The Dy, CIT, Circle-1, Surat V. M/s. Parinay Organisers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 3040/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9580 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Assessee Lawyers: CLAIMING IT ONLY AGAINST
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Proportionate interest; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 43B; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.3040/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SURAT. VS. PARINAY ORGANIZERS PVT. LTD., C/O MUKESH N. DESAI, U-11, JOLLY SQUARE, OPP. RAM MANDIR, RAM CHOWK, GHOD DHOD ROAD, SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AACCP 3640G APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 22/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/01/2017 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, SURAT, DATED 24. 10.2013 VIDE APPEAL NO.CAS-1/TFR/216/2013-14, ARISING OUT OF ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 19.03.201 2 BY DCIT, CC-4, SURAT. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY REVENU E :- ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 2 (1) ON THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHET HER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 44,19,194/- WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) MAY BE SET-SIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTE NT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN CO NSTRUCTION WORK. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 SHOWING NI L INCOME WAS FILED ON 19.10.2007. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAM ED ON 15.12.2009 AFTER DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSES OF R S.44,19,194/- AND INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.NIL AFTER SETTING OFF OF BROU GHT FORWARD LOSSES. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUCCEED BE FORE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND LEVIE D PENALTY OF RS.13,25,759 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.03.2012 WHICH WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.10.2013. 3. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 4. LD. DR REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. A SSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.44,19,194/- CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO A CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 43B(E) OF THE ACT WH ICH IS SPECIFICALLY MEANT FOR INTEREST PAID TO A SCHEDULED BANK. ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT INTERES T EXPENSES OF RS.44,19,194/- RELATES TO PRECEDING YEARS WHICH INC LUDES RS.21,10,019/- FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.23,09, 175/- RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND THESE TWO AMOUNTS TOGETHER A T RS.44,19,194/- WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON T HE ASSET SIDE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THIS INTEREST AMOUNT O F RS.44.19,194/- WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT WHICH A FTER THE INCLUSION OF RS.44,19,194/- STOOD AT RS.2,49,81,176/-. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT WAS CALCULATED TOWARDS 2192 SQ .FT. SOLD DURING THE YEAR OUT OF 11,219 SQ.FT. AREA AND THIS AMOUNT WAS CALCULATED AT RS.48,80,893/-. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.48,80,893/- INCLUDES PROPORTIONATE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AND PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSES AND EFFECTIVELY OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.44,19,194/- PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF 21 92 SQ.FT./11,219 SQ.FT. IF APPLIED THEN INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.8,63 ,435/- STANDS TO BE CLAIMED AGAINST PROFITS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT CO NTINUES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IN SUCCEEDING YEARS AND WOULD BE BO OKED TO EXPENDITURE HEAD AS AND WHEN REMAINING AREA IS SOLD . 6. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE BY ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING IT ONLY AGAINST THE SALES MADE. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGITIMATE LEGAL CLAIM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BUT CERTAINLY IT CANNOT CALL FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 4 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. LD. AR REFERRED AND RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIAN CE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT MERELY THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN TH E RETURN, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.44.19,194/- WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TH E CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND HAS BOOKED THE EXPENSES ON A PRO RATA BASIS AS PER THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE AREA SOLD DURING THE YEAR. AS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR TOTAL AREA OF CONSTRUCTION WAS 11,219 SQ.FT. OUT OF WHICH DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ASSESSEE HAS SO LD 2192 SQ.FT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS.44,19,194/- INCURRED TOWARDS INTEREST EXP ENDITURE WAS ADDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT OF R S.44,19,194/- INCLUDED INTEREST PAID TO A CO-OP. BANK AT RS.21,10 ,019/- IN ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.23,01,175/- IN ASST. YEAR 2005- 06. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SPECIFICALLY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.44,19,1 94/- HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT STANDING IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT HAS BEEN APPORTIONED ON THE BA SIS OF SQUARE FEET AREAS SOLD. IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ASSESSEE SOLD 2191 SQ.FT. ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 5 OUT OF 11,219 SQ.FT AND PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,49,81,176/- BEING THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT WAS ACCORDINGLY APPORTIONED BY APPLYING 2192 SQ.FT. /11,219 SQ.FT., WHICH GAVE A F IGURE OF RS.48, 80,893/- AND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER THAT RS.48,80,893/- INCLUDES THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 8,63,435/- ONLY AND NOT RS.44,19,194/- AND THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ON MERCANTILE BASIS. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT IN THE PICTURE AND OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(E) OF THE ACT DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED FOR THE INTEREST PAID TO A SCHEDULED BANK WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE PERTAINS TO A CO-OP. BANK . LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IGNORED THE FACT THAT PROPORTIONATE IN TEREST AMOUNT WAS ONLY RS.8,63,435/- AND NOT RS.44,19,194/-. HE DISAL LOWED THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.44,19,194/- AS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 43B(E) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THIS APPEAL WE HAVE TO LIMIT OUR FOCUS ONLY T O THE GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE THAT WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELE TING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ALLEGED ADD ITION OF RS.44,19,194/-. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4. . , ! ' #$% & ! ' ! ''( ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 6 5. 15.12.2009 )* + , - , % $. %/ 44,19,194/- 0 . 12 3 ' % ( 0 . )* + 4 - 2004- 05 2005-06 &5&6* % ( %/ 0 . CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ACCOUNT ADD 7 % 8 )* + 4 - 2007-08 PRO RATA BASIS 52 '' UNITS ,* * 23 B &' CLAIM 7 % ( )* + 6* 9 7 0 . CO-OPERATIVE BANK &5&6* : 8 * 43 B(E) &' ; SCHEDULED 5< 0 . 9 PAYMENT BASIS CLAIM 7 . :( + ADDITION 3 ' ( * 271(1) (C) &' $ ADDITION &5&* ' ' '' :( %/ )+ MERITS # = )+ 3 # ' CASE LAWS RELY 7 # CLAIM BONAFIDE CLAIM % 8 > + 7 CLAIM 9& ,( 7 ' ADDITION * 217(1)( C) &' CONCEALMENT ! -= 4 9& , ( %/ ?@2 A 332 ITR 158 REPORTED RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT = RELY 7 ( 6. %/ = BC 1 5 D : 7 %/ , ! &'+ &5&6* ' = B )E 9& % ( # LEGAL INTERPRETATION ,* CLAIM 7 % , .7 9& 7 ' ( = 9& . 7 %/ D 9+ = 9& % ( +C 7 ' ADDITION * 271(1)( C) D9+ 1 &' DEEMED CONCEALMENT ! -= 4 9& , ( F %/ ! &. G ! . : 8 ' ' '' $ H ! . :( 9. FROM PERUSAL OF CIT(A)S ORDER WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESS EE WAS BONA FIDE IN NATURE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT BROUGHT IN ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 7 10. FURTHER CONTINUING TO OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION AND ON ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE F ACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.44,19,194/- WAS PAID TOWARDS INTEREST TOWARDS PR ECEDING ASST. YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AT RS.21,10,019/- AND RS. 23,09,175/- RESPECTIVELY AND THIS AMOUNT WHICH WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS WAS TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT AND P ROPORTIONATE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT O N THE BASIS OF AREA SOLD. WE WILL NOT LIKE TO GO INTO THE ISSUE OF ACTUAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS RS.8, 63,435/- AS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE OR RS.44,19,194/- AS ALLEGED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS THE FIGURE TAKEN BY HIM FROM PERU SAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT IN WHICH INTEREST AMOUNT OF R S.44,19,194/- WAS TRANSFERRED AND WAS NOT FULLY CLAIMED IN THE YEAR. WE JUST CONFINE TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS SESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN VISITED WITH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES THERE HAS BEEN A CLAIM MADE BY THE AS SESSEE TREATING IT TO BE A BONA FIDE CLAIM BUT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE OBSERVE THAT HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HE LD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPEN DITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN THE RETURN, WHICH WERE NOT FOUND TO BE IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, IT WAS UPTO T O THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAU SE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR NOT A CCEPTABLE TO REVENUE THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 8 11. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPE RS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 400 (SC) WHEREIN HON. APE X COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 17. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, W E ARC OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE RATHER PECULIAR AND SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. THE ASSESSEE I S UNDOUBTEDLY A REPUTED FIRM AND HAS GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A 'SILLY' MISTAKE AND INDEED THIS HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDG ED BOTH BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT. 18. THE FACT THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOW ABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A COMPUTATION ERROR IN ITS R ETURN OF INCOME. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT NOTICE THE ERROR, IT WAS NOT EVEN NOTICED EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THAT SENSE, EVEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN OVERLOOKING THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDI T REPORT. 19. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST TH AT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAP PENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBM ITTING ITS RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESC RIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE CALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAREFUL C ANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ARC SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDE D TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 21. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWE D AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON. SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LT D. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. VS. C IT (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONFIRM THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN CASE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 9 CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON PRO RATA BASIS BY WAY OF FI LING PARTICULARS WHICH WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE AT ANY STAGE NOR THERE HAS BEEN ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT IT WAS MERELY NO N-ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY APPLYING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(E) OF THE ACT BUT CERTAINLY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CALL FOR VISITING ASSESSEE WITH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS.44,19,194/- AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GR OUND OF REVENUE. 13. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE, WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- ( S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 04/01/2017 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 3040/AHD2013 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 03/01/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 04/01/2017 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 4/1/17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: