The ACIT, Circle-1, Surat V. M/s. Eagle Fibers Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 3294/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9145 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U B MISHRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Fair market value
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 14/12/2010 DRAFTED ON: 20/12/2010 ITA NO.3294/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASST.CIT CIRCLE-1, SURAT VS. EAGLE FIBERS PVT.LTD. 302, TRIVIDH CHAMBERS RING ROAD,SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAACE 5085 C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI U.B. MISHRA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) -I,SURAT DATED 24/07/2008. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE CLAIM OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINERIES W AS ALTHOUGH WRONG AND AGAINST RULE, THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED A C.A., WHO HAS AUDITED HIS BO OKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT AND HE MUST BE WELL AWA RE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE MACH INERIES FOR PROCESSING OF YARN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE UN DER THE TUF SCHEME. ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 2 - (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXCESSIVE DEPRE CIATION AND EXCESSIVE MAJURI PAYMENT TO SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S.40A(2)(B). (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.2,22,405/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESP ECT OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINERIES PURC HASED UNDER THE TUF SCHEME. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 17/03/2008 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT D ATED 17/11/2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS RUNNING A TEXTI LE INDUSTRY AND CARRIED OUT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF TEXTURISI NG AND TWISTING OF YARN. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS TWO ISSUES ARE RAKE D UP BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT; SUMMARIZED BELOW:- (I) DISALLOWANCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS AS WELL AS NON-PRODUCTION RS.1,00,000/- (II) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AT HIGHER RATE ON SIZING MACHINES RS.5,19,944/- 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF PEN ALTY WHICH PERTAINED TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF HIGHER DEPREC IATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 3 - AHMEDABAD BENCH D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RE JECTING THE REVENUES GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 BY WAY OF ITA NO.3293/AHD/2008 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDIN G PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 D ATED 17/03/2008 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.A CT DATED 24/03/2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS RUNNING A TEXTILE INDUSTRY AND CARRIED OUT THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF TEXTURISING AND TWISTING OF YARN. IT WAS NOTICED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIAT ION @ 50% ON THE MACHINERY AND PLANT. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER , THE SAID CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS AT THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE AND HE HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT THE NORMAL RATE OF 25%. AS AGA INST THAT, THE BASIS OF CLAIM OF 50% RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS PER A SSESSEE WAS THAT THE MACHINERY AND PLANT WAS ACQUIRED UNDER TUF SCHE ME AND DUE TO THE SAID REASON SINCE THE MACHINERY AND PLANT WA S USED IN WEAVING AND PROCESSING AS APPLICABLE FOR GOVERNMENT SECTOR OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RA TE OF DEPRECIATION AT 50%. THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS AFFIR MED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN FIRST APPEAL. CONSEQUENT THEREUPO N, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THOUGHT IT PROPER TO LEVY THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY WAS C HALLENGED, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE SAME AFTER ASS IGNING FOLLOWING REASON:- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION UNDER THE BONA FIDE BEL IEF BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED LOAN UNDER TIF SCHEME AN D PURCHASED THESE MACHINES. DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (A) THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED MACHINERY FROM THE BANK WHO GAVE LOAN UNDER TUF SCHEME FOLLOWING THE RESOLU TION OF MINISTRY OF TEXTILES BUT DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWE D ONLY IF THE PROVISION IS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME-TAX RULES. TH E CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE MINISTRY OF TEXTILES FOR GIVING LOAN MAY ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 4 - BE BINDING ON BANKS BUT THE SAME CANNOT AUTOMATICAL LY LEAD TO HIGHER DEPRECIATION. THE CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT T HE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE TWISTING ACTIVITY WHICH WAS AN A CTIVITY PRIOR TO WEAVING, PROCESSING AND GARMENT SECTOR OF TEXTIL E INDUSTRY AND THEREFORE THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT COV ERED BY THE INCOME-TAX RULES WHERE THE PROVISIONS FOR HIGHER DE PRECIATION ON TUF MACHINERIES ARE PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE HIGHE R DEPRECIATION WAS CLEARLY NOT ALLOWABLE. BUT AS REG ARDS PENALTY LEVIED IT CAN BE STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDE R THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SINCE THE BANK HAD GIVEN LOAN UNDER THE TUF SCHEME THE DEPRECIATION WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE AUTOMATICA LLY. IN VIEW OF THESE REASONS I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT TH ERE IS NO DELIBERATENESS OR CONSCIOUSNESS IN FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED CORRECT INCOME BY CLAIMING HIGHER DEPRECIATION BUT IT WAS U NDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SINCE THE BANK HAD ALLOWED PURCHAS E OF THIS MACHINERY UNDER TUF SCHEME BY GIVING LOANS, THEREFO RE DEPRECIATION WOULD ALSO BE AUTOMATICALLY AVAILABLE AT HIGHER RATE UNDER TUF SCHEME. 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN PL ACED ON RECORD WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY US. FR OM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, MR.U.B.MISHRA, SR.DR APPEARED AND PLACED STRONG REL IANCE ON THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND THEREUPO N WE HAVE NOTICED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE ALREADY AFFIRMED THE DELETION OF PENALTY IN THE CASE OF EAGLE SYNTHETICS PVT.LTD., SURAT [ ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH D IN ITA NO.3003/AHD/2008 BY ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2003 -04 AND IN ITA NO.3295/AHD/2008 BY REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 ] ORDER OF EVEN DATE, WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECOR D. AS FAR AS THE REVENUES APPEAL IN RESPECT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.18,04 ,688/- PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON M ACHINERY AND ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 5 - PLANT (TUF SCHEME) WAS ALLOWABLE @ 25%, HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION AT 50%. ACCO RDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE INCOME TAX RULES WAS ONLY 25%, HENCE, THE SAME WAS RESTRIC TED TO THAT EXTENT ONLY. THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WA S AFFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN FIRST APPEAL. CONSEQUEN T THEREUPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THOUGHT IT PROPER TO LEVY THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY WAS C HALLENGED, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOTED, AS PER THE PARAGRAP H REPRODUCED ABOVE, THAT THE MACHINERIES WERE ONLY PU RCHASED OUT OF THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE BANK UNDER A TUF SCHEME FL OATED BY MINISTRY OF TEXTILE. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN IMP RESSION THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS AS PER THE SPECIFIC R ATES PRESCRIBED, HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THOSE SPECIFIC RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ADMISS IBLE AS PER THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 5.1. ON DUE EXAMINATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONCE THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALTOGETHER BOGUS OR MALA FI DE BUT THE DISPUTE WAS IN RESPECT OF THE CORRECT RATE OF DEPRE CIATION, THEN IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH THE RATE OF DEPRECI ATION AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT BUT ASSESSEES ACTION SHOULD NOT BE HELD AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT STILL THE ASS ESSEE IS HARPING UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF APPENDIX ANNEXED TO I.T. RULES, 1962 FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE, T HEREFORE, THIS FACT ITSELF PROVES THAT THE CORRECT ENTITLEMENT OF DEPRECIATION WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. TO BUTTRESS THIS VIEW, WE PLAC E RELIANCE ON A LATEST DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. REPORTED AT [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT NO PENALTY COUL D BE LEVIED MERELY ON DISALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION, WHICH WAS MA DE BY TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE AND AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HEREBY REJECT ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE R EVENUE AND AFFIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 6 - 4. THIS PART OF THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS, THERE FORE, DISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T.ACT. TH E ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.95,94,721/- TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED PERS ONS AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER AS DEFINED UNDER THE ACT. THE PAYMENTS WER E IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PURCHASES AS ALSO TOWARDS JOB CHARGES. THE RE WAS AN ADMITTED DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF T HE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN PROVING THE REASONABLENESS O F THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) WERE INITIATED AND VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.5.7, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A LUMPSUM 1% ADDITION AS FOLLOWS:- 5.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSE E REMAINED UNDISCHARGED. THEREFORE, I AM LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DISALLOW A LUMPSUM AMOUNT OF RS.95,947/- BEING 1% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.9 85,947/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THIS ADDITION IS NOT MADE SEPARATELY, SINCE IT FORMS THE PART OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ETC . HOWEVER, FOR THIS, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 5.1. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT WHILE COMPUTING TH E TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE AFORESAID AMOUN T INTO A ROUND FIGURE OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS AFFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. CONSEQUENT THEREUPON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR SUPPORTING BILL ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 7 - BOOK, ETC. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT. B Y ASSIGNING THESE REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY. T HI9S ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED, HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE MERELY ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONSCIOUS CONCEALME NT. THE PENALTY WAS DELETED ACCORDINGLY. 6. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE I .T.ACT AND THEN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 LAC WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF EAGLE SY NTHETICS PVT.LTD. BEARING ITA NOS.3003/AHD/2008 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ITA NO.3295/AHD/2008 (BY REVENUE) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04, WHEREIN VIDE AN ORDER OF EVEN DATED, WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER: - 6.2. REGARDING ASSESSEES APPEAL, IN RESPECT OF THE PENALTY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE , THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS M ADE TO ONE SHRI ANUP R. JAJU AND TO SHRI MANGILAL BHANWARILAL (HUF) WHICH WAS FOUND UNREASONABLE AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF DIS ALLOWANCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) WERE INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID BROKERAGE OF RS.86,070/- TO SHRI ANUP R.JAJOO IN RESPECT OF SALES OF RS.86,07,022/- . LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A BROKERAGE OF RS.79,525/- TO SHRI MANGILAL BHANWARLA L (HUF) ON CERTAIN PURCHASES. SINCE THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE I.T.ACT, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. SINCE UNDISPUTEDLY THE CO NTROVERSY HAD ARISEN ONLY BY THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 40A, THERE FORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE EXPENDITURE WERE EITHER EXCESSIVE OR UNR EASONABLE IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 8 - MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED. MEANING THE REBY THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT IN DOUBT BUT IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEY WERE EXCESSIVE COMPA RING TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE A RES PECTED CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JHAVAR PROPERTIES (P ) LTD. VS. ASSTT.CIT REPORTED AT [2010]123 ITD 429 (MUM) WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE MEREL Y ON THE GROUND OF UNREASONABLENESS BY INVOKING SECTION 40A( 2)(B), THEN IT IS NOT A CASE OF WITHHOLDING OF FACTS OR CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS, THEREFORE, NOT A GOOD REASON FOR LEVY OF CONCEALMEN T PENALTY. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF B ROKERAGE. 7. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND NO FORCE IN TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE, HENCE, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23/ 12 /2010. SD/- SD/- ( N.S. SAINI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/ 12 /2010 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPAR TMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS)-I, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 3294/AHD/2008 ACIT VS. EAGLE FIBERS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 9 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION..20.12.10 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.12.10 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 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 ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER