Shri Darshan Upendraray Dave, Gandhinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

ITA 342/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5487 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] U; KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 342/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE, C-1, RUDRAKSH BUNGALOW, NR. URJANAGAR 2, RANDESHAN GANDHINAGAR, - 382 024 / VS. ITO, WARD 1, NOW ITO, WARD 404, 4 TH FLOOR, BLOCK NO.14, UDYOG BHAVAN, SECTOR 11, GANDHINAGAR. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFBPD 9027 N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA & MEHUL TALERA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 31/08/2018 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/11/2018 '# / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)- GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEA L NO.CIT(A)/GNR/81/2014-15 DATED 07.08.2015 ARISING I N THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') D ATED 23.01.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 7-8-2015 FOR A.Y . 2006-07 BY CIT(A)-GNR, ABAD UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,39, 000/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACT IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS OF HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 7,39,000/- TO THE V ENDOR TOWARDS PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT BY THE APPELLANT. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE PAYM ENT OF RS.7,39,000/- TO THE VENDOR TOWARDS PURCHASE OF IM MOVABLE PROPERTY WAS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE APPELLAN T. 3.1 THE LD. CTT(A) HAD EXCEEDED HIS POWERS IN BRING ING TO TAX THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE OWNER OF SAID IMMOVABLE PROPERT Y BECAUSE THE REOPENING U/S .147 AND ASSESSMENT MADE BY AO PE RTAINED TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPER TY. THEREFORE THE ACTION ON PART OF CIT(A) WAS WHOLLY I LLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND MUCHLESS THERE WAS NO NOTICE OF ENHANC EMENT ISSUED BY HIM. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 ,39,000/- MADE BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAW OUR A TTENTION THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 115 DAYS DUE TO I LLNESS OF SHRI DEEPAK DAVE, THE REAL COUSIN BROTHER OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 3 - THE APPLICANT HEREIN ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH : 1. BEING AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORD ER DATED 7-8-2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-GNR, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y.2006-07, TH E APPLICANT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEING ITA NO. 342/AHD/2016 CHALL ENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,39,000/- MADE BY AO. 2. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 7-8-2015 WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ON 20-8-2015 AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED O N OR BEFORE 19-10-2015. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS FILED 11-2-2016 A ND THUS THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT 115 DAYS THAT IS FROM 19- 10-2015 TO 11- 2-2016 IN PREFERRING THE SAID APPEAL. THE SMALL DEL AY IN FILING THE SAME HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO THE SUFFICIENT REAS ONS AS STATED HEREIN BELOW: 3. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT SHRI DEEPAK DAV E REAL COUSIN BROTHER OF THE APPLICANT-APPELLANT WAS SICK AND ADMITTED TO HARIKRUPA ORTHO & ACCIDENT HOSPITAL, OLD SHARDAMANDIR ELLIS B RIDGE, AHMEDABAD DURING JULY 2015. THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 07/08/2015 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO SUDDE N ILLNESS OF THE DEEPAK DAVE WHOM THE APPLICANT WAS CONSTANTLY A TTENDING BEING LONELY AND HIS WIFE IS ALMOST BE BAD RIDDEN A ND BOTH THE SON RESIDING ABROAD. THUS THE DELAY IS NEITHER INTE NTIONAL NOR WARRANTED AND IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, THE APP LICANT WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY. ON THE OTHER HA ND, IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED, THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT SUFFER IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE, THE DELAY CAUSED DUE TO GENUINE AND BONA FIDE REASONS IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY WHICH IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WARRANTED A ND IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, THE APPLICANT WILL SUFFER IRREPARA BLE LOSS AND INJURY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED , THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT SUFFER IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE, T HE DELAY CAUSED DUE TO GENUINE AND BONA FIDE REASONS IS REQU IRED TO BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED (A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL NO. 342/AHD/2016 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 6.11.2007 BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 4 - (B) TO PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AND GIVE SUCH OTHE R DIRECTIONS AND AS IN THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE M AY REQUIRE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY. PLACE GANDHINAGAR (DARSHAN DAVE) VERIFICATION I, DARSHAN DAVE, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STAT E THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF APPLICATION AND SOLEM NLY AFFIRM THAT WHAT IS STATED IN PARA 2 AND 3 ARE TRUE TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED AT GNR THIS 8 TH DAY OF JULY,2017. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE AP PEAL WITHIN DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. SO THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY WITH SUPPORTED AFFIDAVIT AND MEDICAL CERTIFIC ATE. 4. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECT ION FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. HENCE, IN VIEW OF ABOVE STATE D FACTS WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND TO PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN S.NO. 3.1 OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME WITHOUT ISSUING ANY VALID NOTICE. 6. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING INCOME FROM THE SOURCE OF B USINESS AND PROFESSION. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OBSERVED THAT THE ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 5 - ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,51 ,000/- BUT THERE WAS NO INCOME OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. ON Q UESTION BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD B Y MRS. CHANDRAKANTA VYAS TO M/S. KESAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD . AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A CONFIRMING PARTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,39,000/- AS CONFIRMING PARTY WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE SUM OF RS. 7,39,000/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE BRIEF FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT KESAR CO.OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD HAD PURCH ASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FROM CHANDRAKALA VYAS FOR RS.32,51,000/- A ND SALES DEED IS EXECUTED ON 07/09/2005 WHEREIN MONARCH CREATORS IS CONFIRMING PARTY. THE PAGE 21 OF SALE DEED STATES THAT RS.7,31,000/- IS PAID BY CONFIRMING PARTY TO SELLER ON 30/1/2005 AND AT THE INSTANCE OF SELLER, PURCHASER HAD PAID RS.7,39,000/- TO CONFIRMING PARTY BEING APPELL ANT. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT APPELLANT HAS REFERRED BANAKHAT AGREEMENT DATE 30 TH APRIL, 2005 BETWEEN SELLER OF PROPERTY AND MONARCH CREATORS WHE REIN APPELLANT IS PARTNER AND GREED CONSIDERATION WAS RS.28,61,000/- AGAINST WHICH APPELLANT HAD PAID RS.5,00,000/- ON THE VERY SAME D ATE. AO HAS REFERRED TO SALE DEED REFERRED SUPRA AND AS APPELLA NT HAD RECEIVED RS.7,39,000/-AS CONFIRMING PARTY AND NOT OFFERED SU CH INCOME IN THE RETURN, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,39,000/- AS UNACCO UNTED INCOME. APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT ENTIRE CONSIDERATION IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 6 - SELLER IN HIS RETURN AND ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATION TO THAT EXTENT HENCE, RS.7,39,000/- CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION. APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED RETURN OF SELLER WHEREIN LTCG OF RS.2,02, 333/- IS REFLECTED. THE DETAILS ALONG-WITH CONFIRMATION OF SELLER SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT SUGGEST THAT SELLER HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE SALES CONSIDERATION IN HIS RETURN, HENCE, RS.7,39,000/- WOULD RESULT INTO DOUB LE ADDITION OF SAME AMOUNT. CONSIDERING THIS FACT, RS.7,39,000/-CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS STATED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT STAND AND MADE THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLA NT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.7,39,000/- PAID TO T HE SELLER OF PROPERTY AS HE HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION FROM PURCHASER SUBSEQUENT. APPELLANT IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS STATED THAT PAY MENT OF RS.7,390,000/- COMPRISES OF PAYMENT OF RS.5,00,000/ - IN CASH BY FIRM, RS.1,77,000/- TO TENANTS THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS.62,0 00/- FOR LEGAL EXPENSES. APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SOURCE OF CAS H PAYMENT OR CHEQUE PAYMENT WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT PAYMENT OF RS.7,39,000/- IS NOT OUT OF ACCOUNTED SOURCES BUT SAME IS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT / EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ON THIS BASIS, A DDITION OF RS.7,39,000/- IS CONFIRMED. RELEVANT GROUND OF APPE AL IS REJECTED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-50 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME WAS ENHANCED BY THE L D. CIT(A) WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY NOTICE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 7 - 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FURNISH ING THE NOTICE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT. THE RELEV ANT EXTRACT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT READS AS UND ER : POWERS OF THE [***] [ COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ]. 251. (1) IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE [***] [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (2) THE [***] [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR A PENALTY OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REF UND UNLESS THE APPELLANT HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US HAS N OT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT-A IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9.1 IN HOLDING SO, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FRO M THE ORDER OF NARESH SUNDERLAL CHUG VS. ITO REPORTED IN 93 TAXMAN N.COM 485 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THE POWERS OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ARE COTERMINO US WITH THE POWER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS WIDE POWER WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 251, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR A PENALTY OR REDUCE THE AM OUNT OF REFUND, UNLESS THE APPELLANT HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. THE EXPLANAT ION TALKS ABOUT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL AND STRESSES THAT HE MAY CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 8 - PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISIONS, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS POWER TO DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAID POWER H AS TO BE EXERCISED AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NOT ONLY CHANGED THE HEA D OF INCOME BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT, SINCE INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS PER DIRECTION OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD WORKED OUT AT RS. 49,41,225/- AS AGAINST INCOME ASS ESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 48,75,610. THE SECOND ASPECT IS RATE OF TAX. IN CAS E INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE RATE OF TAX IS LOWER THAN THE RATE APPLIED WHEN THE INCOME IS BEING ASSESSED AS B USINESS INCOME. IN VIEW THEREOF IN NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OR ANY SH OW-CAUSE NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 251(2), THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AND T HE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE ENHANCED WITHOUT GIVING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 7,39,000/-. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/11/2018 SD/- S D/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/11/2018 ITA NO.342/AHD/2016 DARSHAN UPENDRARAY DAVE VS. ITO A .Y. 2006-07 - 9 - PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % &' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( () / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. 5. +,- ..&' , &'! , 01'%' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. -23 4 / GUARD FILE. $ % / BY ORDER, + . //TRUE COPY// &/% () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 08/10/2018 (PAGE-3) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : .. 16/10/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 22/10/2018 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