The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Baroda V. Smt. Gayatri Anand Jani, Baroda

ITA 2686/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5691 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL DHAKA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] 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 PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.2683, 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/15 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) (1-5) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), BARODA VS. 1.SHRI ARVINDKUMAR D. JANI (PAN NO. ABLPJ 7511 R) 2.SHRI JAY ARVINDBHAI JANI (PAN NO. AEMPJ 5939 F) 3.SMT. GAYATRI ANAND JANI (PAN NO. AHYPJ 2534 R) 4.SMT. JYOTSANABEN A. JANI (PAN NO. AHYPJ 2555 J) 5. SMT. GAURI JAY JANI (PAN NO. AHYPJ 2554 K) 101, SURYAKIRAN FLATS, OPP, AVISHKAR COMPLEX, OP ROAD, BARODA - 390015 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL DHAKA, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : --NONE-- / DATE OF HEARING 28/07/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/07/2017 O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE FIVE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V, BARODA, DATE D 09/06/2015 ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09 FOR DELETING T HE PENALTY OF RS.11,54,526/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMIL AR GROUNDS HAVE TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.11,54,526/- IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO POTRAY THE TRANSACTION REGARD ING THE GAIN ON SALE ON LAND/RIGHTS IN LAND AS CAPITAL GAIN WHERE AS THE EVIDENCES GATHERED BY AO GENUINELY PROVE IT TO BE B USINESS TRANSACTION WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CORRECT BY DELETING THE PENA LTY WHICH WAS LEVIED ON ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY HIMSELF. III. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME FOR WHICH PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS LEVIABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY TRIED TO PAY LESS TAX BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEREB Y MAKING IT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSEE AND OTHER FIVE MEMBERS OF JANI FAMILY CAME TOGETHER, SIGNED AN MOU FOR SALE OF SANKARDA LAND. THE TOTAL CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED WAS RS.3,95,14,188/-. OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION, PAYMENT S FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WERE MADE AND ALSO OTHER PAYMENTS WHICH WERE CLAIME D TO BE FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF VARIOUS RIGHTS. THE PAYMENT FOR S O CALLED RIGHTS WAS RS.2.60 CRORE. SHRI ARVIND D. JANI, WHO IS THE PRIM E PERSON IN THIS DEAL, HAS BEEN DOING THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING AND SELLI NG RIGHTS IN LAND SINCE ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - LONG AND HAS BEEN SHOWING BUSINESS INCOME THERE FRO M, CLAIMING PURCHASE OF RIGHTS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE PR ECEDING YEARS. HOWEVER, THIS YEAR, THE GAIN ON SALE OF LAND/RIGHTS IN LAND, WHICH IS OF SIMILAR NATURE, HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAIN, INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE MAJOR ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHE R THE TRANSACTION WAS ONE GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAIN, AS CLAIMED AND WHE THER THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS W ERE ACTUALLY AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD T HE TRANSACTION AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION, AFTER ANALYZING THE SAME AND LOOKING TO THE PAST TRANSACTIONS OF IDENTICAL NATURE ENTERED INTO BY SH RI ARVIND D. JANI, WHICH WERE SHOWN AS 'BUSINESS' BY HIM. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE TWO LAND DEALS ARE AS UNDER:- (A) SANKARDA LAND:- THE LAND AT SANKARDA BEARING SURVEY NO.39 TO 130, MOUJE SAKARDA, TAL & DIST:- BARODA BELONGING T O SAKARDA SAYUKAT KHETAI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. SHRI ARVIND D. JANI HAS BEEN GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY BY A REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED 07/08/2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID R S.1,00,000/- IN CASH ON 12/04/2007 FOR THIS PURPOSE AND SHERNO L TD. NIRAYU PVT. LTD (TO WHOM THIS LAND IS SOLD) HAVE RESPECTIV ELY PAID RS.22,66,000/- ON 29/10/2007 AND RS.23,00,000/- ON 30/08/2007 DIRECTLY TO SAKARDA SANYUKH KETI SAHKARI MANDALI LT D. PART OF THIS LAND IS SOLD TO SHRENO LTD. BY SALE DEED DATED 29/1 0/2007, FOR RS.1,82,58,995/- AND PART SOLD TO NIRAYU PVT. LTD. BY SALE DEED DATED 30/08/2007 FOR RS.1,85,35,193/-. ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - AS NARRATED ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF RIGHT BY THE ASSESS EE IS IN THE FORM OF POA I.E. KABULAT ON RS.100 STAMP PAPER. THE DOCU MENTS ARE NOT A REGISTERED ONE. FURTHER ASSESSES HAS CLAIMED HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS FOR LEAVING THE RIGHT. DALPATBHAI MANGALBHAI CHAVDA RS. 20,00,000/- LALIT B PATEL RS. 20,00,000/- BHIKHUBHAI RATHOD RS. 35,00,000/- DIWAKAR SHETTY RS. 37,00,000/- JITENDRA SHAH RS. 26,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE WITH ANY SUBSTANTIATE EVIDENCE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR LEAVING THE RIGHTS. FROM TH E ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED RIGHTS IN THE SAKARD A LAND THROUGH POA DATED 07.08.2007, WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD OFF ON 30/8/2 007 AND 29/10/2007. THERE IS NO SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY POA. THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE HAS PAID RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS THE RIGHT OF THESE LAND AND B ALANCE OF RS.23,00,000/- AND RS.22,66,000/- WERE PAID BY THE ULTIMATE PURCHASER OF THE LAND I.E NIRAYU PVT. LTD. AND SHRE NO LTD. THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DOES NOT HAVE THE NAME OF THE RI GHT HOLDERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE PRO FIT EARNED FROM THE SALE OF LAND WAS HIS 'BUSINESS INCOME' AND SINCE TH E PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH WERE DISALLOWED U/S.40 A (3) OF THE AC T. (B) KANTIKALA LAND:- LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.49/1 M OJE SAKARD, TAL & DIST BARODA ADMEASURING 13695 SQ.MTR BELONGIN G TO LEGAL HEIRS OF KANTIKALA VIZ CHIMAN JENBAHI, GANPATSINH J ENABHAI, ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - MANCHABEN SARDARSANG, DHIRSING SARDARSANG, SANGEETA BEN SARDASANG, KAILASBHAI SARDARSAND AND SHAILESHBHAI S ARDARSANG. THESE LEGAL HEIRS HAVE GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY TO SHRI ARVIND D JANI, VIDE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED 07/08/2007. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID RS.92,00,000/- FOR THE LAND INC LUDING RS.27,20,000/- PAID BY NIRAYU PVT. LTD. DIRECTLY. T HIS LAND WAS SOLD TO NIRAYU PVT. LTD. BY REGISTERED SALE DEED DA TED 06/11/2007 FOR RS.27,20,000/-. SIMILARLY IN THIS DEALING ALSO THE CLAIM OF RIGHT B Y THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE FORM OF POA. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS FOR LEAVING THE RIGHT. KANTIKAL & OTHERS RS.92,00,000/- AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SU MMONS WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ALLEGED PARTIES WHO HAVE RECEIVED CAS H ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVING THEIR RIGHTS. IN THE POA IT IS CLEARLY MENT IONED THAT RIGHTS OF THE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FOR AN UNSPECIFIED C ONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY RECEIVED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE AO HELD THAT THE PROFIT EARNED FROM THE SALE OF LAND WAS HIS BUSINE SS INCOME AND SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH WERE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN TOTAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.2.60 CRORES IN AGGREGATE AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE I.E. L/6 TH OF RS.43,33,333/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED SEPARATELY. ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BARODA. THE LD. C1T(A)-II, BARODA HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGH TLY TAXED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SAKARDA LAND AND KANTIKALA LAND AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.1,00,000/- C ASH IN RESPECT OF SANKARDA LAND ON 12/07/2007 AND IT ATTRACT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ENHANCED DISALLOWANCE BY R S.1,00,000/- I.E.16,666/- (1/6 TH OF 1,00,000/-). FURTHER, THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA HAS POINTED THAT THERE WAS ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE I.E. TH E AO INSTEAD OF TAKING 2.30 CRORES CASH PAYMENT WRONGLY TAKEN RS.2.60 CROR ES AND WORKED DISALLOWANCE AT RS.43,33,333/- IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS.1, 00,000/- MADE BY CIT(A) AND THE ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE OF RS.30,00,000 /- AND REDUCING RS.27,20,000/- AS COST OF KANTIKALA LAND, NET AGGRE GATE DISALLOWANCE COMES TO RS.2,03,80,000/- AND ASSESSEES 1/6 TH SHARE COMES TO RS.33,96,333/-, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, BARODA. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE AND FAMILY MEMBERS HAD OBTAINED TH E RIGHTS IN BOTH THE LAND BY WAY OF POA. THEY HAD NOT BECOME THE FUL L FLEDGED OWNER OF THE LANDS. SO THE EXPENDITURE IF ANY RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS ETC BY OTHER PARTIES AT THE TIME OF SALE, WAS NOT THE LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE. THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF MANDALI STATING THAT THERE WE RE A FEW UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHRI ARVIND D JANI TO CLEAR IT FROM THEM HAS LITTLE EVIDENTIARY VALUE, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - ASSESSING OFFICER. IT ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS STATED IN THE POA GIVING RIGHTS TO SHRI ARVIND D JANI AS WELL AS THE STATED IN THE SALE