Shri Rakesh S.Shah, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(3), Baroda

ITA 300/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63038 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Loose papers
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.300, 301, 302 & 303 / AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY) RAKESH S. SHAH, BLOCK NO.3, TAKSHASHILA SOCIETY, NEAR CHITRAKUT MAHADEV TEMPLE, BARODA VS. ITO, WAD 5(3), BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AJFPS4625P (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A TIRKEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 11.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.11.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH HARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) V, BARODA DATE D 07.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2004-05. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, ALL THES E APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS AS UNDER: I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 2 THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY TREATED THE COMMISSION INCO ME S 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DRAFTS/PAY ORDER TRANSACTIONS CON DUCTED AT THE BEHEST OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REMAINING THREE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL AND IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND ARG UMENTS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 MAY BE FIRST DECIDED AND FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEAR S, THE DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 CAN BE FOLLOWED. 4. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 TO 4.4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 WAS CARR IED OUT BY ADIT (INVESTIGATION)- BARODA ON 30.03.2005 AT THE B USINESS PREMISES OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE (PROPRIETOR SMT. REK HABEN THAKKAR). DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 TO FINANCIAL YEA R 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO HUGE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/ S. DURGA FINANCE. THOUGH THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN CASH THE SAME WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLA NT. ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION IN THE MONTH OF MARC H 2006 THE AO CONCERNED ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 148 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1999- 00, 2003-004 AND 2004-05 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01, THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2007. 4.1. DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ADIT HAD IMPOUN DED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, LOOSE PAPERS AND VOUCHERS FROM THE PRE MISES OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE. THE DOCUMENTS SO IMPOUNDED INCLUDED THE DAILY TRANSACTION SHEET OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE WHICH CONTA INED THE PARTICULARS OF ARRANGEMENT OF DEMAND DRAFTS / BANKE RS CHEQUE FOR FEW PARTIES WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ON ENQUIRY WITH SHRI HARIN THAKKAR, MANAGER OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE AND SON OF PROPRIETOR OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE MRS. REKHA THAKKAR, IT REVEALED THAT HE WAS ARRANGING DEMAND D RAFT ON RECEIPT OF CASH FROM VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING THE APPELLAN T. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH INFORMATION, THE APPELLANT WAS SUMMONED BY THE ADIT AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S. 131(1) WHEREIN IT W AS CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED BY HIM THAT HE HAD TRANSACTIONS OF BORROW INGS WITH M/S. DURGA FINANCE AND DENIED OBTAINING ANY DEMAND DRAFT S ON PAYMENT OF CASH OR GETTING THE CHEQUES DISCOUNTED F ROM M/S. I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 3 DURGA FINANCE. THIS STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT FOUND TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HARIN THAK KAR WHO HAD DENIED OF HAVING UNDERTAKEN ANY MONEY LENDING TRANS ACTION WITH THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DETAILS OF TRANSACT IONS RECORDED IN HIS NAME IN THE BOOKS / MATERIAL IMPOUNDED FROM M/S . DURGA FINANCE WERE FURNISHED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, T HE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPEL LANT AS ACCORDING TO HIM SOME OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE PUR CHASED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPELLANT IN FAVOR OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INDIRECTLY CONTROLLING THE AFFAIRS OF M/S. LILA DHAR PETROLEUM, A FIRM RUNNING A PETROL PUMP AT RAS, TALUKA BORSAD OF DISTRICT ANAND. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE PETROL PUMP WAS ALLO TTED TO ONE SHRI SAMANTSINH MAHIDA WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF TH E SAID PETROL' PUMP AND ON BEING SUMMONED U/S. 131(1) IT WAS STATE D BY HIM THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH H IM BY NOMINATING HIS NEPHEW SHRI SNEHAL SHAH AS PARTNER, THOUGH THE ENTIRE MANAGEMENT WAS CONTROLLED BY THE APPELLANT T HROUGH HIS MANAGER MR. BINDESH NAKUM. MR. MAHIDA HAS ALSO STAT ED THAT THE DEMAND DRAFTS FOR PURCHASE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FR OM I.O.C, WERE ALWAYS ARRANGED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S, P.P . SHROFF & M/S. DURGA FINANCE AND THAT MR. MAHIDA HAD NEVER DE ALT WITH THESE FIRMS ISSUING THE DEMAND DRAFT AS THIS ENTIRE AFFAIR WAS MANAGED BY THE APPELLANT. MR. MAHIDA ALSO INFORMED THAT THE BORROWING OBTAINED FROM M/S. P.P. SHROFF AND M/S. D URGA FINANCE WAS SQUARED UP BY ADJUSTMENT IN THE ACCOUNT OF NEW PARTNERS NAMELY SHRI HARDIKBHAI B. PATEL, SHRI SNEHAL SHAH A ND SHRI SHYAMBHAI M, KAHAR AND ACCORDING TO THE A,0. SUCH A DJUSTMENT ESTABLISHED THAT THE FINANCING WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE PARTNERS. SHRI SNEHAL SHAH PARTICULARLY WAS VERY YOUNG AND NE PHEW OF THE APPELLANT WHICH SHOWS THAT HE IS A DUMMY OF THE APP ELLANT AND THUS THERE WAS A CLEAR ESTABLISHMENT OF RELATIONSHI P WITH M/S. DURGA FINANCE. 