The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad V. Vasupujya Arcade (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2696/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89725 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S)/CO NOS. ASSESS- MENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S)/COS BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2 695 /AHD/2011 2005-06 THE ITO WARD-8(4) AHMEDABAD M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. 203, VASUPUJYA GALAXY LINE B/H.SAMARTHESHWAR MAHADEV TEMPLE LAW GARDEN AHMEDABAD-380006 PAN:AACCV0143J 2. CO NO. 286 /AHD/11 (IN ITA 2695/A/11) 2005-06 ASSESSEE REVENUE 3. 2 696 /AHD/2011 2005-06 REVENUE ASSESSEE 4. CO NO. 287 /AHD/11 (IN ITA 2696/A/11) 2005-06 ASSESSEE REVENUE REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : -NONE- '# $ %& / DATE OF HEARING 29/06/2015 '()* $ %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/07/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS (QUANTUM AND PENALTY) BY THE REVE NUE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE THEREOF ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-XIV, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) BOTH IDENTICALLY DATED 02/08/2 011 ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY) 2005-06. BOTH THE APPEALS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES QUANTUM APPEAL I N ITA NO.2695/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06. THE REVENUE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI V, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTIN G TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY APPLYING THE PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE W.I.P. OF RS.9,42,319/- INSTEAD OF PROFIT RATE ADOPTED @ 1% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY PRO FIT ON LAND TRANSACTIONS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO COMM ERCIAL VENTURE AND THE ULTIMATE OWNERS OF THE PREMISES WER E NEITHER ORIGINAL SHARE HOLDER OF THE COMPANY NOR THE PROMOT ERS. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDA BAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASID E AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTO RED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/08/2007, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT AT RS.17,16,075/- AS AGA INST THE TOTAL NET LOSS AS PER P&L ACCOUNT. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL, WHEREBY TH E LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE PROFIT RATE TO 8% AS AGAINST 15% OF THE CONTRAC T RECEIPTS. 3. THE LD.SR.DR WAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING TH E ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRME D THE FINDING OF THE AO. 3.1. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEV ER WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23/03/15 HAS BEEN FILED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE AO HAS APPLIED 15% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 8%. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN AN Y FINDING AS TO WHAT BASIS OF 15% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS WAS TAKEN AS THE PROFIT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.3. DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD.AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHOULD BE TAXABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT IS CONSTRUCTING THE PR OJECT FOR ITS ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - SHARE HOLDER CUM MEMBERS. THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHA SED LAND DURING THE YEAR AND HAS SHOWN WORK IN PROGRESS OF R S.9,42,319/-. THE COST OF THE LAND HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE RS.98,96, 100/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT IS CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING TO ITS S HARE HOLDERS CUM MEMBERS, THE PROFIT ELEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LAND WILL NOT BE THERE. HOWEVER, THERE WOULD BE A PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE CON STRUCTION WORK THAT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ON THE L AND AS THE APPELLANT IS CHARGING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ON A LUM PSUM BASIS. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT RATE SHOULD BE APPLIED ON THE W.I.P. OF RS.9,.42,319/-. THE A.O. HAS APPLIED PROFIT RATE O F 15% ON THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE RATE APPLIED BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCE. NORM ALLY, THE RATE OF PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS ADOPTED @ 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ESTI MATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY APPLYING THE PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE W.I.P. OF RS.9,42,319/-. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY AL LOWED. 4.1. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD.SR.DR BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, GROUND NO.1 OF REV ENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NOS.2, 3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 6. AS A RESULT, REVENUES QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2695/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - 7. NOW, COMING TO THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIO N NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 (IN ITA NO.2695/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06) . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CROSS-OBJEC TION:- 1. THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAT THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.3.00 LACS, AND AS SUCH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMI SSED IN LIMINE IN VIEW OF BOARDS CIRCULAR. WITHOUT PREJDUICE : 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XIV HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERR ED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME BY APPLYING PROFIT RATE 8% ON WORK IN PROGRE SS. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN TAX ING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF I NCOME IN VIEW OF SECTION 4 AND ALSO UNDER PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 4. ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE OF RESPONDENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BE D ISMISSED. 5. YOUR CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER O R AMEND ANY OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS TILL THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEA RD AND DECIDED. 7.1. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23/03/2015 THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS E NCLOSED A COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/09/2011 GIVING EFFECT TO THE CIT(APP EALS)S ORDER. AS PER THIS ORDER, THE REVISED INCOME IS AT RS.4,24,13 1/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 23/03/2015 AT PAGE NO.23 OF THE PAPER- ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - BOOK HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS ESTIMATED @ 8% IS RS.75,586/-. TAX AS PER ORDER GIVING EFFECT ON RS. 75,586/- = RS.27,587/-. SINCE WE HAVE REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON MERIT, THEREFORE THIS GROUND HAS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE ONLY. THUS, T HIS GROUND OF CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 7.2. APROPOS TO OTHER GROUNDS, NEITHER ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS MADE NOR THE ASSESSEE REMAINED PRESENT DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION. THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE REJECTED FOR WANT OF PROPER PROSECUTION. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS- OBJECTION NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW, COMING TO THE REVENUES PENALTY APPEAL, I.E . ITA NO.2696/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06. THE REVENUE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENAL TY OF RS.7,00,000/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDA BAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASID E AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTO RED. ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - 8.1. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8.2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, HOWEVER W RITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23/03/2015 HAS BEEN FILED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SR.DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA-2.3 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3. DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD.AR OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE ALL GROUNDS O F APPEAL RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT A COMMON ADJUDICATION IS BEING DONE. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AS THE INC OME WAS ASSESSED BY HIM AT RS.17,14,395/- AS AGAINST A LOSS OF RS.1, 680/- SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT BELIEVING THAT THE RE IS NO INCOME AS HE WAS CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING FOR ITS SHARE HOLDER / MEMBERS DID NOT SHOW ANY INCOME FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. TH E A.O. AFTER EXAMINING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN O F INCOME AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD BE WORKED OUT AFTER APPLYING A RATE OF 15% O N THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT. IN MY OPINION THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN ALL THE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF IN COME AND THE ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO PRESENTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IT WAS HIS BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE HE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCO ME FROM THE ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT HIS CLAIM. TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE FIT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE APPELLANT DID NOT F URNISH ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR MISREPRESENTED ANY FACT IN HIS RETUR N OF INCOME. HE FURNISHED THE RETURN GIVING ALL THE FACTS. THEREFO RE, THERE IS NO ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. REPORTED I N 322 ITR 158 IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. ACCORDING TO THE DECISION, WHE RE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS WERE SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TS RETURN OF INCOME FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE W AS NO QUESTION OF INVOKING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). MERE MAKING OF CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9.1. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NO T BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD.SR.DR BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN AN Y FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS WERE SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY CON FIRMED. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTE D. 10. NOW, COMING TO THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION N O.287/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 (IN ITA NO.2696/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005 -06). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CR OSS OBJECTION:- 1. THAT THE LD.A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE APPELLANT HOLDING IT NOT ACCEPTABLE AND FURTHER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS BONAFIDE, THEREFORE PEN ALTY ORDER CANCELLED BY LD.CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED BY A.O. BY APPLYING SECTION 145(3) ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND AS SUCH PENAL TY ORDER ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - PASSED BY LD.AO U/S.271(1)(C) AND CANCELLED BY LD.C IT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FOR ITS CLAIM AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCE PTED DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE P ENALTY ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.7,00,000/- CANCELLED B Y LEARNED CIT IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BE DISMISSED. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDER ING FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND HENC E APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. YOUR RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS TILL THE APPEAL IS FINALLY AND HEA RD AND DECIDED. 10.1. THIS CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE IS IN SUPPO RT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUES A PPEAL(SUPRA), THEREFORE, THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E THEREOF HAS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS THEREOF ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 9 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/ 07 /2015 /%..', .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.2695 & 2696/AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.286 & 287/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE ) RESPEC TIVELY ITO VS. M/S.VASUPUJYA ARCADE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - !'#'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 01 / THE APPELLANT 2. 2301 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 45467 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 9: 2'67 , % 67* , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <# / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 39 2 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 06.07.2015 (DICTATION-PAD 8- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..06.7.2015 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.9.7.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 9.7.15 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