The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra V. Shri Dharmendra J. Pandya, Kheda

ITA 2649/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1367 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , !' BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S)/CO NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S)/COS BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2649/AHD/2014 2007-08 ITO, WARD-1 GODHRA (REVENUE) SHRI DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA PROP. M/S.VISHAL TRADERS 532, MARKET YARD, VIRPUR DIST.KHEDA 387 411 PAN : AMWPP 2803 L (ASSESSEE) 2. 2650/AHD/2014 2008-09 -DO- -DO- 3. CO 69/AHD/15 (IN ITA 2649/A/14) 2007-08 ASSESSEE REVENUE 4. CO 70/AHD/15 (IN ITA 26 50 /A/14) 2008-09 ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY : -NONE- REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR #$ / DATE OF HEARING 13/06/2016 %&'$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/06/2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH : APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CO MMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABA D DATED ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - 31/07/2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 AND ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION THEREOF. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. BEFORE US, LD.S R.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS AND COS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR TWO DIF FERENT YEARS, BUT THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE YEARS EXCEPT FOR T HE AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, HIS SUBMISSION WOULD ALSO BE COMMON TO BOTH THE YEA RS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD.SR.DR, WE PROCEED TO DIS POSE OF THE APPEALS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF LD .SR.DR AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, W E PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS AND COS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE PROCEED WITH THE FACTS FOR AY 2007-08. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL, I.E. REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2649/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2007-08 AS A LEAD CASE. 3.1. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATE RIALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- 3.2. A SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION UNDER THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') TOOK PLACE A T THE PREMISES OF EDIBLE OIL MILLS GROUP OF PATAN DISTRICT AND AGENTS/BROKER S OF MEHSANA AND ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - SABARKANTHA DISTRICT OF GUJARAT ON 01/09/2008 AND S UBSEQUENT DATES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASES OF EDIBLE OIL MILL GROUP, IT WAS NOTICED THAT M/S.VISHAL TRAD ERS, PROPRIETOR DHARMENDRA PANDYA (ASSESSEE) HAD ISSUED BOGUS/ADJUS TMENT BILLS TO A LARGER NUMBER OF CONCERNS OF MEHSANA AND PATAN DIST RICTS OF GUJARAT DURING FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 ONWARDS. IN VIEW OF THIS, STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE ACT. THEREAF TER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 01/08/2011 AND THE REASONS WERE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUESTED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. AO NOTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OP PORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE. AO WAS THEREFORE COMPELLED TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/ S.144 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 07/03/2013. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OPENED FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOGUS BILLING (THE YEAR -WISE AND BANK-WISE DETAILS ARE LISTED AT PAGE NO.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN KALUPUR COMMERCIAL BANK AND HARIJ NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK WAS RS.4,06,85,237/-. H E CONCLUDED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE BOGUS SA LES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY ASSESSEE. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10 IN A SSESSEES CASE ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ISSUANCE OF BOGUS BILLS WAS CALCULATE D @ 5% OF THE TOTAL ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - BILLS, AO THEREFORE FOLLOWING SIMILAR METHOD AS FOL LOWED BY THE AO IN AY 2009-10, COMPUTED THE COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON ISSUE OF BOGUS BILLS AT 5 % (5% OF RS.4,06,85,237/-) AND WORKED OUT THE COMMISSION I NCOME AT RS.20,34,261 AND MADE ITS ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), W HO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF VIDE ORDER DATED 31/07/2014 (IN APPEAL NO.CI T(A)-I/CC.1(1)/466 AND 467/2013-14) TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDE R: - 4. APPELLATE FINDING S: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMIS SIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. AFTER GOING THROUGH TH E FACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, STAT EMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND SHRI MANDANLAL L.CHANDAK. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT DENIED THE ISSUANCE OF BOGUS BILLS AND RECEIVING CHEQUES I N HIS BANK ACCOUNTS SHRI MADANLAL L.CHANDAK HAS ALSO ACCEPTED IN HIS STATEME NT THAT HE WAS USING VISHAL TRADERS FOR FACILITATING DIFFERENT PARTIES T O HAVE BOGUS BILLS. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE INTRODUCED MANY PARTIES TO SHRI DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SHOW THAT T HE APPELLANT AND SHRI MADANLAL L.CHANDAK WERE WORKING IN CONNIVANCE AND F OR THIS PURPOSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED TO USE HIS NAME AN D BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING PARTIES TO GET THE BOGUS BI LLS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. IN THE STATEMENT DATED 26/09/2008, THE APPELLANT HA S MENTIONED THE NAMES OF 14 PARTIES TO WHOM THE BOGUS BILLS WERE IS SUE WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF THE ITEMS. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE USED TO RECEI VE RS.2,000-RS.3,000 PER MONTH AS COMMISSION FROM SHRI MADANLAL L.CHANDAK. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE GAVE A DIFF ERENT VERSION THAT A COMMISSION OF RE.1-PER BAG WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. HE NCE, RECEIVING OF COMMISSION WAS NOT DENIED. ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE IS THE QUANTUM OF COMMISSIO N RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION F ROM SHRI MADANLAL L.CHANDAK FOR LETTING HIM TO USE HIS NAME AND BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS AND ALSO FROM THE PARTIES WH O WERE DIRECTLY GETTING BOGUS BILLS FROM THE APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF SHR I MADANLAL L.CHANDAK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED A COMMISSION @ 2% O F THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 1% BY THE CIT(A). EVEN IF NOT MORE, ATLEAST EQUAL SHARE WOULD HAVE BEEN DE FINITELY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE BOGUS BILLS ISSUED WITH THE HELP OF SHRI MADANLAL L.CHANDAK. SO, IT WOULD BE VERY FAIR TO RESTRICT THE PERCENTAG E OF COMMISSION TO 1% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHEQUES RECEIVED IN THE C URRENT YERS AS RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HENCE A COMMISSION OF 1% OF TOTA L AMOUNT IS UPHELD WHICH IS AS UNDER: AY DEPOSITS DURING THE PERIOD ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION @5% ADDITION OF COMMISSION @ 1% UPHELD RELIEF GIVEN 2007 - 08 RS.4,06,85,237/ - RS.20,34,260/ - RS.4,06,852/ - RS.16,27,408/ - 2008 - 09 RS.33,89,89,074/ - RS.1,69.49.453/ - RS.33,89,890/ - RS.1,35,59,563/ - 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM 5% ON TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANK TO 1% WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SHE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ESTIMATES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITH HER OWN ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - ESTIMATES JUST ON THE BASIS OF HER PERSONAL OPINION CITING SOME OTHER CASE WHICH IS NOT PROPER BASIS. 4.1. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AND T HE COMMON GROUNDS (EXCEPT QUANTUM) RAISED IN CO NO.69/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2007-08 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2649/AHD/2014 AY 2007-08) READ AS U NDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ESTIMA TING COMMISSION INCOME AT 1% OF TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OF RS.4,06,85,237/- (FOR AY 2008-09 OF RS.33,89,89,074 /-) RESULTING INTO COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.4,06,852/- (FOR AY 200 8-09 OF RS.33,89,890/-) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS RECEIVED HARDLY RS.2,000/- TO RS.3,000/- AS COMMISS ION. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND BE CANCELLED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD N OW. 2. THE APPELLANT ALSO REQUESTS YOU TO WAIVE THE I NCOME TAX AMOUNT OF RS.1,76,400/- (FOR AY 2008-09 RS.24,02,82 0/-) AND INTEREST, PENALTY AND ANY OTHER LEVIED AMOUNT. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.SR.DR WAS FAIR ENOU GH TO SUBMIT THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MADANLAL L. CHANDAK (SHAH) IN IT(SS)A NOS.423 TO 425/AHD/2012 WITH CO NOS.205 TO 207/AHD/2012 FOR AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-2010, ORDER DATED 02/05 /2014 REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL A ND ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE BY GRANTING PARTI AL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - VIDE ORDER DATED 02/05/2014. HE PLACED ON RECORD T HE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. HE HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION INCOME DETERMINED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON THE BOGUS BILLS ISSUED BY A SSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.144 OF TH E ACT HAD ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME OF 5% OF THE TOTAL BOGUS SALE S BILLS WHICH WAS REDUCED TO 1% BY THE LD.CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MA DANLAL L.CHANDAK (SHAH), WHEREIN ADDITIONS FOR SIMILAR AMOUNTS WERE MADE, HAD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AT AROUND 50% TO THE ADDITIONS THAT WE RE MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE OBSERVATION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADANLAL CHANDAK (SHAH)[SUPRA) ARE AS UNDER :- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D R AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE ACTIVITY OF ARRANGING BOGUS BIL LS FOR CERTAIN PARTIES, AND HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THIS FACT IN HIS STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS FURTHER CORROBORATED WITH THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SHRI DHARMENDRA PANDY A, PROPRIETOR OF VISHAL TRADERS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AN D WAS NOT FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING THAT HE HAS NO TAXABL E INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S WAS THAT NO ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT NO INVESTMENT IN MOV ABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT, A S A RESULT OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS NOT ISSUED ANY BOGUS BILLS TO ANY PARTY AND NO CASH WAS FOUND OR SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AND THAT NO BANK ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE, AND NOTHING WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWE VER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS INTRODUCED SHRI DHARMENDRA PANDYA, PROPRIETOR OF VISHAL TRADER S TO VARIOUS PARTIES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF EARNING COMMISSION INCOME AN D THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE EARNED COMMISSION FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS JUSTIF IED IN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE EARNED CERTAIN COMMISSI ON INCOME FROM HIS BUSINESS OF ARRANGING BOGUS BILLS. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND EVEN AFTER THE CON DUCT OF THE SEARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FO RM OF BILLS OR BANK ACCOUNT, OR PROPERTY DOCUMENTS OR INVESTMENT IN MOV ABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, EITHER ON HIS OWN NAME OR IN THE NAME OF ANY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, AND ONCE THE DEPARTMENT COULD N OT PLACE ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, EVEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF SE ARCH OPERATION, SUGGESTING ANY MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE ASSETS OF THE A SSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET, IF THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2,00,000 (RS.TWO LAKHS) AGAINST RS .4,06,852/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08, RS. 17,00,000/- (RUPEES SEVENTEEN LAKHS) AGAINST RS.33,89,891/- SUS TAINED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AND RS.2,00,000/- (RU PEES TWO LAKHS) AS AGAINST RS.3,69,815/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) FO R THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING WITHOUT ANY MERIT ARE DISMISSED, AND THE GROU NDS OF THE COS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - 6.1. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL THAT OF MADANLAL L.CHANDAK (SHAH)[SUPRA] AND RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH AND FOR SIMILAR RE ASONS, WE DIRECT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM ISSUANCE OF BOGUS BILLS BE RESTRICTED TO RS.2 LACS AS AGAINST RS.4,0 6,852/- THAT WERE SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR AY 2007-08. 6.2. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FOR AY 2008-09, APP LYING THE SAME METHOD AS STATED HEREINABOVE, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.17 LACS AS AGAINST RS.33,89,890/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR AY 20 08-09. THUS, GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMI SSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DI SMISSED, WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/06/2016 SD/- SD/- .. () () ( R.P. TOLANI) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16 / 06 /2016 ,..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.2649 & 2650/AHD/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.69 & 70/AHD/2015 ITO VS. DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA ASST.YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 567/23 , 23' , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79:# / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 05/ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 13.6.16 (DICTATION-PAD 11 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.6.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 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. 16.6.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.6.16 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