GMP Infrabuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2907/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9706 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Wrong claim; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c); 32

Judgement Text

, CKH CKHCKH CKH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LK KK KOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2907/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD., 274, MANEKBAUG SOCIETY, LANE NO.22, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. / VS. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCG 2974 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASEEM L. THAKKAR, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 27/09/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/12/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)2, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-2 /66/ITO, WARD 2(1)(1)/2015-16 DATED 01.09.2016 ARISING IN THE MAT TER OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 20.03.2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO DAYS. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY FILED THE PETITION FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. THE LD. DR AFTER CONS IDERING THE DELAY OF 2 DAYS HAS GIVEN CONCESSION FOR THE CONDONATION. ACCO RDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS. 6,40,587/- . 3) THE APPELLANT GRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY THE AFORESAID GROUNDS. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 6,40,587/-. 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN T HE FIELD OF REAL ESTATE. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA S CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 6,04,587/- ON THE UNSECURED LOAN WH ICH WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTI ES. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON THE UNSEC URED LOAN SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUC TION U/S 36(1)(III) OF ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - THE ACT. ON A QUESTION BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE AGRE ED TO THE FINDING OF AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 6,04,587/- TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.09.2014. 5.2 THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUB SEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 DATED 26.09 .2014 FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO IT FILED IT S REPLY DATED 10.11.2014 BY SUBMITTING THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE/ MALA FIDE INTENTION EITHER TO CONCEAL OR FURNISH THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES CONSIDER ING IT AS REVENUE IN NATURE WHICH CAN BE AN INACCURATE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE ULTIMATE INACCURATE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE EQUATED WITH THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVI ED THE PENALTY FOR RS. 1,81,917/- BEING 100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT T O BE EVADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2015. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE I NTEREST WAS CLAIMED ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - AFTER TREATING IT AS REVENUE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, T HERE WAS NO INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 604,587/- IN RESPECT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL ADVANCES FOR PU RCHASE OF ASSETS IN THE NATURE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES FROM NCPL BUILD.CON AND SIGNATURE BUILD.CON. THE AO OBSERVED THAT UNDLSPUTEDLY THE IN TEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE O F MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL ADVANCES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF CA PITAL ADVANCES AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S.36(1 ) (III) OF I.T. ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT AND JUSTIFY THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IN THIS REGARD WAS BONAFIDE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATIO N (1) TO SECTION 271 (L)(C) WAS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. IT WAS EVIDENT THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION TO BE BON AFIDE. IN THIS REGARD IT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT M UMBAI IN THE CASE OF BALAJI INFRA PROJECTS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.26 27/MUM/2010 DTD. 13.4.2011. 3.4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. THE SAME HAVE BEEN C AREFULLY GONE THROUGH. THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION THAT THE AO HAS NOT PRIMA-FACIE DRAWN THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS IS NOT CORRECT IN FACT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAS BEEN LEVIED WITH THE SPECIFIC CHARGE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME WHICH IS VERY MUCH APPARENT TROM THE RECORDS. IT IS ALSO MEN TIONED THAT AS PER ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - SUBSECTION (IB) OF 271(1) WHICH WAS INSERTED BY FIN ANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECT EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989, IF AN ORDER OT ASS ESSMENT CONTAINS DIRECTION FOR INITIATING OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UND ER CLAUSE OF SUB- SECTION (1J THEN SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SATISFACTION OF AO FOR INITIATION OF PEN ALTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUCH DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND THERE IS NO DEFAULT ON THIS COUNT. 3.5. EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAIL S IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE CAPITAL ADVANCES WERE MADE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND NOT FROM THE INTEREST BEARING LOANS AND A DVANCES. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED TO THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 36(L)(III) OF I.T. ACT WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWED CAPITAL WHICH HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR ACQUIS ITION OF AN CAPITAL ASSETS TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ASSET WAS FIRST PUT TO USE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLA TED THE TERMS OF THE AFORESAID PROVISO TO SECTION 36(L)(III) OF J. ACT T HEREFORE THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED THE INTERE ST EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND IT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ONLY. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIE D UPON THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS, HOWEVER THE SAME ARE NOT ON IDENTICAL F ACTS AS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE OVER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS, THE RELIANCE THEREUPON IS MISPLACED. 3.6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE APPELLANT WAS IN KNOWLEDGE OF UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS FOR THE PURPO SE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN SHOWN A S CAPITAL ADVANCES. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD. HAVE COMPARED THE P ROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO SUCH UTI LIZATION OF FUNDS FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES AND THE SAME NOT TO HAVE BEEN CLAI MED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. BUT BY DOING SO IT HAS REDUCED ITS NET PROFITS AND THE RETURNED INCOME WHICH IS NOTHING BUT WRONG CLAIM MA DE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE AO ON THIS DISALLOWANCE OF I NTEREST IS FOUND CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - 7. THE LD. AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PENAL TY WAS LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS SUCH, THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES ON THE UNSECURED LOAN WHICH WAS U TILIZED IN THE INVESTMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS CAPITALIZED AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US ARISES FOR OUR ADJUDICATI ON IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME BY CLAIMING A DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THE LO AN WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR INVESTING IN THE PROPERTIES. IT IS A SETTLED LA W THAT THE INTEREST ON LOAN USED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. THUS, INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE VALUE OF THE IN VESTMENT WAS ENHANCED. ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - IF INVESTMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION, THEN TH E ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OF THE INTEREST IN THE FORM OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DEPR ECIATION, THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF SALE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IN THE MARKET. THEREFORE, I N EITHER CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION OF THE EXPE NSES IN THE DIFFERENT FORM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED THA T THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CLAIMED THE INTEREST AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. 8.1 BESIDES THE ABOVE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 8,52,704/-. THEREFORE IF THE ASSESSEE TREATS THE INTEREST EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE THEN ALSO THERE WAS ALSO NO TAX LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESCAPE FROM THE TAX LIABILITY BY CLAIMING INTEREST EXPENSE S AS REVENUE. 8.2 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST EXPENSES CAN BE AN INACCURATE CLAIM WHICH CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE I NACCURATE PARTICULARS ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 8 - OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, WE EXTEND OUR RELIANCE O N THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. A MOL DECALITE LTD REPORTED IN 55 TAXMAN.COM 419 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD A S UNDER: 7. SO FAR AS LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE I NCOME UNDER SECTION 271[1](C) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO TED THAT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271 [1](C) O F THE ACT, IF AN EXPLANATION COMES FORTH FROM THE ASSESSEE, OR IF AN Y EXPLANATION GIVEN IS FOUND TO BE FALSE, OR IS NOT ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE EXPLANATION AND IS ALSO NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE , THE ADDITION MADE TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME. FOR HAVING FOUND, ON THE BASIS OF SETTLED LEGAL POSITION AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEP ARATE FROM THOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMATION OF ADDI TIONS MAY NOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY, THE TRI BUNAL HELD THAT ALL THESE DETAILS WERE ALREADY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SO ALSO BEFORE THE OTHER AUTHORITIES, AND THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE PLAUSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY INCOME. 8. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER IMPUG NED AS THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN INTERPRETING THAT THE INCORRE CT CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE INITIALLY THE CLAIM WAS M ADE UNDER INCORRECT HEAD MAY NOT BE TERMED AS FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT LATER ON DURING THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTED THE SAME, AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. WITH NOTHING TO INDICATE OF ANY FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, MAKING OF THE UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIM UNDER THE LAW SIMPLY COULD NOT BE A GROUND WARRANTING ANY INTERFERENCE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENAL TY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBSEQUENTLY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF LD. ITA NO.2907/AHD/2016 GMP INFRABUILD. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO A.Y. 2012-13 - 9 - CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPO SED BY HIM. THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/12/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/12/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 17/10/2018 (PAGE-5) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : .. 05/11/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S15/11/2018 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 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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