW OF THE SAID RELIEF, THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITIES THUS IS THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF CONCEALMENT I N RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 4 - 4. THE NEXT QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION. AS FAR AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY WAS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION HAD GONE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION. .2.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. T HE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 261 ITR 73 (GUJ.)(SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GAIN ACTU ALLY ARISEN BY INFLATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDINGLY TH E COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON 28.12.1984 AT RS.32,500 IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 4.1. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ABOVEME NTIONED VIEW OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY FILING AN APPEAL, BUT STRAN GE ENOUGH, IT WAS NOT CONTESTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS IS EVIDENT FORM TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL(SUPRA) DATED 13/08/2009, WHEREIN VIDE PARA GRAPH NO.6 IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.526/AHD/2006 R ELATES TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. AT THE TIME OF T HE HEARING, IT WAS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT BEING PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 4.2. NOW WE HAVE TO DECIDE THIS PART OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON ITS MERITS AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. T HE CASE WAS RE-OPENED U/S.148 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY MAKING A PAYMENT OF RS.32,500/-. IT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28/12/2004. A RETURN WAS FILED ON 26/07/2001 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.2,82,331/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2,98,591/-. THE ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 5 - LAND WAS SOLD ON 01/07/2000. AS PER THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT R S.13,01,409/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1984, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SUBJECT TO URBA N LAND CEILING ACT, 1976. HOWEVER, WHEN THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2000, THE SAID ACT WAS NOT IN FORCE. DUE TO THIS REASON, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE YEAR 1984 AS IF THE LAND WAS FREE- HOLD LAND WITHOUT ANY ENCUMBRANCE. FURTHER, FOR TH E PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, IT WAS ALSO VI EWED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT, AS IF , IT WAS A NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTUAL GAIN WHICH HAD ARISEN WAS THE COST MINUS SALE CONSI DERATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO REDUCE AN INFLATED COST OF ACQUISITION FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING THE ACTUAL PURCHASED COST AS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND A VIEW WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RELE VANT PARAGRAPH WHICH IS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED SUPRA. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENT AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED BEFORE US IS TH AT THE FULL FACTS ABOUT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS D ULY DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN AS PER THE NOTE APPEND ED TO THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, RELEVANT PORTIONS REPRODUCED BELOW:- D) DURING THE YEAR I HAVE SOLD LAND AT BODAKDEV T ALUKA CITY (OLD DASCOI) HAVING SURVEY NO.247/5 ORIGINALLY ADM.ABOUT 4452 SQ.METERS (EXCHANGED TO 3175 SQ.METERS.) HAVIN G ONE HALF UNDIVIDED SHARE. ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 6 - (1) FOR CANCELLATION OF FIRST BANAKHAT WITH MR.KETIL DA VE. I HAD TO PAY RS.750000/- AS COMPENSATION WHICH HAVE B EEN THE ORIGINAL BANAKHAT IS DULY REGD. BANAKHAT. I HAVE C LAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE LTC GAIN. (2) FURTHER THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 28/12/1984 AS PER T HE PURCHASE DEED WAS WHEN THE PROVISION OF THE URBAN L AND CEILING ACT 1976 WAS IN OPERATION AND PROGRESS. WHEN THE LAND WAS SOLD THE SAID ACT U.L.C. ACT WAS REPEALED AND HENCE VALUE FOR 28.02.84 IS TAKEN AS IF THE LAND WA S FREEHOLD WITHOUT ANY ENCUMBRANCE AND NON AGRICULTURAL FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR VALUE AS ON 28/12/84 BEING THE DATE OF PURCHASE. (THIS MAY BE TREATED AS MERITS). 4.3. IT WAS CONTESTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE COST O F ACQUISITION THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V B VYAS REPORTED AT (2003)261 ITR 73(GUJ.) IN THAT DECISION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS REFER RED A CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.90 DATED 01/08/1969 FOR THE PROPOSIT ION THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY AN AGR ICULTURAL LAND, HAD TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF ITS VALUE ON THE DATE OF ITS CONVERSION INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND, RELEVANT HELD PORTION IS REP RODUCED BELOW:- THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL HAD TRANSFERRED LAND. THE LANDS WERE PURCHASED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN 1961 AND THEREAF TER CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND ON MARCH 12, 1962, AND G IFTED IN JULY 1966, WHEN THEY WERE VALUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIFT -TAX AT RS.9 PER SQ.YD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LAND BECAME A CAPITAL ASSET ON THE DATE WHEN CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LA ND ON MARCH 12, 1962, AND, THEREFORE, SINCE IT WAS NOT A CAPITA L ASSET AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AT THE TIME OF ITS ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 7 - ACQUISITION, ITS COST AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION, C OULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CIRCULA R DATED AUGUST 1, 1969, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE S ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BASIS OF THE CONVERSION OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ORDER WAS UPHELD BY TH E APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HEL D THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE S WAS OF A BENEVOLENT NATURE AND APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1971-72, BECAUSE IT WAS IN FORCE FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR, THOUGH LATER ON I T CAME TO BE WITHDRAWN ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1971. ON A REFERENCE: HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT T HE CIRCULAR WAS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN DIREC TING THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE OF LAND AS DETERMINED ON THE DATE OF ITS CONV ERSION INTO NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4.4. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WAS THAT UN DER BONA FIDE BELIEF THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CLAIMED AS PER THE RETU RN. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT A MALA FIDE CLAIM BUT IT WAS A LEGAL CLAIM, THOUGH LATER ON NOT CONTESTED BEFORE THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF FACTS OR ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 8 - DELIBERATELY FILING OF UNTRUE PARTICULARS BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY THE ONLY REASON WAS THAT THERE WAS AN EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS B Y ADOPTING INFLATED COST OF ACQUISITION. SINCE IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN A VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF A VERDICT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT, THEREFORE, THAT VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE A FALS E VIEW OR AN AB INITIO UNTRUE CLAIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE HON'BLE COURT HAS EXAMINED THE DEF INITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED U/S.2(14) OF THE I.T.ACT AND HELD THAT AS LONG AS THE ASSET IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, DI D NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AND SO LONG AS TH E PROPERTY REMAINED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE CONSIDE RED A CAPITAL ASSET AT ALL. WHEN THE SAID ASSET WAS CONVERTED INTO A CAP ITAL ASSET BY CONVERSION FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTUR AL LAND, ON THAT DATE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAME THE CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXING AS CAPITAL GAINS AND IT IS ONLY WHEN THE CON VERSION TOOK PLACE. THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS TO BE TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO REFERRED A DECISION OF THE SUPR EME COURT VIZ. CIT VS. BAI SHIRINBAI K. KOOKA REPORTED AT (1962) 46 ITR 86(SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE LAND TO BE TAKEN AT THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CONVERTED INTO T HE NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A SHELTER OF FEW PRECEDENTS FOR ADOPTING A PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT FOUND TO BE ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 9 - ALTOGETHER FALSE, UNTRUE, UNTRUTHFUL, INCORRECT OR FICTITIOUS, THEN SUCH AN ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE MUST NOT BE TERMED AS AN ACTION OF, EITHER, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, OR, CONCEALING THE INCOME. IN ANY CASE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEING THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF CONTROVERSY, HENCE THERE WAS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY O F DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, HENCE, EVEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE W AS A POSSIBILITY OF TWO VIEWS, THEN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH SHOULD ALSO BE OUT OF THE AMBITS OF THE LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL KR. SH RAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 05 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.2588/AHD /2009 ITO VS. SAURABH S.SHAH ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 10 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION..9.5.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.05.2011 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.S13/5/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13/5/2011 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