The ACIT,(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad V. Shri Sunil Dhirubhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 279/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1348 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAHA R
• Keywords: Assessment record; Revised return

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 & CO NO.66/AHD/2010 '#$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ASST.CIT(OSD) CIURCLE-9 AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL PROP. M/S.NARNARAYAN CORPORATION 16- VIKRAMD PLOTING OPP. BAJRANG ASHRAM N.H.8 THAKKARBAPANAGAR AHMEDABAD PAN : AHXPP 1195 M / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) & CROSS-OBJECTOR REVENUE BY : SMT. SMITI SAMANT, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR %& / DATE OF HEARING 30/05/2016 '($#& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/06/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROS S-OBJECTION FILED THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25/11 /2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS ARE AS UNDER:- 2.1. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 ON 31/10/2006 SHOWING THE TOTAL INCOME OF R S.50,86,470/-, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.97,38,816/- U/S.80IB OF TH E ACT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 02/01/20 07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.50,86,470/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 29/12/2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DET ERMINED AT RS.1,48,25,286/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CER (AO), ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE O RDER DATED 25/11/2009 (IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XV/JCIT/RANGE-9/291/8-09) ALLO WED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GR OUND:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMEDA BAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.9738816/- WHICH WAS DISALLO WED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - 2.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION AN D HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) XV, AHMEDABAD AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS AND SUBMI SSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(1) AND HA S INVESTED IN COST OF LAND AND ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. THE FACTS OF RESPONDEN TS CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD, BENCH A DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S .80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS. 97,38,816/- IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPOND ENT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION WORK OF HOUSIN G PROJECT KNOWN AS NARNARAYAN TENEMENTS AT AHMEDABAD AND ON THE PROF ITS EARNED FROM THE PROJECT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.97,38,816/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AO ON PERUSING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSE SSEE NOTICED THAT THE LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WAS CARRIED O UT WAS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE NECESSARY PERMISSION FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES WAS ALSO NOT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE B UT THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES WAS GRANTED TO S/SHRI AMBALAL T.P ATEL AND GORDHANBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL, LAND OWNERS. AO WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEVELOPER BUT WAS A MERE CONTRAC TOR AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY, DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF AO, ASSESSEE ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 8. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) FIRST AND FOREMOST SPECIFIED CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IB(1 0) HAVE TO BE FULFILLED. LET US SEE WHETHER THESE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT OR NOT. A) FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD HAV E COMMENCED THE PROJECT AFTER 1.10.1998 AND COMPLETES THE PROJE CT BEFORE 31.3.2008 IF IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY BEFORE 1.4.2004. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT DEVELOPMENT PERM ISSIONS WERE GIVEN BY AUDA DATED 24.102003 & 21.11.2003 TO THE A TTORNEY HOLDER OF THE LAND OWNERS WHO SOLD THE LAND TO THE NTC (KARNAVATI GHODASAR OWNERS ASSOCIATION) VIDE CONVEY ANCE DEED DATED 8.7.2004. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS FOR LAND START MUCH EARLIER T HAN REGISTRATION OF THE CONVEYANCE DEEDS AND PERMISSION FOR PROJECT COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ONLY BY THE LAND OWNERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT W ITH THE APPELLANT FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT. IT WAS ARGUED T HAT THIS CONDITION TALKS ONLY ABOUT APPROVAL/PERMISSION TO T HE HOUSING PROJECT AND DOES NOT SPECIFY IN WHOSE NAME IT SHOUL D BE. IN THIS BACKGROUND IN MY VIEW THIS CONDITION STANDS FULFILL ED, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED EARLIER THAN 31.3.2008. B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND WHICH H AS A MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE: AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THIS CONDITION AND THIS ONE SAND S FULFILLED AS TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND IS ABOUT 17223.97 SQ.MTR. WH ICH IS ABOVE ONE ACRE. ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA O F 1500 SQUARE FEET. THIS CONDITION IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE. D) THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMERCIA L ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT UP AREA OR 2000 SQ.FT. W HICHEVER IS LESS: THUS THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IB(10) M ENTIONED ABOVE STAND FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT. 9. NOW TO COME TO THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY WHETHER 80 -IB(10) CAN BE DENIED TO AN ASSESSEE ON THE LOGIC TAKEN BY THE AO THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND THEN HOW CAN HE BE A DEVELOPE R, HIS STATUS IS JUST THAT OF A CONTRACTOR. THIS POINT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION DATED 7.11.2008 GIVEN BY HONBLE ITAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD I N THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION, BARODA IN ITA NO.1503/AH D/2008 IN AY 200-06. PARA 16 OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED B ELOW: THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND A CCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED T HE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT BY INCURRING ALL THE EXPENSES AND TAKING ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA)WILL NOT APP LY IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT F OR A FIXED REMUNERATION MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER. THE A GREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN THAT CASE WILL NOT ENTITLE THE DEVE LOPER TO HAVE THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND ALL THE RISKS INVOLVED THEREIN WILL VEST WITH THE LAND OWNER ONLY. THE IN TEREST OF THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE FIXED REM UNERATION FOR WHICH HE WOULD BE RENDERING THE SERVICES. THE DECI SION IN THE ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS NOT DEALT WITH SUCH SITUATION. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT LO OKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVEL OPER ALONG WITH THE LAND OWNER. IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORA TION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T AND CRUX OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN, THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF FAQUIR CHAND GULATI (SUPRA) WILL NOT ASSIST THE REVENUE, AS THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SHARING OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. IN OTHER CASES THE COPY OF AGREEMENT SINCE HAS NOT BEEN SUBM ITTED BEFORE US. IF SUBMITTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE A GREEMENT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED BEFORE AND PLACED BEFORE US , WE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH TH E PARTIES SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AD RESTORE ALL OTHER APPEAL S TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE AO SHALL LOOK IN TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY EACH OF THE ASSESSEES WIT H THE LAND OWNER AND DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT P URCHASED THE LAND FOR A FIXED CONSIDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER AND HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND R ISKS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. IN CASE THE AO FINDS THAT PRACTICA LLY THE LAND HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEVELOPER HAS ALL DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND HAS DEVELOPED THE LAND AT HIS OWN COST AND RISKS, THE AO SHOULD ALLOW THE DEDUCTION T O THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB(10). IN CASE THE AO FINDS THAT THE DEVELO PER HAS ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER AND HAS GOT THE FIXED C ONSIDERATION FROM THE LAND OWNER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUS ING PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE SHOUD NOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80I B(10) TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. THUS THROUGH THE ABOVE DECISION HONBLE ITAT HA S LAID DOWN THAT TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE DEDUCTION AN APPEL LANT SHOULD HAVE ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND SHOULD HAVE ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND R ISKS. TO ASCERTAIN WHICH HONBLE ITAT DIRECTED THE DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT TO BE LOOKED INTO. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT PRACTICALLY PURCHASED TH E LAND AND BORE THE ENTIRE COST AND RISK OF DEVELOPING THE PROJECT. THIS IS PROVED BY GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SPECIALL Y FOLLOWING CLAUSES: 2.2. (TO DEVELOP THE HOUSING PROJECT NARNARAYAN TEN EMENTS) 5.3. (ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WORK OF THE HOUSING PROJEC T SHALL BE CARRIED OUT BY THE DEVELOPER AT THEIR OWN RISK, COST AND EX PENSES) 6.5. (THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID LAND VIZ-A-VIZ IN DIVIDUAL PLOT OF THE MEMBER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE UNDER THE CO NTROL AND MANAGEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER ONLY) 6.9. (THE DEVELOPER SHALL HOLD THE SAID LAND AND D EVELOPMENTS THEREON TILL THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING PROJECTS ARE DULY ACHIEVED AND ALL AMOUNTS TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT ARE RECEIVED.) 7.1. (THE DEVELOPER SHALL ARRANGE THE ENTIRE FINANC E FOR THE PROJECT IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNTS THAT MAY BE RECEIVED FROM T HE PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS) 9.1 (WHICH SAYS THAT THE PROFIT OR LOSS THAT MAY AR ISE OUT OF THE PROJECT WILL BELONG TO THE DEVELOPER). 10.3. (ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS TILL THEY ARE DISPOS ED OF SHALL REMAIN UNDER THE POSSESSION OF THE DEVELOPER) AS THE APPELLANT FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AND HAS INVESTED IN COST OF LAND AND ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND FOR THE DEV ELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT HE MEETS ALL THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY HONBLE ITAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD IN THE DECISION DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW 80IB(10) DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. BEFORE US, LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. S HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) OF THE ACT THE ENTIRE RISK AND REWARD OF THE PROJECT SHOULD BE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE THERE FORE SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION, AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAN D, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION, BARODA IN ITA NO.1503/AHD/2008 IN AY 2 005-06 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREF ORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT BY THE AO MAINLY FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE PERMISSION FO R THE CONSTRUCTION WAS ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - NOT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RISK AND REWAR D OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER PERUSING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRACTICALLY PURCHASED THE LAND AND BORE THE ENTIRE COST AND RISK FOR DEVE LOPING THE PROJECT, HAD INVESTED IN THE COST OF LAND AND HAD ACQUIRED DOMIN ANT CONTROL OVER THE LAND. SHE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(10) OF THE A CT FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION(SUPRA). BEFORE US, REVENU E HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT NOR COULD CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) . THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. CROSS OBJECTION NO.66/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 (A RISING OUT OF ITA NO.279/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07) FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 6.1. SINCE THE GROUND RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION IS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT REQUIRES NO S EPARATE ADJUDICATION AND, THEREFORE, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 279/AHD/2010 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.66/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT(OSD) VS. SHRI SUNIL DHIRUBHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES C ROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03 /06/2016 SD/- SD/- () () (RAJPAL YADAV) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03 / 06 /2016 -..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 34' 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. 67814' , 4'# , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:;% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 261 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 30.5.16 (DICTATION-PAD 9+ P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31.5.2016/1.6.16 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.6.6.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6.6.16 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