4.2 THE A.O. ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, M/S. LILADHAR PETROLEUM, M/S. DURGA FI NANCE AND GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD, THE OUTCOME OF WHICH IS REFLECTED AS UNDER: A) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD ISSUED MATERIAL AGAINST THREE DEMAND DRAFTS RECEIVED FROM M/S LILADHAR PETROLEUM AND M/S. VEER SHAHID PETROLEUM. B) SHRI SAMANTSINH MAHIDA, PARTNER OF M/S LILA DHAR PETROLEULM, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ARRANGING ALL I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 4 THE FUNDS FOR THE BUSINESS AND THAT SHRI SNEHAL SHA H, NEPHEW OF THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO A PARTNER. C) MR. HARIN THAKKAR, MANAGER OF M/S DURGA FI NANCE HAD STATED THAT'THEY WERE ISSUING DEMAND DRAFTS/CHEQUES TO THE PARTIES KNOWN TO THEM OR REFERRED TO THEM BY THE KNOWN PERS ONS. THE APPELLANT REFERRED CERTAIN PARTIES TO WHOM DDS OR C HEQUES HAD BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOR OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. D) GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. STATED THAT TH EY HAD SUPPLIED MATERIAL TO M/S. SHRI PETRO CHEM INDUSTRIES OF MEGH NAGAR, DIST. JABHUA OF MADHYA PRADESH AGAINST THE DD FOUND TO HA VE BEEN ISSUED BY.M/S. DURGA FINANCE. 4.3. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. DURGA FINANCE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH BY CENTRAL BUREAU O F INVESTIGATION (CB1), WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY HAD SUBMITTED A LIST TO CBI SHOWING THE DETAILS OF DEMAND DRAFTS ARRANGED BY IT AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT MR. RAKESH SHANKERLAL SHAH, BARODA . ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE ENQUIRIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE, THE AO C AME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEMAND DRAFTS ISSUED IN FAVOR O F INDIAN OIL CORPORATION WERE, PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FROM M /S. DURGA FINANCE ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES INCLUDIN G M/S. LILADHAR PETROLEUM AND M/S. VEER SHAHID PETROLEUM. THE AO AL SO HELD THAT THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY MR. HARIN THAKKAR, MANAGER OF M/S DURGA FINANCE AND SHRI SAMANTSINH MAHIDA RETRACTING FROM THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BEFORE THE AO WERE UNDER PRESSURE AND AN AFTE RTHOUGHT. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IMPOUNDED FROM THE PREMISES O F M/S. DURGA FINANCE CONCLUSIVELY LEAD TO THE EVIDENCE THA T THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS WHEREIN T HE NAME OF MR. RAKESH S. SHAH WAS MENTIONED ON THE SLIPS ACTUALLY PERTAINED TO HIM ONLY. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE INCOME-TAX PROCE EDINGS BEING CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, THE EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED IN CRI MINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO PROVE T HE TRANSACTIONS AS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME. 4.4 THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FINDING'S HELD THA T THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT REPRESENTED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS FOR TH E YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION: A.Y. AMOUNT RS. 1999-00 5,93,58,050 I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 5 2003-04 53,94,662 2004-05 1,78,44,555 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FAC ILITATOR FOR ACCOMMODATING DEMAND DRAFTS/PAY ORDERS THROUGH M/S. DURGA FINANCE AND HE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ASSESSEE COMMISSION INC OME @5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEMAND DRAFT/PAY ORDER SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE FOUR YEARS. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFO RE US REGARDING THE PART ADDITION UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF 5%. ON QUERY BY THE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT NO APP EAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A). 6. VARIOUS ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED BY THE LD. A.R. RE GARDING THIS CONTENTION THAT NO INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE RATE OF 5 % ADOPTED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON VERY MUCH HIGHER SIDE. 7. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A ) AS PER PARA 6.5 AND 6.5.1 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERE NCE, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. FOR THE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE AN D ALSO THE A.Y. 2000-01 AND THE REMAND REPORT DATED 28/03/2008 AND 04/11/2009. THE OVERWHELMING ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS REGAR DING PURCHASE OF DRAFTS OR CHEQUES, PAY ORDERS ETC., FROM M/S DUR GA FINANCE FAVOURING INDIAN OIL CORPORATION OR GAS AUTHORITY O F INDIA LTD ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN PARTIES, AS SPELT OUT BY THE AO I N THE BODY OF THE I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS TREATED SUCH PURCHASE OF THESE DEMAND DRAFTS AS THOSE OF THE APPELLANT. EVEN THOUG H, THERE IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PERSON INS TRUMENTAL IN FACILITATING THE CASH DEPOSITED AND ISSUE OF INSTRU MENTS, THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE REA L PURCHASER HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED THROUGH PARTIES LIKE LILADHAR PETROLEUM, VEER SHAHEED PETROLEUM, SHRI RANG PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES ETC WERE RECORDED IN THEIR BOOKS, WHICH WAS NOT DISPROVED BY THE AO BY C OGENT REASONS. INITIALLY, M/S DURGA FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SHRI HARIN, K. THAKKAR STATED THAT THE DRAFTS ETC., WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT, BASED ON WHICH THE AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WERE THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE S OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, SHRI HARIN. K. THAKKAR HAS DENI ED LATER ON THROUGH, AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NO T THOSE OF THE APPELLANT, BUT THOSE OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED, REFE RRED THROUGH THE APPELLANT. SIMILAR IS TRUE WITH SHRI SAMANTSINH MAH IDA PROPRIETOR OF M/S LILADHAR PETROLEUM, WHO HAS ALSO FILED THE A FFIDAVIT TO DENY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS'NOT THE PERSON INDULGING IN PURCHASES BUT ONLY A FACILITATOR. THE AO HAS BRUSHED THEM ASIDE B RANDING THEM TO BE AN AFTER THOUGHT. THE DENIAL OF THE APPELLANT TH AT HE IS NOT THE ACTUAL PURCHASER, BUT ONLY A FACILITATOR HAS NOT BE EN DENIED OR DISPROVED BY THE AO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS VE RY DIFFICULT TO TREAT THE APPELLANT AS PURCHASER. 6.5.1. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT THAT THE NEXT IMME DIATE QUESTION IS, WHETHER HE IS A COMMISSION AGENT? THE ANSWER APPEAR S TO BE YES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT M/S. DURGA FINANCE HAS ISSUED VOLUMINOUS NUMBER OF DEMAND DRAFTS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACT WAS ALSO RECORDED IN VARIOUS SLIPS. THE AMOUNTS OF TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DENIED WHICH IS BASED ON THE RECORDS. THE REFERENCE OF THE APPELLANT IN SUCH LAR GE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS FOR VARIOUS YEARS SIGNALS THAT APPELLA NT WAS INDIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH FINANCING ACTIVITIES AND HAD F INANCIAL GAINS FROM SUCH CONTINUOUS AND HUGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTION S. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE EARNING COMMISSION ON THE CHEQUES, DRAFTS, PAY ORDERS ETC ISSUED TO INDIA N OIL CORPORATION AND GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD, THE COMMISSION RECE IVED BY HIM WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY HIM. TH E FACT THAT HE IS NOT RECORDING THE COMMISSION IN HIS BOOKS CANNOT EXONERATE HIM IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL FOUND BY THE AO, WHERE IN THE FINANCE I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 7 COMPANIES CONCERNED RECORDED HIS NAME AS FACILITATO R FOR ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES, DRAFTS, PAY ORDERS ETC. NO BODY INDULGE S IN SUCH A VOLUMINOUS TRANSACTION FOR CHARITY. THE COMMISSION CHARGED OR RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNED HAS NOT BEEN RE CORDED FOR THE OBVIOUS REASONS THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE IN CASH . IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT PURCHASE OF DRAFTS, CHEQUES, PAY OR DERS ETC., WERE AGAINST PAYMENT OF CASH. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRC UMSTANCES AND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, I AM IN AGREEMENT W ITH THE VIEW OF THE AO FOR A.Y. 2000-01 THAT THE NET COMMISSION INC OME BE TREATED AS 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DRAFTS/PAY ORDER TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED AT THE BEHEST OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FO LLOWING ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED: A.Y. AMOUNT OF DEMAND DRAFT/PAY ORDERS (RS.) COMMISSION INCOME @ 5% 1999-00 5,93,58,050 2967902 2000-01 172979849 8648992 2003-04 53,94,662 269733 2004-05 1,78,44,555 892228 9. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PERSON INSTRUMENTAL IN FACILITATING THE CASH DEPOSITS AND ISSUE OF THE INSTRUMENTS AND HENCE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MER IT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THESE DEMAND DRAFTS/PAY ORDE RS AND NO INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COU NT. NOW, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US IS WHETHER THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO TEAT 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND DRAFT/PAY O RDERS AS COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE OR NOT. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, 5% COMMISSION IN THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS VERY MUCH ON HIGHER SIDE AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 1% COMMISSION INCOME WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO RESTRICT THE I.T.A.NO.300,301,302 & 303 /AHD/2010 8 ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 1% OF THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND DRAFTS/PAY ORDERS IN EACH OF THE FOUR YEARS AS AGAINST 5% COMMISSION AS DIRECTED BY LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (G. C. GUPTA) (A. K. GARODIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15/10/12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18/10/2012.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 02/11/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.2/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 02/11/2012 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. .