The ITO, Ward-1(1), Baroda V. B.D. Patel Quarry Works Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 2900/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 290020514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Loose papers; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2898 TO 2902/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS :1998-99 TO 2002-03 THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BARODA V/S . B.D. PATEL QUARRY WORKS PVT. LTD. 75, SURYKIRAN COMPLEX, NR. TAGORE NAGAR, BARODA PAN NO. AAACB8676Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI D. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. WITH URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 28.08.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.09.2012 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 2898 TO 2902/AHD/2007, WHICH HAVE BEEN EMANATED FROM THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BARODA, DATED 30-04-2007 FOR A.YS. 1998-9 9 TO 2002-03. THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS OF THESE APPEALS ARE SAME. SO , ALL APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ONE COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL IN A.Y . 1998-99 TO 2001-02 IS ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 2 AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF THE LEASE RENT AND OTHER GROUND IN A.Y. 2002 - 03 IS AGAINST DELETING THE INTEREST OF RS.12,50,00/ -. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELL ANT COMPANY WAS HAVING A QUARRY AND WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF EXTRACTING KAP ACHI ETC. WHICH WAS DISCONTINUED IN APRIL, 1996 AND THE POSSESSION OF T HE QUARRY AND THE RELATED MACHINERY WAS GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S. KOTHARI & SHAH QUARRY WORKS VIDE AN ORAL AGREEMENT W.E.F. 01.05.1996 WHICH WAS CONVERTE D INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED 16.07.1999 BUT MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 01.05.1996. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE THE LEASE R ENT AT RS.31.50 LACS FOR FY 96-97, RS.30 LACS FOR FY 97-98, RS. 30 LACS FOR FY 98-99 & RS. 2.50 LACS PER MONTH FOR FY 99-2000 ONWARDS. ACCORDING TO THE AGR EEMENT, THE LESSEE FIRM WAS TO SUPPLY KAPACHI TO THE APPELLANTS ASSOCIATED CONCERNS AT 20% LESS THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE. THE LESSOR APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE LESSEE FIRM DECIDED TO RECORD THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ACCORDINGLY. ON 11.02.2002, SURVEY U/S. 1 33A WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PREMISES OF ONE OF THE ASSOCIATE CONCERNS NAMEL Y B.D. PATEL & CO. WHERE CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE WORKING OF L EASE RENT WERE FOUND. THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANTS DIRECTOR SHRI ASHWINBH AI B. PATEL WAS RECORDED. THE PAPERS FOUND DURING SURVEY SHOWED THAT AS PER THE ORAL AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF LEASE R ENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNTS AS RECORDED IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE. SHRI ASHWINBHAI B. PATEL STATED IN REPLY TO QUESTION N O.12 TO 14 IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE DETAILS NOTED ON THE LOOSE PAPER WERE NOTH ING BUT A SUO-MOTO WORKING ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 3 OF LEASE RENT WHICH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE LES SEE AS ORALLY AGREED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THA T THE PAYMENTS AS PER THE ORAL AGREEMENT WERE NOT RECEIVED AND A FINAL SETTLE MENT WAS REACHED IN FY 2001-02 FOR RS. 40 LACS WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED BY T HE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT CERTAIN PERSON AL EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS WERE MADE OUT OF THESE ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND AGREE D TO SHOW ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 40 LACS DURING FY 2001-02 I.E. A.Y. 2002-03. FROM THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS SHOWED THA T SINCE BEGINNING THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE LEASE RENT OVER AND ABO VE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND THAT THE APPELLANT KEPT ON RECEIVING PAY MENT IN VARIOUS FORMS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS FOLLO WING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE LEASE RENT ACCRUING TO THE COMPANY REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-0 3 WHEN ACCOUNT WAS SETTLED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TO ADD THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE L EASE RENT ACCRUED AND THE LEASE RENT DECLARED IN ITS BOOKS BY THE APPELLANT I N ALL THESE YEARS. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT 'AT THE TIME OF RENTING OU T THE QUARRY, IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT IF M/S. KOTHARI & SHAH QUARRY WERE TO E ARN SUBSTANTIAL INCOME OUT OF THE BUSINESS THEN THEY WOULD PAY THE HIGHER RENT . ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VERBAL AGREEMENT, THE SUMMARY FOUND ON PAGE 120 W AS PREPARED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMPANY WAS TO BE BENEFITED BY LEASING OUT THE QUARRY AND, THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED / RECEIVABLE AND THE OUT FLOWS UTILIZED / TO BE UTILIZED WAS REC ORDED'. FROM THIS AND ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 4 SOME OTHER DETAILED EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE APPE LLANT AND AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 40 LACS CRYSTALISED ONLY DURING A.Y. 2002-03 AND NO AMOUNT COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS MERE LY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN NOTINGS IN THE LOOSE PAPERS. IT ARGUED THA T IT DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFICIAL AND ENFORCEABLE RIGHT IN THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT TILL THE TIME IT WAS CRYSTALISED AND FINALLY AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE APPELLANT CLARIFIED THIS WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT OF T HE DIRECTOR RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT ALSO ARGUED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, THE INCOME COULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE R ESPECTIVE YEARS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THESE CONTENTIONS, THE APPELLA NT EXPLAINED THAT EVEN IF THIS AMOUNT WAS ASSESSED ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, IT WOULD MAKE NO IMPACT ON THE COMPANY SINCE IT WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL LOSS ES / DEPRECIATION WHICH HAD REMAINED UNABSORBED SO THAT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF TAX IN ANY OF THESE YEARS. THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMED SOM E EXPENDITURE AGAINST SUCH SUPPRESSED LEASE RENT LIKE RS. 12,50,000/- INT EREST PAYABLE TO THE CHAROTAR NAGAR SAHAKARI BANK AT THE END OF THE LEAS E PERIOD FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT ALSO. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S PLEA STATING THAT SINCE TH E AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER ARE IN ODD FIGURES THEY CANNOT BE ESTIM ATED RECEIPTS BUT REPRESENT ACTUAL AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN VARIOUS FORMS BY THE COMPANY. AS ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 5 REGARDS THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AS REC ORDED IN THE LOOSE PAPER MARKED 'X-12', THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR CARRYING OUT THE APPELLA NT'S BUSINESS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE INADMISSIBLE IN VI EW OF PROVISO TO SEC. 69C OF THE ACT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE HELD THAT THE SUPPRESSED LEASE RECEIPT WAS TO BE ADDED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND HE WORKED OUT THE SAID AMOUNTS SEPARATELY FOR ALL THE YEARS INVOLVED BEING RS. 12.60 LACS FOR A.Y. 1998-99, RS.17.60 LAC FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, RS. 18 LA CS FOR A.Y. 2000-01, RS. 18 LACS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND RS. 4 LACS FOR A.Y. 20 02-03. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT ON PAGE 120 MARKED 'X-12' , AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,50,000/- WAS MENTIONED WITH THE WORDS 'INT' AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPER WERE IN CONNEC TION WITH THE ACTUAL LEASE RENT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, H E REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THIS REPRESENTED INTEREST PAYABLE TO CNS B. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE HELD THAT 'ON UNDERSTANDING OF TH E CONTENT OF THE LOOSE PAPER AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED, NO C ONNECTION CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE INTEREST PAYABLE TO CNSB. SINCE THE LOOSE PAPER IS A SUMMARY OF AMOUNT RECEIVABLE A ND AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASE, IT IS HELD THAT RS. 12,5 0,000/- INTEREST IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION'. IN THIS WAY, HE ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03. ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 6 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AP PELLANT CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITI ON BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH RE GARD TO GROUND NO.(2) INVOLVING ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE BUT ADDED AS INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT CLE ARLY SHOWING IT AS INTEREST PAYABLE AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.12,50, 000/- IS DELETED. 6. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.(1), IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E EXISTENCE OF THE ORAL AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ALSO, IT IS A COMMON GROUND THAT THE AMOUNTS INDICATED IN TH E WRITTEN AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE QUANTUM AND THE TAXAB ILITY OF THE SUPPRESSED LEASE RENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS H ELD THAT THE CORRECT QUANTUM HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE NO TINGS MADE ON THE LOOSE PAPER AND THESE AMOUNTS HAVE TO BE TAXED IN D IFFERENT YEARS IN WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVABLE. AS AGAINST THIS, THE A PPELLANTS CASE IS THAT THE LESSEE RENEGED ON THE ORAL AGREEMENT AND, THERE FORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT INCOME HAD ACCRUED AND FURTHER THAT THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE SUPPRESSED LEASE RENT CANNOT BE DONE WITH RE FERENCE TO THE LOOSE PAPERS. IN THE APPELLANTS VIEW THESE PAPERS BECOM E IRRELEVANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AFTER PROTRACTED NEGOTIATIONS BETW EEN THE APPELLANT AND THE LESSEE IT WAS AGREED AND SETTLED THAT THE LESSE E WOULD PAY A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT OF RS.40 LACS AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. IN ITS VIEW RS.40 LACS IS THE QUANTUM OF SUPPRESSED LEASE RENT RELEVANT FOR TAXATION. IT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THIS AMOUNT OF RS.40 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN A.Y.2002-03, IT SHOULD BE TAXE D IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED DUR ING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE REAL INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED. IT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 7 RECEIVABLE AS PER THE ORAL AGREEMENT AND THE NOTING S RECORDED ON THE LOOSE PAPERS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPE LLANT. IT HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER MOTIVE ATTRIBUTED TO THE APPELLANT SINCE THE TAXATION OF THE AMOUNTS AS PER THE ORAL A GREEMENT IN DIFFERENT YEARS WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE SINCE IT HAS HUG E UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SUCH INCOMES. I T IS OBSERVED IN THIS BEHALF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REBUTTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE LESSEE RENEGED ON THE ORAL AGREEMENT. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF THE LESSEE I N THIS REGARD TO CROSS CHECK THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. THEREFORE, IT R EMAINS UNREBUTTED. THEREFORE, THERE IS STRENGTH IN THE APPELLANTS CLA IM THAT THE QUESTION OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME AND THE QUANTUM OF SUPPRESSED LEA SE RENT CANNOT BE WORKED OUT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT WHI CH WAS BREACHED AND NEVER IMPLEMENTED. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF LEAS E RENT OVER AND ABOVE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT WAS FINALLY SETTLED AT RS.40 LACS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANY WAY . HE HAS SIMPLY DENIED ITS EXISTENCE THROUGH A STUDIED SILENCE ON T HE ISSUE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO HARP ON T HE TERMS OF THE ORAL AGREEMENT AND TO QUANTIFY THE SUPPRESSED LEASE RENT WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IT MAKES SENSE TO TAX THE REAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN A.Y.2002-03 AND OFFERED FOR TAX. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT IN DIFFERENT ASSE SSMENT YEARS IS DELETED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING. THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM AND LOOSE PAPER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING LEASE INCOME WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY IT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O., MAY BE ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 8 CONFIRMED. FROM THE SIDE OF APPELLANT, SHRI S.N.SO PARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE, STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE LEASE REN T. IT WAS A CALCULATION ON PAPERS WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF LEASE RENT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN A.Y. 2002-03 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IF THE REVENUE IS ASSESSED LEASE RENT IN ALL THE YEARS EVEN THEN THERE IS NO TAX AS COMPANY HAS HUGE BROUGHT FORWARDED LOSS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED REMAND REPORT ON INTEREST INCOME FROM THE A. O. WHO HAD ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE REFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW, GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO HEAR D THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES. IT IS FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN ORAL AGRE EMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. KOTHARI & SHAH W.E.F. 01.05.1996. THE SAM E WAS CONVERTED INTO IT WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON 16.07.1999 W.E.F. 01.05.1996. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE LEASE RENT AT RS.31.5 LACS FOR F.Y. 97-98, RS.30 LACS FOR FY 97-98, RS.30 LACS FOR F.Y. 98-99 RS.2.5 LACS PER MONTH FOR F.Y. 1999-2000 ONWARDS. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, THE LESSEE FIRM WAS TO SUPPLY KAPACHI TO THE APPELLANTS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AS 20% LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE. BUT THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM . THE APPELLANT HAD RECORDED CERTAIN AMOUNTS ON LOOSE PAPERS OF LEASE R ENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT. BUT IT W AS WORKING MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY OF LEASE RENT WHI CH WAS TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE LESSEE AS ORALLY AGGRIEVED BY THEM. THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 9 THEM TO PAY A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT OF RS.40 LACS AS A FULL AND FINAL STATEMENT. RS.40 LACS RECEIVED IN A.Y. 2002-03 AND IT SHOULD B E TAXED IN YEAR ITSELF. THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF REAL INCOME. LD. A.O. COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE NOTING OF LEASE RENT RECORDED ON LOOSE PAPER ACTUALLY HAD BEE N RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. RS.40 LACS HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE DIR ECTOR OF THE APPELLANT WAS THE INCOME FOR A.Y. 02-03 ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT. THE INTEREST INCOME ADDED IN A.Y.02-03 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I N ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEALS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS IN ALL ASSE SSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.09.2012 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ; ITA NOS. 2898-2902/AHD/2007 A.Y. 1998-99 & 2002-03 PAGE 10 STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 10.09.2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 11.09.2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION ,, ,, 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 14.09.2012 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 14.09.2012 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 14.09.2012