The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. M/s. Baroda Moulds & Dies, Baroda

ITA 3088/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6295 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR WITH PARIN SHAH

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2809/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. BARODA MOULDS AND DIES. 47 & 48, GIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WAGHODIA, BARODA 390 025 VS ACIT CENT. CIRCLE 1, BARODA. ./ ITA NO. 3088/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ACIT CENT. CIRCLE 1, BARODA. VS M/S. BARODA MOULDS AND DIES. 47 & 48, GIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WAGHODIA, BARODA 390 025 PAN : AABFB 8350 K / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR WITH PARIN SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/01/2018 / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 15.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL VIDE ITA NO.2809/AHD/2013: 1. ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 35,23,941/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOUND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS UNACCOUNTED I NCOME IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 2 2. ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION O F RS.8,04,163/-APPLYING GROSS PROFIT @ 22.82% ON DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOUND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS UNACCOUNTED I NCOME IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 3088AHD/2013: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,91,883/- TO RS.35,23,941/-, WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCO UNTED INVESTMENT. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,83,890/- TO RS.8,04,163/-, WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. RA TE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS C ARRIED OUT IN THE BARODA BUSHING & INSULATORS GROUP OF CASES INCLUDIN G THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ON 10-09-2009. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME O 23/09/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.91,10,610/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT, THERE WAS EXCESS PHYSICAL STOCK OF RS.60,91,883/- AS COMP ARED TO THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132 (4) OF THE ACT, THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM SHRI ARVIND PATEL ADMITTED RS.6 0 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE FIRM IN UNACCOUNTED EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTED THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APP ELLANT. AFTER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT, THE AO HELD THAT RS.6 0,91,883/-, BEING THE VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF EXCESS STOCK, THE AO ALSO REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.15,83 ,890/- I.E. GROSS PROFIT EARNED @ 26% ON THE SALES MADE OUT OF UNACCOUNTED S TOCK OF RS.60,91,883/-. 4.1 THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'AT THE OUTSET, THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY OBJECTS TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 3 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL (PARTNER) RECORDED U/S.132 (4), WHEREIN THE DISCREPANCY IN STOCK FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS ACCEPTED AND THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WAS OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. APART FROM THAT THER E WAS NO ANY OTHER BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS/DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO PUR CHASE OR SALE OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGED ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT STATEMENT OF ARVINDBHA I RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REFERRED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING IMP UGNED ADDITION WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FIRM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS HENCE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ARVINDBHAI EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO UN ACCOUNTED STOCK OF WIP AS STATED INSTATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WAS FILED IN NOVEMBER 2011 THOUGH SUBMISSION RELATING TO RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT WAS ALREADY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN DECEMBER 2009 I.E. POST-SEARCH EN QUIRY. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING RECONCILIATIO N STATEMENT TO ASSESSING OFFICER: PARTICULARS RAW MATERIALS FINISHED / SEMI- FINISHED GOODS TOTAL STOCK TAKEN BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AS PER PANCHNAMA DATED 10-09-2009 A 64,70,234 69,60,953 1,34,31,187 STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON 10-09-2009 B 76,81,780 69,60,953 1,46,42,733 LESS: EITHER NOT TAKEN BY THE SURVEY / SEARCH PARTY OR COU NTING ERROR DURING STOCK TAKING C 10,72,639 0 10,72,639 ADJUSTED STOCK (B - C) D 66,09,141 69,60,953 1,35,70,094 DIFFERENCE IN STOCK (A - D) E 1,38,907 0 1,38,907 APART FROM ABOVE NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OU T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT W HEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE DEVIATION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS, WHEREIN ENTRIES OF SUCH PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED, IT IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN CONSIDERING THE STOCK AS UNEXPLAINED WHEN THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE FOREMOST ARGUMENT FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS THAT SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL HAS ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCE IN STO CK IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) AS ON 10.09.2009, HERE IT IS MOST PERTIN ENT TO MENTION THAT AFTER CARRYING OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FOR MORE THAN 10 HOU RS DURING THE ENTIRE DAY, THE ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 4 STATEMENT OF SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL WAS RECORDED AT 9:00 P.M. DURING THAT TIME HE WAS ALREADY EXHAUSTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDIN GS DURING THE DAY. HE WAS IN A CONFUSED AND PARADOXICAL STATE OF MIND BY THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT PROCEEDED TO RECORD HIS STATEMENT. HENCE THE ANSWER S PROVIDED BY HIM CANNOT BE HELD RELIABLE SINCE HE WAS NOT IN A HEALTHY STATE O F MIND DURING THE RECORDING OF HIS STATEMENT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT AND ON REGAINING HIS S TATE OF MIND, SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL REALIZED THE MISTAKE MADE BY HIM BY ACCEPTING THE DISCREPANCY WHICH WAS ACTUALLY NON EXISTENT, AND HENCEFORTH DETAILED EXPL ANATION ALONG WITH RECONCILIATION WAS FURNISHED BY HIM TO THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION SO THAT THE DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY THE DEPARTMENT CAN BE EXPLAI NED. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFFIDAVIT OF ARVIND PATEL WA S ALSO FILED, WHICH ALSO CLARIFIES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ALLEGED EXCESS ST OCK FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY EXPLAINED AND RECONCILED BY APPELLANT HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PAY HEED TO THE INTENTION OF THE SHRI ARVINDBHAI PA TEL AND OVERLOOKED THE FACTS OF THE CASE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED, WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELI ES ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT WHEN ALLEGED EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS FULLY RECONCILED; NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. (I) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. DHINGRA METAL WORKS [ 2011] 196 TAXMAN 488 (DELHI) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS NOT BINDING AS EVIDENCE. FU RTHER IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT WHEN THE RESPONDENT IS R EGISTERED UNDER VARIOUS LAWS INCLUDING EXCISE AND MAINTAIN STATUTOR Y RECORD OF EXCISE, STOCK REGISTERS; BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE DULY AUDITED ADDITI ON CANNOT BE MADE IGNORING THE RECONCILIATION AND EVIDENCE FILED BY A SSESSES AND RELYING ONLY ON A STATEMENT WHICH WAS GIVEN DUE TO NON-AVAILABIL ITY OF READY EXPLANATION. (II) ANKUR CHEM FOOD PRODUCTS (GUJ) LTD VS DY.CIT I.T.A. NO.133/RJT/2006 , WHERE IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE IS SUBSTANTI AL ERROR IN STOCK TAKING OR SOME ITEMS HAVE BEEN MISSED AT THE TIME OF MAKING INVENTORY AND THE SAME IS RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSE S SUBSEQUENTLY BY WAY OF ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND PROPER SUPPORTING THEN THE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK IS NOT CALLED FOR.' 4.2 BUT LD. AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY/SUB MISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.60,91,88 3/- AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK, SAME CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED EX-STOCK AND O F RS.15,83,890/- AS GROSS PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK. 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), APPELL ANT FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 5 7. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.1 IS CONCERNED. LD. AO HAD M ADE THE ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT OF RS.15,83,890/- APPLYING THE RATE OF 26% ON UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF RS.60,91,883/-. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN THE RATE AT 22.82% AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED WORKING PROVIDED BY THE AP PELLANT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER AND RELEVANT RECORD, THE APPELLAN T HAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING GIVEN A DETAILED QUANTITAT IVE RECONCILIATION SHOWING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED STOCK WORTH RS.60,91,8 83/- IS INDEED THE SEMI- FURNISHED GOODS AND HENCE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AO HAS NO T ACKNOWLEDGED THIS RECONCILIATION PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AS HE HAS NOT MADE A SINGLE REMARK IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING THE SAME. TAKING HIS CUE, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED THE QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION. MOREO VER, HE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING REMARKS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4.3.1 THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE ANY EXPLAN ATION/RECONCILIATION FOR THIS EXCESS STOCK AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THAT IS WHY SHRI ARVINDBHAI PATEL THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM ACCEPTED RS.60 LAKHS AS UNACCOU NTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT 8. THE LD. AO HAS OBSERVED THAT STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF RS.60,91,883/- AS PER BOOK IS NIL, WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS ANY ENTITY CANNOT HAVE ZERO STOCK AND THAT TO AT THE MID OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR WHEN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE AT ITS PEAK. THIS STOCK OF RS.60,91,883/- WAS SEMI-FINISHED GOODS AND HENCE NOT RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A DETAILED QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION FO R EACH ITEM OF STOCK AS UNDER: PARTICULARS (EACH ITEM OF STOCK) AMOUNT (IN RS.) QUANTITY AS ON 1/4/2009 [AS PER STOCK STATEMENT GIVEN TO BANK WHICH TALLIES WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OF FICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-2010] XXX ADD: PRODUCTION UPTO 31/ 0 8/2009 XXX LESS: SALE UP TO 31/ 0 8/2009 XXX ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 6 STOCK AS ON 31/8/2009 WHICH TALLIES WIT H BANK STATEMENT [COPY ALREADY PROVIDED TO CIT(A) FOR HI S KIND PERUSAL] XXX ADD: PRODUCTION LESS SALE FROM 1/9/2009 TILL 10/9/2 009 XXX NET STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH TALLIES WI TH PANCHNAMA PREPARED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER ADD PRODUCTION LESS SALE FROM DATE OF SEARCH TO 31/3/2010 XXX CLOSING STOCK TALLIES WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AC CEPTED BY A.O. XXX 10. FURTHER, STOCK STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE REGULARLY SUBMITTED TO THE APPELLANT'S BANKER ON MONTHLY BASIS. THE STOCK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE PERIOD 1/4/2009 TO 31/8/2009 WERE ALSO S UBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) FOR HIS PERUSAL. BUT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT C ONSIDER THE RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND AUTHORITIES RELIED S TATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT U/S.142 OF THE ACT THOUGH THE APPELLANT REFLECTED F OR HIS STATEMENT AFTER ONE MONTH AND THEREAFTER ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THA T EFFECT BUT LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO CONSIDER HIS CONTENTION. AFTE R HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EX AMINE THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WI LL DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AL LOWED. 11. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 2 IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.8,04,163/- APPLYING GROSS PROFIT @ 22.82% ON DIFFERENCE IN STO CK FOUND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IS CONCERNED. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COMPAR ATIVE CHART AT PAGE NO.12 OF PAPER BOOK, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER: PRODUCTION SALES GP 20% STOCK OF SF 01/04/2009 7893131.00 20% NET S.F. APRIL09 30/04/09 7715408.00 12424401.00 2484880 9939521 5669018.00 MAY09 31/05/09 11860594.00 13016471.00 2603294 10413177 7116435.00 JUNE09 30/06/09 8232519.00 12161547.00 2432309 9729238 5619716.00 JULY09 31/07/09 6640207.00 10020797.00 2004159 8016638 4243285.00 AUG09 31/08/09 8932318.00 11589680.00 2317936 9271744 3903859.00 SEPT09 30/09/09 11627849.00 12141956.00 2428391 9713565 5818143.00 OCT09 31/10/09 8880200.00 11406200.00 2281240 9124960 5573383.00 ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 7 PRODUCTION SALES GP 20% STOCK OF SF 01/04/2009 7893131.00 20% NET S.F. APRIL09 30/04/09 7715408.00 12424401.00 2484880 9939521 566 9018.00 MAY09 31/05/09 11860594.00 13016471.00 2603294 104 13177 7116435.00 JUNE09 30/06/09 8232519.00 12161547.00 2432309 972 9238 5619716.00 JULY09 31/07/09 6640207.00 10020797.00 2004159 801 6638 4243285.00 AUG09 31/08/09 8932318.00 11589680.00 2317936 9271 744 3903859.00 SEPT09 10/09/09 5217334.00 3788468.00 757694 30307 74 6090420.00 12. AS WE CAN SEE THAT APPELLANTS PROFIT IN EARLIE R YEAR WAS LESS THAN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MEANING THEREBY HIS GROSS PROFIT WAS HIGHER THAN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ASS ESSEES CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE DENIED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO.30 88/AHD/2013. IN CONNECTED APPEAL NO.2809/AHD/2013, WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO HENCE, IT IS NOT REQUIRE A NY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 14. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED. WE HAVE ALR EADY ALLOWED THIS GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JAN, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- .. ( ) ( ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/01/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ITA NOS. 2809 & 3088/AHD/2013 ASSESSEE & REVENUE M/S. BARODA MOULDS & DIES. AY : 2010-11 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ''#$% & & ' (% / CONCERNED CIT 4. & & ' (% () / THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD. 5. )* + %#$ , & - #$. , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. + /0 1 2 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! )% % //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !'#, $% / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 16/01/2018. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/01/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 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