Kataria Transport & Co., Ahmedabad V. The Addl.CIT,Range-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 2908/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2308 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL , AM M/S KATARIA TRANSPORT CO., 2, TRANSPORT NAGAR, NAROL, AHMEDABAD. VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-9, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI ALOK JOHRI, CIT, DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS :- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 20.09.20 10 FOR A.Y.200 07-08 BY CIT(A)-XV, A'BAD, PARTLY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANC E AGGREGATING TO RS.5,97,19,670/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O R. ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,97,19,670/- U/ S.40(A)(IA) AND REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40{A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF FOLLOW ING ITEMS : 1 . OWN TRUCK HAVING CONTRA EFFECT RS. 2,07 ,51,415/- 2. PARTIES WHO SUBMITTED FORM 15-1 RS. 3,23 ,50,,127/- 3. FR EIGHT EXPENSES EXCEEDING CEILING RS. 66,18,125/- ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 2 2.3 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE DISALL OWANCE AGGREGATING TO RS.2,98,59,835 U/S.40(A)(IA). 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING FULLY AND PRO PERLY THE FACTS STING TO THE ITEMS DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) AND THO UGH NO DEFECTS DISCREPANCY WERE FOUND RELATING TO THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLAN T. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS WHOLLY UNJUST IFIED. THEREFORE, CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF OPERATING EXPENSES OF RS.5,97,19,670/- WAS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, SURMISE AND MIS- APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE CASE. 4.1 LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN UPHOLDING REJECTION OF FORM NO.15-1 ON IRRELEVANT AND UNTENAB LE GROUNDS SUCH AS THE SAME WERE NEITHER PROPERLY VERIFIED NOR SUBM ITTED TO THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT (WHICH COULD AT THE MOST BE PROC EDURAL LAPSE). 5.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT IN VIEW OF FORM 15-1 AS GIVING TRUCK NOS. INSTEAD OF THE NAMES OF T HE TRUCK OWNERS, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE TDS U/S.194-C. 6.1 THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSION REACH ED BY CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,97,19,670/- U/S.4 0(A)(IA) AS WELL REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PAR TNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. IT OWNS FLEET OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND ALSO CLAIMS TO HAVE TAKEN ON HIRE SOME OTHER TRUCKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. IT HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ON 23.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 51,23,310/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND T HAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID FREIGHT AMOUNTING TO RS.14,74,37,802/- BUT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF A SUM OF RS.8,63,64,662/- ONLY AND ON TH E BALANCE SUM OF RS.6,10,73,140/- NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 3 3. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS:- 1. WE HAVE COLLECTED FORM NO.15.1 AS AND WHEN VEHI CLES WERE PLACED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS FROM TRUCK OWNERS. WE ARE SUBMITTING HEREWITH COPY OF FORM NO.15.1 RECEIVED BY US. 2. WE WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE PLACING NUMBER OF VEHICLES FROM DIFFERENT PLACES AND DIFFERENT PARTIE S. TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN UNORGANIZED SECTOR. WE HAVE TO MOSTLY DEAL WITH DRIVERS AND ITS OWNERS WHO ARE UNEDUCATED. WE HAVE TO SETTLE OUR AC COUNTS VEHICLE WISE AND WE ARE BOOKING EACH TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE FREI GHT PAYABLE A/C. WE DO NOT HAVE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ON THE BASIS OF SU PPLIER WISE. WE ARE ARRANGING VEHICLES FROM NUMBER OF SUPPLIERS AS PER DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF VEHICLES. GENERALLY, OUR SUPPLIER CHANGES ON EAC H TRANSACTIONS AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS FOR EAC H TRANSACTIONS. WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED ON A CD IN EXCEL FORMAT THE EACH VEHICLES WISE TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED AGAINST THE SAME. FINALLY EXAMINING THE ACCOUNTS THE AO GAVE FOLLOWIN G FINDINGS :- 4.8 TO SUM UP THE ASSESSEE- (I) FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX FROM FREIGHT PAYMENT OF RS.6,1 0,73,140/-, THOUGH INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS (AS APPEARING IN THE LIS T) EXCEEDED RS.20,000/- OR RS.50,000/- UNDER THE ACT, WRONGLY F OLLOWING PROVISO TO 194C(3). (II) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT VERIFY AND ACCEPTED FORM NO.15 -1 FROM INDIVIDUALS HAVING MORE THAN TWO TRUCKS. (III) AFTER ACCEPTING FORM 15.1 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE STATEMENT IN FORM 15-J BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE (TILL TODAY NOT FILED) AS REQUI RED U/S 194(3) READ WITH RULE 29D. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SUM OF RS.6,10,73,140/- COMPRISES OF FOLLOWING ITEMS :- ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 4 SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN RS. 1. OWN TRUCKS HAVING CONTRA EFFECT, FOR MIS PURPOSE ONLY AND BEING REVENUE NEUTRAL RS.2,07,51,415 2. PAID TO PARTIES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED FORM NO.15.1 RS.3,23,50,127 3. PAID UNDER NIL TDS CERTIFICATES RECEIVED FROM SUPPLIER OF TRUCKS ISSUED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT RS.13,53,470 4. FREIGHT EXPENSES FOR WHICH NO TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS THE AMOUNT CREDITED/PAID TO A CONTRACTOR/SUB-CONTRACTOR DOES NOT EXCEEDS RS.20,000 IN A SINGLE PAYMENT OR RS.50,000 IN THE AGGREGATE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RS.66,18,126 TOTAL RS.6,10,73,140 THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF AL L THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS. IN RESPECT OF SUM OF RS.2,07,51,415/- IT WAS EXPLAI NED THAT IT WAS JUST A CONTRA ENTRY IN THE SENSE THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS FIRS T CREDITED IN THE INCOME ALSO AND THEREAFTER IT WAS AGAIN DEBITED IN THE EXP ENDITURE ACCOUNT OFF- SETTING THE INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,07,51,415/- AS EXPENDITURE ON FREIGHT (PART OF TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES ON OWN TRUCKS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS.14,77,77,029/-). IN ADDITION TO ABOVE SUM ASSESS EE HAD ALSO DEBITED ANOTHER SUM OF RS.1,78,31,557/- IN THE PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD TRUCK OPERATING EXPENSES ON OWN TRUCKS. THE LD . CIT(A) FOUND A DIFFERENCE OF RS.29,19,858/- WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TH AT IT WAS CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS AND NOT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE AS UNDER :- 13. BUT THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS FOU ND NOT TENABLE. EXPENSES INCURRED ON OWN TRUCKS HAVE BEEN DEBITED T WICE ONCE AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSE OF RS.14,77,77,029/- AND AGAIN A S TRUCK OPERATING EXPENSES OF RS.1,78,31,557/-. BREAK UP OF RS.14,77, 77,029/- IS GIVEN IN ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 5 THE RETURN ITSELF IN SCHEDULE 1 WHERE RS.2,07,51,41 5/- APPEARS AS FREIGHT FOR OWN TRUCKS AND BREAK UP OF RS.1,78,31,557/- HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF WITH SUBMISSION DATED 15.4.2010 WH ICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 10 ABOVE AND WAS GIVEN AGAIN AS ANNEXURE-1 OF REPLY DATED 14.7.2010 AND IS ALSO ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 1 OF THI S ORDER. HOW CAN APPELLANT PAY FREIGHT ON OWN TRUCKS OF RS.207,51,41 5/- AND FURTHER DEBIT EXPENSES ON DRIVERS, DIESEL, REPAIRS ETC. ON OWN TR UCKS OF RS.1,78,31,557/- , WHEN IT IS NOT CREDITING SEPARATELY INCOME FROM O WN TRUCKS WHICH IS CLAIMED AT RS.2,07,51,415/- AND STANDS SQUARED UP B Y CONTRA ENTRY ? THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT VIDE THIS OFFICE NOTICE DATED 19.8.2010 HAD STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES AB OUT ITS CLAIMS. EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR FURNISHING BUL KY LISTS OF TRUCK NUMBERS THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAI M FULL OF FALLACIES. I AM CONVINCED ON THE BASIS OF THE FIGURES GIVEN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT ITSELF THAT THE APPELLANT DEBITED TWICE THE FREIGHT /OPERATING EXPENSE IT CLAIMS ON ITS OWN TRUCKS BY DEBITING RS.2,07,51,415 /- ONCE AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT OF RS .14,77,77,029/- AND THE SECOND TIME AS TRUCK OPERATING EXPENSES OF RS.1 ,78,31,557/-. 5. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.3,23,50,127/- BEING PART OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.6,10,73,140/- IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TRUCK OWNERS DID NOT OWN MORE THAN 2 TRUCKS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE FREIGHT PAID TO THEM. COPIES OF F ORM NO.15-1 WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS TO THE AO AND FORM NO.15-J WERE FURNISHED TO THE TDS WING OF THE DEPARTMENT VI DE ITS LETTER DATED 4.6.2007. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES, IN RESPECT OF WHOM FREIGHT PAYMENTS WERE MADE BUT NO TDS WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TWO TRUCKS AND WERE NOT LIAB LE TO TDS BUT FOUND THAT SUCH LIST DID NOT MATCH WITH THE LIST GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 15.4.2010. IN ABSENCE OF SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY TDS WAS NOT MADE ON THE SUM OF RS.3,23,50,127/- THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 6 6. THE THIRD ITEM IN THE TRIFURCATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF RS.66,18,125/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE SAME PAYMENT BECAUSE IN EACH CASE THE AM OUNT WAS LESS THAN RS.50,000/- IN AGGREGATE DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. C IT(A) REJECTED THE EXPLANATION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE NEVER SUBMI TTED FORM NO.15-J IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE IT FILES IT RETURN BUT TO A DIFFERENT IT AUTHORITY. THE AO ACCORDINGLY, WAS PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT NEC ESSARY ENQUIRIES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT SEVERAL NAMES IN THE LIST GIVEN UNDER THE HEAD OF RS.66,18,128/- WERE IN OTHER LIST ALSO. THU S THERE WAS APPARENT DUPLICATION OF EXPENSES. AS A RESULT, LD. CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND ALSO HELD THAT 50% ARE NOT GENUINE OR BOGUS. 7. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT THER E IS A DUPLICATION OF ENTRIES PERTAINING TO SUM OF RS.2,07,51,415/-. HOWE VER, HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THERE IS A DUPLICATION OF ENTRY. WHEN T HE LD. AR WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY AS TO HOW MUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS SO AS TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THEY ARE DUPLICATE ENTRIES, THE LD . AR COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE ALSO CO ULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES WHO FURNISHED FORM NO.15-1 I N RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE PAYM ENT MADE TO THE TRUCK OPERATORS. FURTHER, IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED HOW THE PA YMENT TO A PARTICULAR TRUCK OPERATOR WAS LESS THAN RS.50,000/- AND NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO THEM. 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNTS ARE COMPLEX AND WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL COMPREHENSION, THEY ARE WRITTEN AGAINST THE PRINCIP LES OF ACCOUNTANCY, HENCE A SPECIAL AUDIT SHOULD BE DIRECTED. ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 7 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ACCOUNTS MAIN TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FULL OF DEFECTS AND ARE AGAINST THE AC CEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. ON ONE HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS CREDITED NOTIONAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF OWN TRUCKS AND, THERE FORE, HE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE CORRESPONDING DEBIT ENTRIES AS EXPENSES, AN D ON THE OTHER HAND HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE OPERATING EXPENSES ARE ACTUA L. WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE IF NOTIONAL INCOME IS CREDITED FOR WHATEVER REASON THEN CORRESPONDING EXPENSES HAS ALSO TO BE NOTIONAL. IF OPERATING EXPE NSES ARE REAL AND THEN CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ALSO TO BE REAL. BUT WHY SU CH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS FOLLOWED IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI NED EXCEPT SAYING THAT FOR CONTROLLING THE OPERATION OF THE TRUCKS AND FOR MIS (MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM) ASSESSEE HAD TO RESORT TO CREDI T NOTIONAL INCOME ON THE OWN TRUCKS OPERATING IN THE MARKET ON THE BASIS OF POSSIBLE REALIZATION OF FREIGHT AND, THEREFORE, ONCE SUCH POSSIBLE REALI ZATION OF FREIGHT IS CREDITED ASSESSEE HAD TO MAKE CORRESPONDING DEBIT E NTRIES FOR SUCH EXPENSES SO AS TO NEUTRALIZE THE EFFECT OF CREDIT. TO OUR UNDERSTANDING THIS SYSTEM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO DRA W A LINE WHERE THE ACTUAL RECEIPT ARE RECORDED AND WHERE THE NOTIONAL RECEIP TS ARE RECORDED. THUS THERE IS APPARENTLY A MERGER OF NOTIONAL INCOME AND ACTUAL INCOME AND NOTIONAL EXPENDITURE AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. SIMILA RLY THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION AS TO WHICH PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED FO RM NO.15-1 REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DEDUCT THE TAX AND WHETHER SUCH APPLICANT ARE GENUINE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF COMPLEXITY INVOLVED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS WE DIRECT THE AO TO REFER THE CASE FOR COM PULSORY AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 142(2A) WITH A C.A. WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR FINDING OUT - ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 8 (1) AMOUNT OF NOTIONAL INCOME CREDITED AND NOTIONAL EXP ENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH EVIDENCE THEREOF; (2) IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS OF EXPENSES, WHERE TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON ACCOUNT OF PROPER FORM NO.15-1. 10. THE AO WILL FURTHER OBTAIN FROM TDS WING FORM N O.15-J AND VERIFY WHETHER OF OPERATORS LISTED THERE ARE GENUIN E SO AS TO KNOW THAT TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE I.E. THE LIST OF PAY MENT BELOW RS.50,000/- WOULD BE VERIFIED. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO D O SO. 11. THE C.A. APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 142(2A) WILL D RAW PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER SEPARATING NOTIONAL INCOME/NOTIO NAL EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF FOUND ANY. 12. THE ASSESSEE WILL THEREAFTER EXPLAIN IF TDS IS NOT MADE ON PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 194C. THE AO WIL L TAKE PROPER ACTION AS PER LAW UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) THEREAFTER. 13. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.1.11. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 21.1.11. MAHATA/- ITA NO.2908/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 13/1/2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 20/1/ 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 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..