The ITO, Ward-4, Bharuch V. M/s. Meghal Developers, Ankleshwar

ITA 293/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80348 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.293/AHD/2013 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, BHARUCH / VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS C/O.J.P. SHAH & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 7/8, MRIDUL TOWER, 1 ST FLOOR H.K.HOUSE LANE, ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 009 ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAKFM 3612 Q ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.DR ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH, AR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING 27/08/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/09/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, BARODA ( CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 19.11.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2009-10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON OF ` 48,18,878/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THAT ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE END USER OF UNITS WAS THAT OF WORK CONTRACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD TO, AMEND OR ALTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. RELIEF CLAIMED IN APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2011, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) DISALLO WED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS REPORTED AT ( 2012)341 ITR 403 (GUJ.), ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRE CTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.48,18,878/- MADE IN RESPECT OF D ISALLOWANCE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD.SR.DR SHRI M.K.SINGH VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEES ROLE IN THIS CASE IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR WHO UNDERTAKES THE WORKS CONTRACT T HE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE FIR ST SOLD THE LAND TO THE PERSONS AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE THER EON AFTER THE LAND WAS SOLD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THE FACT ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO TWO SEPARATE AGREEME NTS, ONE FOR SELLING OF LAND AND ANOTHER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY THEREON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ARE DISTIN GUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS(SUPRA). 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD DEVELO PED AT HOUSING PROJECT AT MANGALMURTI PARK, ANKLESHWAR ON A LAND A T REVENUE SURVEY NO.715. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMEN T OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS IN TAX APPEAL NOS.546 OF 2008 AND OTHERS :: (2012) 204 TAXMAN 543 :: 17 TAXMANN.COM 156(GUJ.). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M /S.SATSANG DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.1011, 2498 & 1221/AHD/2012, DAT ED 12/11/2013. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE AFORESAID DECISION, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECIDED THE C ASE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD TAKEN FUL L RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AND PROVIDED AL L COMMON AMENITIES LIKE COMMON-ROAD, LIGHT, WATER FACILITIES, ETC. AND ALL OTHER CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAD FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. HE POINTED OUT EVEN, PLAN OF HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPRO VED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - 3.2. IN REJOINDER, THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT INDORE BENCH) IN THE CASE OF SKY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS . ITO REPORTED AT (2011) 14 TAXMAN.COM 78 (INDORE). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AO TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS A WORK CONTRACTOR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L (INDORE BENCH) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SKY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS V S. ITO (SUPRA). ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON THE B ASIS THAT THE FACTS ARE COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). T HE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-FORM SOLD TH E PLOTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND AFTER THE SALE IS COMPLETE THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL TENEMENTS THEREON. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT TW O SEPARATE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT AND IT HAS BORNE ALL RISKS AND REWARD ARISING THEREFROM. MERELY BECAUSE THE LAND WAS SOL D AND THE HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED WOULD NOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIM ING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS(SUPRA). WE FIND THAT UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1011, 2498 & 1221 /AHD/2012 (OUT OF THREE APPEALS, TWO CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE) F OR AY 2008-09 IN THE ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - CASE OF M/S.SATSANG DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT IN PARAS-7 & 7.1.VIDE ORDER DATED 12/11/2013 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BEFORE US. FIRST, WE DECIDE TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, I.E. ITA NO.1221/AHD/2012. AS PER THIS AP PEAL, THE REVENUES CHALLENGE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION & OTHERS IN ITA NO.1503/AHD/2008 DATED 07/11/2008. NOW THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS AVAILABL E ON THIS ISSUE, I.E. THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEV ELOPERS (SUPRA). REGARDING THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLEJURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE THAT THIS JUD GMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IN THAT JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT, IT WAS OBSERVED VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.31 OF THE JUDGEMENT THAT NO PROVI SION CONTAINED IN OTHER RELATED STATUTES WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WOULD BE A C ONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE WANTS TO BRING THIS ON RECORD THAT AS PER GUJARAT TOWN PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976 AND THE REGULATION S FRAMED THEREUNDER, IT IS NECESSARY THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS A CON DITION PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT IN THIS VERY JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), IN PARA-19, IT WAS NOTED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE SUB MITTED THAT UNDER THE GUJARAT TOWN PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT A S ALSO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND CONTROL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF VADODARA, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY THE OWN ER CAN DEVELOP A HOUSING PROJECT ON ANY LAND. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THIS A CT AND REGULATIONS ON WHICH OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN BY LD.DR OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), AND EVEN AFTER NOTING THE SAME, IT IS OBSE RVED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE THAT NO PROVISION OF ANY OT HER RELATED STATUES WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR NOTICE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT OWNERSH IP OF THE LAND WOULD BE A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJ ECT. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.DR BEFORE US BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THIS ACT AND REGULATION HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE THE SAME WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER THE PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON A LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF RADHE ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FO R IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 7.1. REGARDING SECOND ASPECT, I.E. REGARDING SALE O F UNUTILIZED FSI, IT IS NOTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THIS ASPECT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO V S. SHAKTI CORPORATION BARODA IN ITA NO.1503/AHD/2008 DATED 07/11/2008. N O DIFFERENCE IN FACTS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT (A ) IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THIS ASPECT. HENCE, BOTH THE ASPECTS ARE DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 4.1. THE LD.CIT(A AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT OTHER CONDITIONS CONTE MPLATED U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN COMPILED. WE ALSO FIND THAT U NDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1011,2498 AND 1221/AHD/2012(SUPRA) IN PARAS-9.2 AND 9.3 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 9.2. NOW WE TAKE UP THE THIRD AND LAST OBJECTION O F LD.CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND SEPARATELY AND UNDERTOOK THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS PER A SEPARATE AGREEMENT AND, THEREFORE THE ASSESSE E IS NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER BUT A LAND DEALER AND CONTRACTOR. IN THI S REGARD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT INDORE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.VARDHMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. ITO (SUPRA). IT IS NOT ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMEN T FOR A SALE OF LAND AND A SEPARATE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ON THE LAND AND, THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS H ELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U /S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DECLINED IF OTHER CONDITIONS ARE BEING SA TISFIED. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMR BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) ALS O, THE ASSESSE SOLD THE LAND ALONG WITH SEMI-FINISHED STRUCTURE TO THE BUYE RS AND AS PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT, AGREED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPLETION O F BALANCE WORK. HENCE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO SIMILAR BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE LAND WAS SOLD SEPARATELY ALONG WITH PARTIAL AND UNFINISHED C ONSTRUCTION OF FLATS AND, THEREAFTER, CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO TO CARRY OUT THE BALANCE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HEL D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT SUCH AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLE TE THE BALANCE WORK IS ONLY AN INCIDENTAL FACILITATION TO PROTECT INTEREST OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(1 0) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF RAGHAVA ESTATES VS. DY.CIT (SUPRA) ON W HICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR . IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PLOTS SEPARATELY AND THEREAFT ER, CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSES AND UNDER THESE FACTS, THE REVENUE HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MERE CONTRACTOR AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS NOTED BY THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHOSEN TO REGISTER THE PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE BUYE R ON PAYMENT OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COST SAVING AND TO ENSUR E RELIABILITY AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE AS PER BUILDING PLAN OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE PLOT-OWNERS ON PAY MENT OF SUBSEQUENT INSTALLMENTS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD ALSO DEVELOPED VARIOUS PUBLIC AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT. THEREAFTER, I T WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ON A TOTALITY OF A FACT, THE TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS AS PER THE SCHEME PROVIDED IN SECTION 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. 9.3. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS IN ABOVE NOTED THREE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THESE DECISIONS, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO OTHER OBJECTION OF THE LD.CIT (A) REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION TO T HE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB (10) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT THE DEDU CTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. 5. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY DECISIO N BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR HONBLE APEX COURT, TH EREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SA ME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12 /09/2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.293/AHD/ 2013 ITO VS. M/S.MEGHAL DEVELOPERS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2.9.14(DICTATION-PAD 8- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..4.9.14 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BAC K TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 12.9.14 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.9.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER