Shri Natubhai S.Patel, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3, Baroda

ITA 3161/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57119 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN,AM) I.T.A. NO. 31 61AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004) SHRI NATUBHAI S. PATEL, 13,TARUN SOCIETY, OPP. ELLORA PARK CENTER, ELLORA PARK, BARODA-390 023. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NR.RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACWPP 0753 H I.T.A. NO. 3163AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005) SHRI JASBHAI P. PATEL, PROP. JALA ASSOCIATES, 201, PRANAV PURI APARTMENTS, BEHIND NATUBHAI CIRCLE, RACE COURSE, BARODA. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NR.RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AGFPP 0695 M APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. K.SRIVASTAVA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 17-1-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-1-2012 PER: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE AS SESSEES CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT (A) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HAND S. SINCE THE MAJOR ISSUE URGED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARISES OUT OF SAME SET OF FACT S, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 2 2. THE ISSUE WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE A PPEALS IS WHETHER LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE INCOME DERIVED ON SALE OF LAND UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS, INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE ARE STA TED IN BRIEF. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ALONG WITH ANOTHER PERSON NAMED MAHENDRABHAI PURCHA SED 29617 SQ. MTS OF LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ. MT., IN A VILLAGE NA MED VADSAR IN THE YEAR 1992-93, IN WHICH ALL THE THREE PERSONS HAVE EQUAL SHARE. ON 2 4.10.2001, THESE THREE PERSONS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH A CONCERN NAMED M/S SHAKTI DEVELOPERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF THE ABOV E SAID LAND. ACCORDING TO THE SAID AGREEMENT, M/S SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS, AFTER GETTI NG APPROVAL FOR CONVERTING THE SAID LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL USE, WOULD DIVIDE TH E LAND INTO HOUSING PLOTS AND THEREAFTER WOULD SELL THEM EITHER AS PLOTS OR BY PU TTING UP CONSTRUCTION THEREON, AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES THAT THE SALEABLE AREA WOULD BE 27420 SQ. MTS AND THE BALANC E WOULD BE LEFT FOR ROADS. THE OWNERS OF THE LAND WOULD RECEIVE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE RATE OF RS.645.85 PER SQ. MT ON THE SALEABLE AREA OF 27420 SQ. MTS., WHICH WO ULD BE PAID BY M/S SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS AFTER THE SALE OF PLOTS TO THE PROSPECTI VE BUYERS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI NATUBHAI PATEL RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 16.00 LAKHS AS HIS SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. SIMILARLY, SHRI JASHBHAI P PATEL RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.18.00 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH THE PARTIES OFFERED THE SAID INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH M/S SHAKTH I DEVELOPERS, THE SAID CONCERN WAS GIVEN ONLY CERTAIN RIGHTS AND LIMITED POSSESSIO N OF THE LAND. FURTHER IT WAS EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF LAND WAS NOT GIVEN. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GA IN WILL NOT ARISE IN THE INSTANT ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 3 CASES, IF THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS NOT HANDED OVER, SINCE THE TRANSFER WOULD BECOME COMPLETE ONLY UPON HANDING OVER THE POSSESSI ON. IF THE INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE ABOV E SAID REASON, THEN IT SHOULD BE ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. ON GOING THROUGH TH E VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THESE ASSESSEE S HAVE ONLY UNDERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES IN THE NAME OF SHAKTHI DEVE LOPERS AND THEY HAVE PREFERRED TO OFFER THE IMPUGNED INCOME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN ORDER TO AVAIL INDEXATION BENEFITS. THESE TWO ASSESSEES ARE ENGAG ED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, WHICH FACT ALSO LED THE AO TO COME TO THE ABOVE CON CLUSION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THESE ASSESSEES RAISED AN A LTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES, IF THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS CONSIDERED A S BUSINESS INCOME. BUT THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALSO REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO A SSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16.00 LAKHS OR RS.18.00 LAKHS, AS THE CASE MAY B E, AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAID ACTION OF THE AO WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LD CIT( A). WHILE CONFIRMING THE SAID ASSESSMENT, THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO SHOW THE IMPUGNED LAND AS URBAN LAND IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, PRESUMABLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE. A