DEED WHICH ARE THAT. THE LAND IS STATED TO BE FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES AND WITHOUT ANY DISPUTES FROM ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY. THE SELLING PARTY AND CONFIRMING PARTY ASSURE THAT THEY HAVE NOT SOLD MORTGAGED, SHIFTED OR TRANSFERRED TO ANYBODY O R NOT MADE ANY ENCUMBRANCES, WHATSOEVER. LAND IS SELF OCCUPIED, INDEPENDENT, VACANT AND IS P EACEFUL PHYSICAL POSSESSION. THE LAND IS WITHOUT ANY IRRIGATION FACILITY AND AS ON DATE THERE IS NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHATSOEVER. THERE IS NO MENTION, WHATSOEVER ABOUT ANY ENCROACHM ENTS, TENANCIES, OR RIGHTS OF ANY OTHER PERSON WHICH TAKES THE EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED AWAY AND OUT OF THE REALM OF COST FOR THESE TRANSACTIONS . 2.4 WHETHER THERE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SUCH AN EXPENDI TURE IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS CLEARLY BROUG HT OUT THAT THE FACT OF PAYMENT TO THE STATED PARTIES, FOR THE PURPOSE CLAI MED, HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSU ED SUMMONS TO THESE PERSONS, ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT MOST O F THE SUMMONS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE ONES SERVED, NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE CASE OF SHR I DIWAKAR SHETTY, ONLY HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS SENT WHERE NO INCOME WAS I N FROM THE RIGHTS RELINQUISHED. THUS THE FACT OF PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSES. ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 2.5 EVEN PERUSING THAT THOSE PERSONS HAD SOME RIGHT S IN THE LAND, WHICH ON PAYMENT WAS RELINQUISHED BY THEM, THE TRAN SACTING PARTIES SHOULD HAVE GOT THEM TO SIGN THE SALE DEED FOR ACKN OWLEDGING THE RELINQUISHMENT. THE SALE DEED DOES NOT CARRY THE SI GNATURE OF ANY OF THEM, WHICH OPENS THE DEAL OF CHALLENGE BY THEM WHI CH ANY PRUDENT PURCHASES/SELLER WOULD AVOID AT ALL COST. 2.6 FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH, PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40A(3) APPLY AS THE LAND DEALS ARE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, AND NO T TRANSACTIONS IN CAPITAL ASSETS, AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH S. SUCH CASH PAYMENTS SUFFER FROM THIS DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3), OVER AND ABOVE THE DISQUALIFICATION THAT THEIR BUSINESS PURPOSE HAS NO T BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME FROM SALE OF THESE LANDS IS TO BE BROUG HT TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME. 2.7 AS NARRATED DETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, BARODA. NO ADJOURNMENT OR SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ANYTHING IN THIS MATTER. IN ABSENCE ANY SUBMISSION, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WER E FINALIZED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, LEARNED A CIT WAS SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND C ONCEALED HIS INCOME THEREBY COMMITTED A DEFAULT PUNISHABLE U/S.271(1)(C ) THE IT ACT, 1961 AND PENALTY OF RS.11,54,526/- WAS IMPOSED. ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY AND ALLOWED THE APPE ALS OF THE APPELLANTS BY HOLDING THAT THE FACTS OF THE PROVISION CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD., [2010] 230 CTR 320 (SC), IN THIS ORDER SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL WHERE IN IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS AND MADE WITH MALA FIDE INTENTIONS. HON BLE APEX COURT, WHILE REJECTING THE DEPTS ARGUMENTS, STATED THAT M ERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT , ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). IT WAS HELD THAT IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE I S NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. 3.2 LEARNED CIT FURTHER DISCUSSED A MATTER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHAVI IRRIGATION (P) LTD. [2011] 244 CTR 596 (DEL) , HELD THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE MORE SO WHEN ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE SAID CLAIM WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. LEARNED CIT HAS PASSED THE DETAILED ORDER AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ITA NOS.2683 , 2684, 2686, 2687 & 2688/AHD/2015 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT . 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/07/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/07/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !'!#$ % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % &' / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA. 5. ()* ++#$ , #$ , -.' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. */01 GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (+ //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 28/07/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 7 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31/07/2017 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK31/0 7/2017 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