The ACIT,Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Resham Petrotech Ltd., SILVASSA

ITA 2777/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 277720514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: O P MODY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Deemed dividend; Procedural lapse; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHM EDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHBRAWAT AND SHRI A.L. GHE LOT) I.T.A. NO.2777 /AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, ROOM NO.303, SHIVAMCOMMERCIAL COMPLEX, N.H. NO.8, VAPI. TAL.KILLAPARDI, DIST.VALSAD. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD., SURVEY NO.910/4/2/2/, VILLAGE DOKMARDI,AMLI, SILVASSSA. (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.288 /AHD/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2777/ AHD/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007) M/S. RESHAM PETROCHEM LTD., SURVEY NO.910/4/2/2/, VILLAGE DOKMARDI,AMLI, SILVASSSA. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, ROOM NO.303, SHIVAMCOMMERCIAL COMPLEX, N.H. NO.8, VAPI. TAL.KILLAPARDI, DIST.VALSAD (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCR 3231 J ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. MR. ALOK JOHRI & MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL , SR. D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MR. O.P. MODY. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 11-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-02-2012 IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 PER: SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)- VALSAD IN APP EAL NO. CIT (A)/VLS/258/10-11 DATED 25-8-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW,. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AS INVALID AND WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22 ) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,15,72,981/-. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION ARE IN SUP PORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IS THAT THE CIT (A) ERR ED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT COM PANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON25-11-2006, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5 6,02,893/-. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO THE INCOME RETURNED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED AND THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS RS.58,90,900/-.THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ACIT CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 29-06- IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3 2009. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS SERVED TO THE APPELLA NT AT THE ADDRESS 95, JOR BAGH, LST FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110003. THE APPELLANT CONTEST ED AGAINST THE RE-OPENING PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI STATING THAT THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED WITH ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI GUJARAT. THE RE-ASSESSMENT FILE WAS SENT BY THE ACIT CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI TO ACI T, VAPI FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE AO I.E. ACIT VAPI CIRCLE, COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WITHOUT FURTHER RECORDING THE REASONS OR ISSUING 148 NOTICE IN SPITE OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. WHILE COMPLE TING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147/148 OF THE ACT, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2 (22) (E) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,15,72, 891/- AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,74,63,600/-. 5. THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY AO WAS WITHOUT JURISDIC TION. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS NEITHER RECORDED THE REASONS NOR ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW IS MANDATORY AND AO HAS FAILED ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE CIT (A) ALSO EXA MINED THE ISSUE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW WHETHER IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASS ESSMENT CAN BE QUA OR IRREGULAR ASSESSMENT OR IT IS TO NULLIFY. THE CIT (A) RELYING ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHIRENDRA NATH GORAI VS. SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSH AIR 1964 (SC) 1300 AND JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ASHTOSH SIKDAR VS. BHIHARILAL R. LIIRTANIA (1997) ILR 35 ( CAL ) 61 (FB). 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTI CE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 13-12-2010 OF WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 9 AND 10 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT NEW DELHI AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IS ALSO AT NEW DELH I. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 4 OF THE ACT DATED 29-6-2009 WAS ISSUED BY ACIT NEW D ELHI AND THE AO OF VAPI ISSUED NOTICE DATED 13-10-2010.THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED FORM FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE LE TTER DATED 13-12-2010 WHEREIN THE AO HAS CLEARLY STATED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE SAID LETTER FULLY SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS OF THE NOTICE, THERE FORE, THE CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT REOPENING WAS ILLEGAL AS NO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT SUCH TYPE OF MISTAKE IS CURABLE U/S. 292BB OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RE SPONSE TO SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ALSO AND AL SO FURNISHED RELATED DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ALSO ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCORDINGLY MADE COMPLIANCE OF THE SAI D NOTICE. 7. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO HA RD AND FACT LINE CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN A NULLITY AND IRREGULARITY; IS DEVIAT ION FROM A RULE OF LAW WHICH DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FOUNDATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OR APPLY TO ITS WHOLE OPERATION. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT REOPENIN G IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THERE WAS NO UNLAWFUL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE CIT (A). 8. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING UNDER S ECTION 147 ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 THE LAW PROVIDED SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS. THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE AN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE AO IS R EQUIRED TO ACQUIRE CLEAR JURISDICTION BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THERE IS NO NOTICE U/S.148 BY THE JURISDICTIO NAL AO. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IS A MANDATORY PROV ISION AND NOT PROCEDURAL ONE. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 5 SINCE THE AO HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATOR Y PROVISION THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- (1) CIT VS. KURBAN HUSSEIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA (82 ITR 821) (2) THREE JUDGE BENCH DECISION OF THE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF Y. NARAYANA V. ITO (35 ITR 388). 9. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT SOM E MORE DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN PLACED FROM PAGES 44 TO 80 OF ASSE SSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- (1) DR.(MRS.) K.B. KUMAR VS. ITO 131 TTJ 511(DELH I ITAT) (2) ITO VS. NASEMAN FARMS (P )LTD. 134 TTJ 47 2 (DELHI ITAT) (3) ITO VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA 35 TTJ 143 (JODHPUR) (4) RANJEET SINGH VS. ACIT 120 TTJ 517 (DEL) (5) CIT VS. SMT.ANJALI DUA (2008) 174 TAXMAN 72 (DELHI) (6) ITO VS. KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA (2008) 16 DTR (DEL) (TRIB.) 10. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO FURNISHED A LATEST JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMRITI KEDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA 339 ITR 37 (CAL.) AND SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IT HELD THAT THE NOT ICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY WAS ARBITRARY, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ILLEGAL. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 29-6-2009 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ACIT NEW DELHI AND THE SAME IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER :- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,19 61. OFFICE OF THE IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 6 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1), ROOM NO. 418, C/R/ BLDG., NEW DELHI . PAN NO. AABCR 3231J REGD. 10-7-09 DATRED 29-6-200 9 TO, M/S. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD., 95, JOR BAGH, LST FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110003. SIR, WHEREAS I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH YOU ARE ASSESSABLE CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO ASSESSEE/RE-ASSESS THE INCOME RE-COMPUTE LOSS/DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND I HEREBY REQUIRE Y OU TO DELIVER TO ME WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE, A RET URN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM OF YOUR INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH YO U ARE THE INCOME OF ASSESSABLE. THIS NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE NE CESSARY SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIR ECT TAXES. SD/- (B. SRINIVAS KUMAR) SEAL. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI. 12. THE JURISDICTIONAL AO OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED 148 PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING LETTER DATED 13-12-2010 AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 7 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI. 303 SHIVAM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEAR P.F. OFFICE, N. H. NO.8, VAPI GUJARAT -396 191. TEL : [phone] --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- NO.ACIT /VAPI/ASSESSMENT 2010-11. 13-12-2010 TO THE DIRECTOR RESHAM PETROTECH LIMITED, SURVEY NO.910/4/2/2, AMLI DOKMARDI, SILVASSA-396 230. D & NH. SIR/MADAM, SUBJECT:- PROCEEDING U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T IN THE CASE OF OF RESHAM PETROTECH LIMITED. - KINDLY REFER TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED ON 29-6-2009 AND YOUR REPLY TO THE NOTICE MADE VIDE YOUR LETTER DATED 6-8-2009. 2. IN THIS REGARD, I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR KIND CON SIDERATION, THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 148 VIDE ISSUE OF NOTICE DATED 29-6-2009 ARE IN CONTINUING AND WILL GET TIME BARRED ON 31-12-2010. SO, YOUR CO-OPERATION IS REQUESTED AND ACCORDINGLY YOUR COMPLIANCE IS REQUES TED AS PER THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER MENTIONED AS UNDER. 3. IT IS HEREBY INFORMED THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE CASE OF M/S. RESHAMPOLYMERS PVT. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2006-07, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-15(1),DELHI THAT M/S. RESHAM POLYME RS PVT. LTD. HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.1.15 CR TO M/S. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD. THE RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF M/S. RESHAM POLYMERS LTD., AS ON 31-3-2005 STOOD TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.25 CR. THEREFORE, THE FACTS REQUIRE THE UNDERSIGNED TO TREAT THE SUM SO ADVANCED, AMOUNTING TO RS.1.15 CR BY M/S./ RESHAM POLYMERS LTD., TO YOU I. E. M/S. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD. AS YOUR INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 U/S. 2 (22)(E) . SINCE, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THE IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 8 SAME IN YOUR RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE, IT IS CASE WHERE, INCOME HAS ESCAPED TO ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.15 CR. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS PER THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO SHOW OR TO EXPLAI N, AS TO WHY THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD NOT TAKEN IN YOUR CASE. YOU REPLY ON THE ABO VE MUST REACH THIS OFFICE ON 20- 12-2010 FAILING WHICH, I WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE B UT TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 UN DER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. 5. I HOPE THAT, YOU WOULD LIKE TO AVAIL THIS OPPOR TUNITY, AND THIS MAY BE TREATED AS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND NOTICE U/S. 148 SEEKING YO UR EXPLANATION ON THE ABOVE. 6. PLEASE NOTE THAT ON 20-12-2010 ASSESSMENT WILL B E COMPLETED AS PER THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPOSITION IN CASE YOU FAIL TO ATT END OR MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE ON 20-12-2010. YOURS TRULY, SEAL. SD/- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI. 13. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE AOS LETTER DATED 13-12-20 10 THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- RPL RESHAM PETROTECH LIMITED REGD.OFFICE: 95, JOR BAGH, 1 ST FLOOR,NEW DELHI-110 003. FAX: [phone] WORKS: SURVEY NO.910/4/2/2,VILLAGE DOKMARDI,AMLI, SILVASSA-396 230 (U.T. OF D & N H). TEL. [phone], TELEFAX:0 260 -2644827, E-MAIL : [e-mail]. DATE:- 20-12-2010. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 9 SIR, SUB :- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S. 148 IN THE CASE O F M/S. RESHAM PETROTECH LTD., FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. - --- WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED 13-12-2010 A SKING US TO REPLY AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) MAY NOT BE APPLIED AND THE ALLEGED LOAN BE NOT TREATED AS DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER DATED 13-12-2010 WAS RECEIVED FROM YOUR GOOD SELF ON 18-12-2010 BY SPEED POST AND DATE FIXED FOR HEARING IS 20-12-2010 WHICH TIME IS HIGHLY INADEQUATE MORE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN BETWEEN SU NDAY BEING HOLIDAY. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT FURTHER TIME OF 8 DAYS MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED SO THAT REPLY MAY BE FILED ON MERITS. HOWEVER, IT IS SUBMITTED UNDER PR OTEST THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDING IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ARE NOT VALI D AND THIS MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS OUR OBJECTION UNDER THE ACT, INTERALIA, INCLUDIN G IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 292 BB. IT IS SUBMITTED FURTHER UNDER PROTE ST THAT THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IN OUR CASE AND NO ALLEGED INCOME CAN BE TAXED IN OUR HANDS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS LAW ABIDI NG CITIZEN WE ARE SUBMITTING FOLLOWING DETAILS IN THE MEANTIME - 1. COPY OF ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ORIGINAL U/S./ 139 (1) MAY BE TREATED AS FILED NOW IN RESPONSE TO THIS PROCEEDINGS. 2. COPY OF REASONS RECORDED IF ANY MAY KINDLY BE PR OVIDED SO THAT NECESSARY COMPLIANCE CAN BE MADE BY US. 3. THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOAN AND ADVANCES AND THE SAME IS NOT OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE SUBMISSION AND FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS MAY KIND LY BE DROPPED BEING ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO FACTS OR TIME OF EIGHT (8 DAYS) MAY KINDLY BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW US TO SUBMIT OUR REPLY AND FURTHER DETAILS AS MAY BE R EQUIRED BY YOUR GOODSELF. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 10 WE SHALL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR M/S. RASHAM PETROTECH LTD., SD/- (MANAGER ACCOUNTS) 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITIO N A LIMITED ISSUE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LETTER DATED 13-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE AO IS A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT OR NOT? 15. FOR EXAMINING THIS ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO S EE THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD. S ECTION 147 PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RE COMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALL OWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED .PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION A FTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 11 MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR T HAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR RE ASSESS SUCH INCOME, OTHER THAN THE INCOME INVOLVING MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF ANY APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION, WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX A ND HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 16. SECTION 148. (1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT B EFORE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 147, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FUR NISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN T HE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTH ER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, S O FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURN ISHED UNDER SECTION 139. SUB SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHA LL, BEFORE ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION, RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO . 17. WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS AND SCHEM E OF THE ACT THAT IN REOPENING OF A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT THERE IS NOTHING ARBITRAR Y ABOUT ANY OF THESE PROVISIONS AND THAT RIGOROUS CHECKS AND CONTROLS HAVE BEEN PRO VIDED ON THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE AO TO INITIATE AN ACTION FOR RE-ASSESSMENT. IN THE FOREFRONT OF THESE CHECKS AND CONTROLS IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO ISSUE PROPER NOTICE. 18. IT WILL BE SEEN THAT S. 148 OF THE ACT CONTAINS A BUILT-IN-SAFEGUARD FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THAT IT MAKES IT OBLIGATORY ON THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DISCLOSE TO THE ASSESSEE THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT PROP OSES TO REASSESS HIS INCOME AND IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 12 THEN GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND EXP LAINING THAT MATERIAL. THE OTHER CHECKS AND CONTROLS ON THE POWER OF THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY ARE ENACTED IN SS. 149 TO 153 OF THE ACT. WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT SS. 147 AND 148 CONTAIN DELEGATION OF ARBITRARY AND UNCONTROLLE D POWER OF THE ITO TO RE-OPEN AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY REASON. 19. THOUGH SS.147 AND 148 OF THE ACT CONTAIN ALL TH E NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS ENSURING FAIR PLAY TO AN ASSESSEE, WE ARE NOT UNMIN DFUL OF A SITUATION WHEREIN AN ITO, IF HE IS DETERMINED TO ACT IN AN ARBITRARY MAN NER, MAY RECORD REASONS IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THUS ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITIATING ACTION FOR REASSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME. NOW, IF THAT BE SO, ONE CANNOT CONDEMN THE STATUTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MERELY BECAUSE THE ITO HAS IGNORED THE PRINCIPLES E NUNCIATED THEREIN FOR REGULATING THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION. WHAT SHO ULD BE STRUCK DOWN IN SUCH A SITUATION IS THE ACTION OF THE ITO RATHER THAN STAT UTE WHICH HE IGNORED IN TAKING AN ILLEGAL ACTION. 20. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING A CASE, KUBANHUSSEIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA V CIT 68 ITR 407 (GUJ) REFERRED A JUD GMENT OF BOMABY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RAMSUKH MOTILAL 27 ITR 5 4 (BOMB) AND NOTED AS UNDER (PAGE 413 OF ITR 68):- .IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO GIVE NO TICE OR A DEFECT IN A NOTICE UNDER S. 22 IS A PROCEDURAL DEFECT; IN THE CASE OF S. 34 IT IS NOT A PROCEDURAL DEFECT BUT IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. AT PAGE 59 OF THE REPORT, CHAGLA C.J. DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS (1955) 27 ITR 54: IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 13 THAT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO WHETH ER FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE UNDER S.34 IS MERELY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT OR WHETHER IT IS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON BY THE ITO. AT PAGE 62 (1955) 27 ITR 54 OF THE REPORT, CHAGLA C.J. HAS DEALT WITH A JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF AGRI. VS. SULTAN ALI (1951) 20 ITR 432 (CAL), AND AFTER DEALING WITH THAT JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, CHAGLA C.J. HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CHIEF JUSTICE I N THAT CASE TAKES THE VIEW THAT A NOTICE UNDER S. 34 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. BUT HAVING HELD THAT A PR OPER NOTICE UNDER S.34 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON OF LD. CHIEF JUSTICE GOES ON TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF WAIVER AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE HE HOLDS THERE IS NO WAIVER. WITH VERY GREAT RESPECT TO THE LD. CHIEF JU STICE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THERE CAN BE A WAIVER OF THE CONDITION PRECEDEN T, COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH ALONE CAN CONFER JURISDICTION UPON AN AUTHORITY OR A TRIBUNAL. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO CONSENT CAN CONFER JURISDICTION UPON A COURT IF THE COURTS HAS NO JURISDICTION, AND IF WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE ITO CAN HAVE JURIS DICTION ONLY PROVIDED HE COMPLIES WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN S. 34, TH EN NO CONSENT BY THE ASSESSEE OR NO WAIVER ON HIS PART CAN CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE ITO. 21. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE BACK GROUND OF DISCUSSION S LET US SEE THE FACTS NOTED FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED ALONG WITH APPEAL PAPER BY THE REVENUE WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TREATED THE ORDER AS NULLITY. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. A VERY FINE LINE SEPARATES THE IRREGULARITY FROM NU LLITY. AN IRREGULARITY IS DEVIATION FROM A RULE OF LAW WHICH DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE FOU NDATION OR AUTHORITY FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OR APPLY TO ITS WHOLE OPERATION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 14 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, THE ACIT VAPI C IRCLE VAPI IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(7A) OF THE ACT, WHO IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IS VESTED WITH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION INCLUDING POWER TO ASSUME AND EXERCISE REASSESSMENT JURISDICTION. FOR THAT MATTER, THIS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT 148 PROCEED INGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI WERE ALLOWED TO BE CONTINUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT VAPI RESULTING IN PASSING OF OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE ACIT VAPI CIRCL,VAPI. THUS, IT CAN BE TREATED AS IRREGULARITY ON THE PART OF ACIT VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI BY NOT ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AGAIN. HOWEVER, T HE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL A.O. AND WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHO ALSO PRODUCED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THERE FORE, THE RE-OPENING OF THE CASE HAS BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THERE WAS NO LA WFUL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT (A ). THE WHOLE PERCEPTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS FACTUALLY WRONG. 22. APART FROM ADMISSION BY REVENUE THAT IT CAN BE TREATED AS IRREGULARITY ON THE PART OF ACIT VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI BY NOT ISSUING NOTIC E U/S.148 OF THE ACT AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE WER E TRANSFERRED FROM DELHI TO VAPI. CONTRARY TO THAT IT IS NOTICED THAT THE VAPI AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 13-12- 2010 CONTINUED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 ISSUED ON 2 9-6-2009 WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 6-8-2009. THE REVENUE EMPHASIZED THAT LETTER DT. 13-12-2010 IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE A CT. THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE ON ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH ARGUMENT THE WHOLE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED IN SECTION 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED ABOV E WILL BE COLLAPSED. UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE HOW ONE CAN SAY THAT THE JURISDICTIONA L AO HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION TO RE-ASSESS THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HOW IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 15 IT CAN BE SAID THE REASONS RECORDED BY OTHER AO WAS SATISFACTION TO JURISDICTIONAL AO. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING MUST BE RECORDED BY J URISDICTIONAL AO BECAUSE HE IS KEEPING ALL RELEVANT AND PRIMARY RECORD. THE BAS IC REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A NY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUCH BELIEF MUST BE THE BELIEF OF JURISDICTIONAL AO AND NOT ANY OTHER AO OR AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREF ORE, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE AOS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 DEPENDS UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A VALID NOTICE. IF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM IS INVALI D FOR ANY REASON THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY HIM WOULD BECOME VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 23. ONE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THER E IS NO PRESCRIBED FORM OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 OF THE ACT, WE ARE AWARE TH AT THERE IS NO STANDARD FORM OF NOTICE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, ALL THA T IS REQUIRED THAT IS REQUIRED IT SHOULD CONTAIN ALL REQUIREMENTS STATED IN THE RELEV ANT PROVISIONS FOR WHICH IT IS ISSUED. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAF TS (INDIA) LTD VS. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) LAY DOWN THE LAW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY AO WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF NOTICES TO B E SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, MENTIONING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THEIR OBJECTIONS AS REQUIRED U/S. 148(2) ARE NOT LE GALLY VALID. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSI ON OF REVENUE THAT LETTER DATED 13-12-2010 GIVEN TO ASSESSEE BY VAPI AO IS TO TREA T NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WE THEREFORE REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. 24. ANOTHER ASPECT OF CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SUCH IRREGULARITIES CAN BE CURED UNDER SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. TO EXAMINE TH IS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN AN Y PROCEEDING OR CO-OPERATED IN IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 16 ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OB JECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: ON PLAIN READING OF SECTION OF 292BB WE FIND THAT T HE SAID SECTION IS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROCEDURAL LAPSES IN RESPECT SERVICE OF NOT ICE. BUT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION IS OF ACQUISITION OF JUR ISDICTION WHICH IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) DISCUSSED THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER OF IRREGULARITY AND NULLITY IN DETAIL. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION LAPSES ON THE PART OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS IRREGULARITY BUT IT IS NULLITY. SOME OF THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT IN THIS REGARDS ARE AS UNDER:- THE ITO ALONE IS ENTRUSTED WITH THE POWER TO ADMIN ISTER THE ACT; IF HE HAS INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT MAYBE SAID, PRIMA FACIE, THAT HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE HIGH COURT, EXERCISING POWERS UNDER ART 226 OF THE CONST ITUTION, TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE THE NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT OR A REAPPRAISAL OF THE E VIDENCE [ CIT VS. A.RAMAN & CO., (1968) 67 ITR 1 (SC) TCS 51R 423 AFFIRMING DEC ISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN A. RAMAN & CO. VS. ITO (1966) 59 ITR 290 ( GUJ.) TC 51R 429 ]. THE ITO HIMSELF SHOULD FORM THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEN ONLY HE CAN REOPEN AN ASSESSMEN T. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT WOULD BE INVALID [CIT VS. T. R. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 17 RAJKUMARI (1973) 96 ITR78 (MAD.): TC 51R 430].THE R EQUISITE BELIEF U/S.147 MUST BE THAT OF THE ITO CONCERNED AND NOT OF ANY OTHER O FFICER. IF THE ITO DOES NOT FORM, HIS OWN BELIEF BUT MERELY ACT AT THE BEHEST OF ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECT ION 148 WAS BAD FOR NON- SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT [ SHEO NAR AIN JASWAL & ORS. VS. ITO & ORS.(1989) 176 ITR 352 (PAT.); TC 51R 432.. SEE ALS O VISHAL SWARUP AGRAWILLA VS. ITO 1976 CTR (CAL.) 296: TC 51R 432A AND CHUNNILAL ONKARMAL (PVT) LTD.,(1983) 349 ITR380 (MP): TC 51R 435]. 25 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS WE FIND T HAT IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT NO CONSENT CAN CONFER JURISDICTION UPON A COURT IF THE COURTS HAS NO JURISDICTION, AND IF WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE AO CAN HAVE JURISDICTI ON ONLY PROVIDED HE COMPLIES WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTIONS 147 AND 1 48 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE AO. WE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE. 26 AS REGARDS THE MERIT OF THE CASE WHICH HA S BEEN RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY REVENUE, THE CIT (A) DID DEALT WITH THE I SSUE AS HE HAS DENIED THE LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON LEGAL ISSUE THEREFORE, WE ARE ALSO NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPI NION ON MERIT OF THE CASE. 27 THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON LEGAL ISSUE, THEREFORE, C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE BECOME ANFRA CTUOUS. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 18 28. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 - 02- 2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (A. L.GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-VALSAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. IT A NO.2777/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.28 8/AHD/2011. AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 19 1.DATE OF DICTATION 07 - 02-2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 08/02/ 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 08 -02 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 10-02 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 10 -02-2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 3- 02-2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..