GGRIEVED BY THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE NEVER SHOWN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS THEIR STOCK IN TRADE, EV EN THOUGH THEY ARE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT D ECIDING FACTOR IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES IS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION OF LAND, I.E., WHETHER TO HOLD IT AS INVESTMENT OR AS STOCK IN TRADE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES WAS TO HOLD THIS LAN D AS INVESTMENT, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES PURCHASED THE IMPUGN ED LAND WAY BACK IN 1992-93 AND WERE HOLDING THEM FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, WHICH CAN NOT BE THE CASE IF IT WAS INTENDED TO STOCK IN TRADE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO/CIT(A) ARE BASED ON MERE SURMISES, V IZ., ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 4 (A) THAT THESE ASSESSEES ONLY ARE CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING THE LAND AND PUTTING UP CONSTRUCTION THROUGH M/S SHAKTH I DEVELOPERS. (AO) (B) THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS NOT SHOWN AS URBAN LAND IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, SINCE IT WAS CONSIDERED AS STOCK IN TRADE . (CIT(A)) THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE NEV ER FILED ANY WEALTH TAX RETURN AND HENCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE SAID OBSERVATIO NS OF LD CIT(A). THE LD A.R ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS ARE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM CAPITAL GAINS. (A) 62 ITR 578 (MAD) (B) 107 ITR 236 (MAD) (C) (2008) (7 DTR 361 (D) 298 ITR 277 (MAD) (E) SOT 470 THE LD A.R COULD GIVE ONLY THE CITATIONS STATED ABO VE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BY RETAINING THE POSSESSION WITH HIM, CANNOT OFFER THE INCOME FROM S ALE OF PLOTS AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID LAN D WAS CONVERTED INTO HOUSING PLOTS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE FOUND FAULT WI TH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THESE ASSESSES WITH M/S SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS, WHEREBY ONLY LIMITED POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO IT. SINCE THE ASSESSEES ARE OWNERS OF THE LAND AND M/S SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS ARE ONLY DEVELOPING THE LAND FOR ONWARD SALE, IT IS QUIET POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEES TO TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO SAFE GUA RD THEIR INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY THEY APPEAR TO HAVE HANDED OVER ONLY THE LIMITED PO SSESSION OF LAND AND NOT ACTUAL POSSESSION THERE OF. ACCORDINGLY, THE TAX AUTHORIT IES HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT ARISE UNLESS THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS HANDED OVER. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE SAID LIMITED POSSES SION IS APPLICABLE TO ONLY M/S ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 5 SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS AND HENCE THE INCIDENCE OF CAPIT AL GAIN SHALL NOT ARISE AT THE TIME THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO SHAKTHI DEVELOPERS . HOWEVER IF THE HOUSING PLOTS ARE SOLD AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, THE SAME WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYE RS. POSSIBLY, THESE ASSESSEES WOULD HAVE DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN RELATING TO TH E SALE OF PLOTS TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. HOWEVER, THE SAID ASPECT IS NOT CLEARLY BO RNE OUT OF RECORD AND HENCE IT HAS LED TO THE CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF TAX AUTHORI TIES. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO T HAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE ONLY CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF SHAKTHI DEV ELOPERS. SIMILARLY THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO THE D ISCLOSURE IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY BASIS. IN ANY CASE, A S SUBMITTED BY THE LD A.R, NON FILING OF WEALTH TAX RETURN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE DECIDING FACTOR IN RELATION TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. THUS THE DECIDING FACTOR IN THE INSTANT ISSU E IS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD A.R WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEES PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEARS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE. HOWEVER, PRIOR YEARS BALANCE SHEETS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITH THE LD A.R AND HE A GREED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR MAKING VERIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE GAIN ON SALE OF LAND WOULD ACCRUE ONLY ON ITS SALE. THOUGH THESE ASSESSEES HAVE OFFERED RS.16.00 LAKHS OR RS.18.00 L AKHS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL SALE OF PLOTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN ADDITION TO THE AB OVE, THE DOUBT OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES AS TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF THE P OSSESSION TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF THE PLOT ALSO NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. HEN CE, IN OUR VIEW, ALL THESE ASPECTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED AT THE END OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS I SSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 6 FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSU E AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI NATUBHAI S PATEL, FOLLOWING FOUR ISSUES ARE ALSO CONTESTED. (A) ADDITION PERTAINING TO FRESH CAPITAL INTRODUCT ION. (B) ADDITION PERTAINING TO PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S NITA TRADING CO. (C) ADDITION PERTAINING TO PURCHASE MADE FROM M/S CHETAN TRANSPORT (D) DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPE NSES FOR PERSONAL USE. 10.1 THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF R S.1.50 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS.1.50 LAKHS AS HIS CAPITAL BY WAY OF CHEQU E, BUT THE SAID CHEQUE GOT BOUNCED. HOWEVER THE REVERSAL ENTRY WAS PASSED ONL Y ON 01.4.2004 AFTER RECONCILING THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTRODUCED ANY CASH AS THE FRESH CAPITAL. THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS NOT CONVINCING TO THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY HE ADDED THE A BOVE SAID SUM OF RS.1.50 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED B Y LD CIT (A). DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD A.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, WHEREIN WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED THE REVERSAL ENTRY ON 1.4.2004. IT IS IN THE KNOWL EDGE OF EVERY BODY THAT IF A CHEQUE GOT BOUNCED,, THERE WOULD NOT BY ANY RECEIPT OF MONEY IN THE HAND OF THE HOLDER OF THE CHEQUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE RECEIPT OF CHEQUE OF RS.1.50 LAKHS BY CREDITING HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, YET IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE HAS REALIZED THE MONEY FROM IT, AS THE SAID CHEQUE WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED UNPAID. THE ONLY MISTAKE COMMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS PASSED THE REVERSAL ENTRY ON THE FIRST DAY OF SUCCE EDING YEAR. HOWEVER, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE C ONCERNED CHEQUE HAS GOT BOUNCED AND THE ENTRY WAS PASSED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR REQ UIRE VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 7 AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICA TION AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSIONS MADE SUPRA. 10.2 THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF PURC HASES MADE FROM M/S NITA TRADING CO. AND M/S CHETAN TRANSPORT ARE COMMON. THE AO IS SUED LETTERS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THESE PARTIES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GEN UINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT WITH THESE TWO PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE SAID LETT ERS WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS. T HOUGH SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE PART IES ALONG WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES, YET THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THEIR GEN UINENESS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EFFECTED ANY PAYMENT TO THESE PART IES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES PERTAINING TO M/S NITA TRADING CO. (RS.1,05,000/-) AND M.S CHETAN TRA NSPORT (RS.92,400/-). THE SAID ADDITION WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT (A). AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THESE TWO ISSUES MAY BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF AO IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE AO. THE LD D.R DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAID REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ADDITIONS AND RESTORE THEM TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SE TWO ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD. 10.3 THE LAST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF VEHICLE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THOUGH THE LD A.R VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED T HAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF MAKING THIS DISALLOWANCE, YET HE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT USING VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE FOR P ERSONAL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION. ITA NO .3161 & 3163/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2 003-04 & 2004-05 8 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI NAT UBHAI S PATEL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FIL ED BY SHRI JASHBHAI P PATEL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25 - 01 - 2012. SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) (B.R.BASKARAN) VICE PRESIDE NT ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, BARODA. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 17 - 1 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 18 / 1 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 25 - 1 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 25 - 01 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 25 - 1 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 5 - 1 -2012. 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..