Shri Raj Bholabhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The AddlCIT.,Cent.Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2779/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 277920514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH SR DR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2779-2781/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS :1997-98 & 2001-02 RAJ BHOLABHAI PATEL 19, SUNRISE PARK, DRIVE IN ROAD, AHMEDABAD [ PAN NO.AAYPP0206D ] V/S . ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE-1, AYARKR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI PRITESH SHAH, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI D.K SINGH, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 09-11-2012 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23-11-2012 ' ' ' ' / // / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-I, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) OF DATED I.E. 27-08-2009 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 1997-98 AND 2001-02. ALL THESE ARE HEARD TOGETHER A ND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY CONSOLIDATE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.2779/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 97-9 8. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND OF HIS APPEA L:- (1) THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY RS.7,50,000/- U/S 271D R.W.S 269SS OF THE ACT WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES OF THE CASE. YOUR APPELLANT PRA Y TO DELETE THE SAID PENALTY AFTER VERIFICATION OF FACTS & EVIDENCES. ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE STATED IN PARA-2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.7,50,000/- ON 14.06.1996 FROM ONE PER SON, VIZ., SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA. THESE CASH DEPOSITS WERE RECE IVED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE I.T. AT. ACCORDINGLY, THE M ATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE JT./ADDL/ COMMISSIONER OF THE RANGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2007 HAS LEVIED PE NALTY OF RS.7,50,000/- U/S. 271B OF THE I.T ACT FOR VIOLATIO N OF THE PREVISIONS OF SECTION269SS OF THE I.T. ACT. LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NO W ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US . 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT A SUM OF RS.7.50 LAKH ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN CASH FROM SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA AND MR. BHOLABHAI V PATEL, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A COP Y OF THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS ASKED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BUT THE SAME WAS NOT GIVEN. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMIN ATION OF SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA WAS NOT GIVEN. HE SUBMITTED TH AT WITHOUT GIVING COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI PRA DHANSINGH CHHABDA THE PENALTY OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED. HE RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT FOR NON-GIVING OP PORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSON WHOSE STATEMENT IS USED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KERALA V. V.K.T.SUADULI GROCERY DEALER 39 ITR 478; KISHINCHAND CHELARAM V. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC) AND KARLA GLUE FACTORY V. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL & ORS. (1987) 167 ITR 498(SC). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE BASI C EXEMPTION OF RS.20,000/- ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 3 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY AO IN VIEW OF TWO CASE LA WS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT. V. AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS (2003) 264 ITR 505 (RAJ) AND HONBLE CO-ORDINATE CHANDIGADH BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE O F RAVI IRON &SCRAP CO. V. DCIT (2001) 70 TTJ 263 (CHD). ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-D R STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED TH AT IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA ON 11-10-2006 THAT CASH L OAN OF RS.7.50 LAKH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT D EMONSTRATED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR OBTAINING SUCH LOAN AS WELL AS HIS CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDE U/S. 269SS OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). HE RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SAMORA HOTELS (P) LTD. (2012) 19 TAXMANN.COM 285 (DEL). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DE CIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA-4 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA HAS ATTENDED BEFORE THE I.T. AUTHORITIES AND ACCEPTED THAT HE HAS ADVANCED CASH LOAN OF RS.7,50,000/- AGAINST MORTGAGE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AO HAS ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA ON 11.10.22006, WHEREIN ALSO, IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT CASH LOAN OF RS.7,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT SUCH CASH T RANSACTIONS FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED U/S. 269SS OF THEREF ORE, I.T. ACT OR THEE WERE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR OBTAINING SUCH CASH LOANS. AS SUCH, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VIO LATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE I.T. ACT AND THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PENALTY US. 271D OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THAT ONE OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CASH RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSACTIO N AS CLAIMED BY SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE MAY BE GRANTED CROSS INQUIRY. BEFORE US ALSO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMI NE SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHABDA ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT, THE PENALT Y HAS BEEN LEVIED. LD. ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 4 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMEN TS AS CLAIMED BY SHRI PRADHANSINGH CHHBDA USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WERE NEITHER SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME AND ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT PENALTY U/S. 269SS OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED WHE N THE CASH LOAN IS ACCEPTED EXCEEDING TO RS.20,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT LEAS T THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXEMPTED OF RS.20,000/-. IN VIEW OF T HESE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISIONS AS RELIE D BY HIM, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, LD. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. COMING TO ITA NO.2780/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 01-02. 7. BRIEFLY FACTS AS NOTED IN PARA-2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,75,850/- FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS AS NOTED IN THE PENALTY ORDER. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SUCH RECEIPTS OF CASH D EPOSITS IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDING LY, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE JT./ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF THE RANGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OF THE IT ACT. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,75,850/- U/S. 271D OF THE IT ACT FOR VIOLAT ION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE I.T ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO A FTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 5 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR ARGUME NTS AS IN ITA NO. 2779/AHD/2009 BEFORE US. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND AT LEAST EXEMPTION OF RS.20,000 /- SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS (SUPRA) AND HONBLE CO-ORDINATE CHANDIGARH BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAVI IRON & SCRAP CO. (SUPRA). ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DE CIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA-4 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ADD. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 269SS OF THE IT ACT, AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CASH LOAN/RECEIPT IS REQUIRED T O BE CONSIDERED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NO EXPL ANATION HAS BEEN TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT SUCH CASH T RANSACTIONS FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED U/S. 269SS OF THE IT ACT OR THERE WERE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR OBTAINING SUCH CASH LOANS. AS SUCH, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLAT ED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE IT ACT AND THEREFORE LIABLE FO R PENALTY US. 271D OF THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE A SUBM ISSION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND OUT THE ENTRY/DEPOSIT IN THE BANK BY CASH OUT OF THE SAID LOAN OF RS.1,75,850/- HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR PENALTY PURPOS E AND LEVIED PENALTY ON CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACC EPTANCE OF LOAN IS NOT ON THE SAME DAY BUT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ON AS BEFORE BANK DEPOSIT AND WHICH ARE NOT EXCEEDING OF RS.20,000/- EACH DAY. IT WAS S UBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN GENUINE BELIEF THAT LIMIT OF R S.20,000/- WAS APPLICABLE TO EACH DAY. WE FIND THAT THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND FURTHER CO NTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AT LEAST BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS.20,000/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 6 APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND GIVE THE CONCERNED PARTIES REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AS PER LAW. THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO.2781/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 01-02. 12. BRIEFLY FACTS AS NOTED IN PARA-2 OF THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED LOAN/DEPOSIT IN CASH OF RS.55,000/- EACH ON 08.03.2 001 & 23.03.2001 RESPECTIVELY TO SHRI BHALABHAI V PATEL. THE AO OBSE RVED THAT SUCH AN ACTION OF THE APPELLANT VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE JT. /ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF THE RANGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U.S.271E OF THE IT ACT. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDA BAD VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,10,000/ - U/S. 271E OF THEREFORE, IT ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 269T OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) W HO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. NOW A SSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AUT HORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS JOINTLY STAYIN G WITH HIS PARENTS AND CONTRIBUTES IN THE HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIAL EXPENSES AN D PENALTY LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.1.10 LAKH TO HIS F ATHER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS HOUSEHO LD AND OTHER SOCIAL EXPENSES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE NOT BEEN LEVIED ON THIS GROUND, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NATVARLAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH (2008) 219 CTR 509 (GUJ) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (MAD) AND ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 7 THE ORDER OF HONBLE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF AHMEDABAD RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SHRI SAMIR JORMAL MEHTA IN ITA NO.1972/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 DATED 01-10-2010. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CIRCULAR NO . 387 DATED 06-07-1984 ISSUED BY CBDT AND ALTERNATIVELY ARGUED THAT AT LEA ST BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS.20,000/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND RE LIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS (SUPRA) AND HONBLE CO-ORDINATE CHANDIGARH BENCH RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF RAVI IRON & SCRAP CO. (SUPRA). ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF CONTRIBUTION AS HOUSEH OLD AND SOCIAL EXPENSES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AMOUNT OF RS.1.10 LAKH AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS PARENTS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GI VEN AS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIAL EXPENSES. IT IS NOT CO NTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE JOINTLY RESIDE WITH HIS PARENTS, THER EFORE THE SOME HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIAL EXPENSES ARE BOUND TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IS NOT J USTIFIED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271E OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL I S ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16. IN COMBINED RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.277 9- 2780/AHD/2009 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF ITA NO.2781/AHD/2009 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2779-81/AHD/2009 A.YS. 97-98 &01-02 RAJ B PATEL V. ADDL.CIT CC-RNJ-1 ABD PAGE 8 AHMEDABAD, *DKP #$%- 23/11/2012 +,- . ' ' ' ' //0 //0 //0 //0 10 10 10 10 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. $-$/3 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4- / CIT (A) 5. 0 78 ///3, /3!, +,- / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8;< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ ?/+ $ /3!, +,- . STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 19/11 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 19/11 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 20/11 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 21/11 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 23/11 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 23/11