M/s. Ramesh Industries(Daman), Nani Daman V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-4, Daman

ITA 3131/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2285 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 80IB; 68; 28

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM M/S RAMESH INDUSTRIES (DAMAN),PLOT NO.257/16, GOA IDC, KACHIGAM, NANI DAMAN. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN. VS. M/S RAMESH INDUSTRIES (DAMAN),PLOT NO.257/16, GOA IDC, KACHIGAM, NANI DAMAN. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)8.5.2 008 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.3131/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ITA NO.3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 2 2. IN ITS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), VALSAD [ HEREINAFTER 'THE LEARNED CIT (A) ] ERRED, IN LAW AND ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,62,333 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT OUT OF FRESH CAPITAL INTRODUCED AT RS. 14,62,333 BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS DURING THE YEAR. 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM ( CIT(A) ) WERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY HIM. THE LEARNED C IT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT EXPLANATION OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO AND THAT THE LAW DID EMPOWER HIM TO TAKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / EVIDENCE INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BE FORE HIM. 1.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN THE ALTERNATE AND WITHO UT PREJUDICE, ERRED IN NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE SOURCE OF SUCH CAPITAL BEFORE THE AO FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND HE ERRED IN NOT GIV ING DIRECTION TO THE AO TO VERIFY SUCH DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM ( CIT(A) ) . THE LEARNED CIT (AJ ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LAW EMPOWERED HI M TO DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY AND REPORT TO HIM THE RESULT T HEREOF AND ERRED IN NOT EXERCISING HIS SUCH POWER. 1.3 THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE PARTNER WHO INTRODUCED THE CAPITAL WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO IN COME TAX; WAS HOLDING FAN NO; HIS ADDRESS AND IDENTITY WERE KNOWN TO THE AO AND THAT SUCH CAPITAL INVESTED WITH THE FIRM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ON FACTS AS NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY. 1.2 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT - ADDITION MADE U/S 68 AT RS. 9,62,333 ON ACCOUNT OF FRESH CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY A PARTNER BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S:- 1. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.7,25,031/- MADE U/S. 40A (IA) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER U/S. 40A (IA ) OF THE I.T.ACT. ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 3 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING PLASTIC PACKING MATERIAL ITEMS, INJECTION & BLOW MOULDING ARTICLES. THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OF T HE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN, WHICH IS A BACK-WA RD UNION TERRITORY AS SPECIFIED IN THE VIII SCHEDULE TO THE I.T. ACT. 4. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT SHRI DIPAK SONI A PAR TNER HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.14,62,333/- AS UNDER :- I. BY CHEQUE RS.8,08,948/- II. BY CASH RS.3,00,000/- III. BY TRANSFER ENTRY RS.3,53,385/- TOTAL RS.14,62,333/- OUT OF ABOVE, THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF RS.5 LAC S ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. HE PROPO SED THE ADDITION OF THE REST OF THE SUM OF RS.9,62,333/- ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS LIABILITY TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CAPI TAL AS PER SECTION 68. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AFTER REFUSING TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE.. IN THIS REGARD LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 7.4 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE ME COPY OF ACCO UNTS OF DEEPAK SONI AND M/S J P PLAST WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE FOLLOWING SUMS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH IOB FROM CUSTOMERS OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN O F MR. DEEPAK SONI WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AP PELLANT AND HENCE CREDITED TO MR. DEEPAK SONIS A/C AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 4 AMOUNT DATE PARTICULARS 1,89,772 27.05.2004 THROUGH INDIAN OVERSEAS BAN K 53,579 28.06.2004 THROUGH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 55,725 30.07.2004 THROUGH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 7.5 THUS ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT ALL THE ABOVE D EPOSITS WERE DULY EXPLAINED EXCEPT PETTY DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.9 802/- (160+280+9362). IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7.6 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DETAI LS NOW SUBMITTED BEFORE ME ARE ADMITTEDLY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. IT SEEMS THAT THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 31.01.2007 AND ORDER SHEET DATED 4.12.2007 AND 10.12.2007 HAD ASKED THE APPELL ANT TO FURNISH THE SOURCES OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE ME ANY JUSTIFICATION THAT PREVENTE D HIM TO FURNISH THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE APPELLANT FAIL ED TO FURNISH THE ABOVE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME NOW CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D FOR ADJUDICATION SINCE THE SAME BEING IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. I AM CONSTRAINED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNER SHRI DIPAK SONI HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE INTRODUCED CAPITAL IN THE FIRM. TH EREFORE, THE FIRM HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS AND IF ANY AMOUNT IS FOUND UNEX PLAINED THEN ACTION MAY BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNER AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN THE FIRM. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUST RIES IN IT REFERENCE NO.241 OF 1993 WHEREIN THE HON. HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF PARTNERS OWN THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS ARE THEIR OWN THEN THE ITO IS ENTITLED TO PROCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AND ASSESSEE THE SAME IN THEIR HANDS IF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND SATISFA CTORY. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PARA 13 AND 14 FROM THAT ORDER AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 5 13, APPLYING THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAIL S WHICH WOULD DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE FICTITIOUS. THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PA RTNERS WERE NOT DEPOSITS FROM THE PARTNERS. MOREOVER, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND YEAR OF THE FIRM, AND THAT IT WAS RUNNING IN LOSS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE NEW DEPOSITS OR CASH CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS. THE MERE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THAT EXPLANATION DOES NOT, HOWEVE R, PROVIDE MATERIAL FOR FINDING THAT THE SAID SUM REPRESENTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. AS HELD BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD V. JAISWAL MOTOR FINANCE (SUPRA), IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THERE WERE PROFITS OF THE FIRM, THE AMOUNT CRE DITED TO THE PARTNERS' ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. ONCE THE PARTNERS HAVE OWNED THAT THE MONIES DEPOSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS A RE THEIR OWN, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO AND MAY PROCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AND ASSESS THE SAME IN THEIR HANDS, IF THEIR EXPLANATION IS NOT FO UND SATISFACTORY. 14. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE, BOTH THE DEPUTY CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS WHICH WAS ON IT BY OFFERING EXPLANATIO N, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR FALSE IN ANY MANNER. THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO SAFEGUARDED AS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVE N THE LIBERTY TO CONSIDER THE SAID CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF CASH CREDITS IN THE ACCOUN TS OF THE PARTNERS. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IF PARTNER HAS OWNED THE MONEY DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THE FIRM. ACTION IS REQUI RED TO BE TAKEN IN HIS HANDS. SO FAR AS THE FIRM IS CONCERNED, IT IS DEEME D TO HAVE DISCHARGED THE ONUS. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HON. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KEWAL KRISHNAN & PARTNERS (2009) 18 DTR (RAJ) 121, HON. PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MD. PARWEZ AHMED & ORS . (2004) 268 ITR 381 (PAT) AND HON. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 6 METACHEM INDUSTRIES (2000) 245 ITR 160 (M.P.) HAS ALSO TAKEN SAME VIEW. HON. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ME TACHEM INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ACCORDING TO SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 , THE FIRST BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFACTO RILY EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFACTORY, THEN THAT ENTRY WILL NOT BE CHARGED ALONG WITH THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY OR THE SOURCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS NOT SATISFACTORY, T HEN IN THAT CASE, THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INV ESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, BE HE A PARTNER OR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS OVER. WHETHER THAT PERSON IS AN INCOME-TAX PAYE R OR NOT AND WHERE HE HAD BROUGHT THIS MONEY FROM, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIRM. THE MOMENT THE FIRM GIVES A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND PRODUCES THE PERSON WHO HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE FIRM IS DISCHARGED AND IN THAT CASE T HAT CREDIT ENTRY CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE FIRM FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME-TAX. ON A REFERENCE WHETHER THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS J USTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT WHEN THERE WAS CREDIT IN T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNER IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM, THE ADDITION THEREFOR COULD NOT BE MADE IN TH E CASE OF THE FIRM UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BUT TH E SAME HAD TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNER : HELD,_ ON THE FACTS, THAT THERE WAS CONCURRENT FIND ING OF BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FIRM HAD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE THREE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM. THE ADDI-TION THEREFOR COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. SUNDAR LAL JAIN V. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 316 (ALL) REL IED ON. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 CANNOT BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERS, IF PARTNERS HA VE ADMITTED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED SUCH CAPITAL. ACTION, IF ANY, CAN BE TA KEN ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN REVENUES APPEAL THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS W HETHER DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT WOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.7,25,031/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON -DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PARTI ES BUT HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX THEREON. THE PAYMENT WAS DISALLOWE D AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA). HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON SUCH ADDITION, ARGUING THAT THE ADD ITION IS NOT BUSINESS PROFIT AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH DEDUCTION. ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 7 9. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING IT TO BE A BUSINESS INCOME. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S CHIRAG PLAST IN ITA NO.2415/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 PRONOUNCED ON 2 3 RD OCTOBER, 2009 WHEREIN WAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT EVEN IF ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, THEN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IB AS IT WOULD BE ONLY THE BUSINESS PROFIT. SECTION 40(A)(IA) FALLS I N CHAPTER (IV) AND UNDER 'THE HEAD COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME.' ANY ADDITION PROPO SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING A PROVISION FALLING IN CHAPTER (IV) UNDER THE 'HEAD COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN SECTION 28 TO 43D, WOU LD BE MADE UNDER THE 'HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION' AND NOT UNDER THE HEA D 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDED. ACCORDINGLY, THOUG H PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN PAID TO THE ACCOUN T OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN TIME IS IN ORDER, BUT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IB THEREON AS IT WOULD BE ONLY A PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT. THE ARGUME NT OF THE LEARNED DR THAT ASSESSEE MAY CLAIM BENEFIT AGAIN ON PAYMENT BASIS IS PREMATU RE AND ACADEMIC AS THERE ARE ENOUGH LEGAL RECOURSES OPEN TO PREVENT SUCH CLAIMS. AS A RESULT WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS D ISMISSED. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE T HE SAME, FOLLOWING ABOVE DECISION WE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) A ND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. THE OTHER TWO GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND HENCE THE Y DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS.3131 & 3148/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 8 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED WHE REAS THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.1.11. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 21.1.11. MAHATA/- 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 19/1/2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 19/1/ 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..