The ITO, Ward-11(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Goodluck Plastic Industries, Ahmedabad

ITA 3425/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 342520514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L.GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL(S) / CO(S) BY SL. NO(S). ITA NO(S) / CO NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT (S) RESPONDENT(S) 1. 3425/AHD/2009 2006-07 ITO WARD-11(3) AHMEDABAD M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES 93 E/D, ARVIND ESTATE OPP.VADILAL PARK LB ROAD, BAPUNAGAR AHMEDABAD PAN:AACFG 7183J 2. CO 25/AHD/10 (IN ITA 3425/A/09) 2006-07 M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. -REVENUE- 3. 3426/AHD/2009 2006-07 ITO WARD-11(3) AHMEDABAD M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING 29/B, ARVIND ESTATE LB ROAD, VADILAL PARK BAPUNAGAR AHMEDABAD PAN:AARFS 4426M 4. CO 24/AHD/10 (IN ITA 3426/A/09) 2006-07 M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING -REVENUE- ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R . REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL R. SHAH / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2012 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/03/12 #$ / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO SETS OF APPEAL ALONG WITH CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE CONNECTED FACTS, THEREFORE CONSOLID ATED AND HEREBY DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 2 - 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD HAS ALSO CONSOLIDATED T HESE APPEALS AND DECIDED THROUGH AN ORDER DATED 01/10/2009. [A] REVENUES APPEAL, IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS: (1) LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADOPTING THE THEORY OF PEAK INVESTMENT AND RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ENTERED ON VARIOUS DATES IN A BSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM UNACCOUNTED PU RCHASES ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASED OF GRANUAL (RS.16,28, 270/-) AND GP THEREOF (RS.1,74,230/-). [B] REVENUES APPEAL, IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE RAN G PACKAGING THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (1) LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADOPTING THE THEORY OF PEAK INVESTMENT AND RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ENTERED ON VARIOUS DATES IN A BSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM UNACCOUNTED PU RCHASES ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASED OF GRANUAL (RS.18,02, 500/-) AND GP THEREOF (RS.7,01,939/-). 3. THE BASIC FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED TRANS ACTION BETWEEN THE SAID TWO CONCERNS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER VIDE ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 3 - ORDERS PASSED U/S.143(3) BOTH IDENTICALLY DATED 30/ 12/2008. M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES IS MANUFACTURING HD PE PLASTIC DRUMS, ETC. BECAUSE OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ALSO SUB JECTED TO EXCISE DUTY. M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING OF PLASTIC DRUMS. AT THE FACTORY PREMISE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLAS TIC INDUSTRIES, ON VERIFICATION BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FOLLOWING TW O DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED:- (I) REMOVAL OF 20600 KGS. OF GRANULES/MASTER BATCH WITHOUT ENTERING THEM IN THE RECORDS. (II) SHORTAGE OF 2125 KGS OF HDPE & 840 KGS OF LLDP E. 3.1. THE SAID CONCERN WENT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI. IT WAS HELD THAT THE RAW-MATERIALS OF GRANULES, ETC. WAS REMOVED BY THE SAID CONCERN A ND SENT TO ITS SISTER- CONCERN M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING. IT WAS HELD BY T HE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT CENVAT CLAIM ON THE PURCHASES WAS M ADE FOR PRODUCTION OF EXCISABLE GOODS AND BECAUSE IT WAS SE NT TO SISTER-CONCERN, THEREFORE THAT BENEFIT WAS WITHDRAWN AS THE RAW-MAT ERIAL WAS NOT USED FOR PRODUCTION. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID ORDER, THE EX CISE DUTY WAS IMPOSED ON M/S.GOODLUK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. AS FAR AS THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD AS UNDER, IN SHORT, AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS):- (A) AS REGARDS THE CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF 20600 KG S OF GRANULES/MASTER BATCH BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUS TRIES, HE TREATED THE PURCHASE OF 20600KGS OF GRANULES AS UNA CCOUNTED & AFTER ADDING THE GP THEREON HELD THAT THESE GRANULE S WERE SOLD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S.SHREE RANGE PACKAGING. IN T HE HAND OF ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 4 - M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING, THE SALE PRICE OF M/S.GOO DLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES WAS TAKEN AS COST AND SINCE THESE GRANUL ES WERE IN TURN SOLD BY SHREE RANG PACKAGING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE GP AS THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH GRANULES IN THE HANDS OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING. (B) AS REGARDS THE SHORTAGE OF 2125 KGS OF HDPE & 840 KGS OF LLDPE FOUND BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME O F VERIFICATION ON 6-12-2005, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PUR CHASES & SALES OF HDPE & LLDPE AS UNACCOUNTED & ACCORDINGLY MADE A DDITION OF PURCHASE PRICE & GROSS PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF BO TH THE APPELLANTS. IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE SHORTAGE OF 2125 + 870 KGS OF HDPE & LLDPE FOUND IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES WAS DUE TO UNACCOUN TED SALES TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, IN RESPECT OF THE REMOVAL OF 20600 KGS OF GRANULES A CONTENTIO N WAS RAISED THAT THE GOODS WERE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN GIVEN TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. AS AGAINST THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOTHING BUT UNACCOUNTED SALES. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS ON FACT BY THE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SHORTAGE OF 2215 KGS OF HDPE GRANULES & 840 KGS OF LDPPE WERE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RAW-MATERIAL DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL, 2005 TO NOV, 2005. A S REGARDS THE REMOVAL OF 20600 KGS OF GRANULES / MASTER BATCH, THE SETTLE MENT COMMISSION OR THE EXCISE AUTHORITY IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS N OT USED THE WORDS SALE BUT CLEARED THE RAW-MATERIAL OF GRANULES / MASTER BATCH TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING WITHOUT REVERSING THE CENV AT CREDIT OF RS.2,07,691/- AVAILED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 5 - REMOVAL OF GOODS IN CHITS REPRESENT UNACCOUNTED SAL ES TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING WHEREAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS IS THAT RAW-MATERIALS WERE REMOVED FROM THE FACTORY OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLAST IC INDUSTRIES TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING ON LOAN BASIS. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.AR HAS ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO SUC H ENTRY OF LOAN IN EITHER OF THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. BECAUSE O F THAT REASON, LD.CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT 20600KGS. OF GRANULES WERE SOLD BY M/ S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING. HE HAS CO NCLUDED THAT M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES HAS NOT ONLY SOLD 2 215KGS OF HDPE AND 840KGS OF LLDPE TO M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING BUT ALS O SOLD 20600KGS OF GRANULES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING HAS NOT SHOWN THE STOCK AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, HENCE THAT WAS THE STOCK SOLD OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AFTER RECORDING THOSE FACTS, LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) HAS RAISED A QUESTION THAT WHAT SHOULD BE THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME INVOLVED IN SUCH PURCHASES/SALES OF RAW-MATERIAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED BOTH P URCHASES AS WELL AS SALES AS UNACCOUNTED IN BOTH THE CASES AND ALSO MAD E ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALES THAT TOO IN BOTH THE CASES. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FINALLY GIVEN PART RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:- 4.1. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THE GRANULES / M ASTER BATCH HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIE S ON VARIOUS DATES FROM 2-4-2005 TO 25-11-2005. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENTRY IN ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 6 - THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUS TRIES OR OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING IT IS HELD THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ENTRIES OF GRANULES / MASTER BETCH REPRESENT UNACCO UNTED SALES BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES TO M/S.SHREE RANG P ACKAGING. AS THE SALES ARE MANY I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WE RE MADE BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES OR BY M/S.SHREE RAN G PACKAGING OUT OF SALES PROCEEDS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. IN OTH ER WORDS, THE PEAK INVESTMENT WOULD REPRESENT THE UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT. FOR THIS PURPOSE ANNEXURE C AS STAT ED ABOVE WOULD BE ADOPTED TO FIND OUT THE VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENT 7 PROFIT THEREON IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUS TRIES & THE FOLLOWING CHART IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKA GING:- (CHART IS NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY) 4.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY T HE WORKING OF PEAK INVESTMENT ALONG WITH THE PROFIT IN ANNEXURE C. AS PER WORKING OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THERE WOULD BE PEA K INVESTMENT OF RS.2,06,237/- + PROFIT OF RS.1,35,915/- IN THE C ASE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & PEAK INVESTMENT O F RS.1,00,136 + PROFIT OF RS.3,67,627/- IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING. IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING THE PURCHAS E VALUE WOULD BE THE SALE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES AND THE PURCHASE VALUE OF RAW-MA TERIAL IN THE HANDS OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES WOULD BE T HE VALUE TAKEN BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCU LATION OF CENVAT CREDIT OF RS.2,07,691/-. SUBJECT TO THIS VERIFICA TION, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6.1. THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF GRANULES AS WELL AND IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF AS UNDER :- 3.7. IN MY VIEW THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES IS NOT CORR ECT. AT THE TIME OF PHYSICAL VERIFICATION THE STOCK OF HDPE & LLDPE WAS FOUND SHORT BY 2125KGS AND 840 KGS = 2965 KGS. RESPECTIVE LY. THAT MEANS 2125 + 840 KG OF GRANULES WERE SOLD BY M/S.GO ODLUCK ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 7 - PLASTIC INDUSTRIES OUT OF BOOKS TO M/S.SHREE RANG P ACKAGING EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASES WERE ACCOUNTED. THEREFORE ONL Y THE GP CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUS TRIES. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAX THE PROFIT ON SALE OF 2965 KGS OF GRANULES ONLY IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOODLU CK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. THE COST WOULD BE TAKEN BY HIM AS DETE RMINED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES OR AVERAGE COST AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE GP WOULD BE TAKEN AS THE GP OF A Y 2006-07. THE ADDITION OF PURCHASE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HAND S OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES BECAUSE THE PURCHAS ES ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER IN THE HANDS OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING THE PURCHASES WOULD BE CON SIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED AND THE SALE ALSO UNACCOUNTED. THE SAL E VALUE TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES WOU LD BE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING A ND THE GP SHOWN FOR A Y 2006-07 WOULD BE ADDED IN THAT TO ARR IVE AT UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE & SALE OF 2125 + 840 KGS OF GRANULES. SUBJECT TO THIS DIRECTION, THE GR OUNDS RELATING TO SHORTAGE OF 2125 + 840 KGS OF GRANULES IS DISPOSED OFF. 7. WITH THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL AP PEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOW EVER, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE LD.AR MR.ANIL R.SHAH APPEAR ED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO ST ATED NOT TO PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. IN RESPECT OF REMOVAL OF GRANULE S, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED RELEVANT SLIP S AND THEREAFTER HE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT THE PEAK INVESTMENT. CORRESPONDINGLY, IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACK AGING, THE PURCHASE VALUE OUGHT TO BE THE SALE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE CAS E OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFE RE WITH THOSE FINDINGS ON ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 8 - FACTS SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS REPRODUCED SEVERAL CHARTS AND THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE SETTLEME NT COMMISSION OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF THE STOCK, A FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT THE GRANULES WERE SOLD BY M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES TO M/S.SHREE RANG P ACKAGING. BECAUSE OF THE SAID FINDING, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT ONLY GRO SS PROFIT CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S.GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. C ORRESPONDINGLY, IN THE HANDS OF M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING ONLY PURCHASES CO ULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED AND THEN GROSS PROFIT IS TO BE CALCU LATED IN CONSEQUENCE THERE UPON. ALL THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS HAVE BEEN G IVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AFTER DUE APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE SE TWO CASES. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE FINDINGS, HENC E AFFIRM THE SAME. RESULTANTLY, GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NOS.25 & 24/AHD/2010 8. CROSS OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE CASES H AVE NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE(S) , HENCE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE(S) BOTH ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( A.L. GEHLOT ) ( MU KUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16/ 03 /2012 %.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16/03/12 SD/- SD/- AM JM (AKG) (MKS) ITA NOS.3425 & 3426/AHD/09 ITO VS. GOODLUCK PLASTIC INDS. & M/S.SHREE RANG PACKAGING (RESPECTIVELY) CO NOS.25 &24/AHD/10(BY ASSESSEES) ASST.YEAR-200607 - 9 - #$ '( )#(' #$ '( )#(' #$ '( )#(' #$ '( )#('/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ',*+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. -- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. .() / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. (12 ' , , / LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 234 5 / GUARD FILE. #$ #$ #$ #$ / BY ORDER, ,( ' //TRUE COPY// 6 66 6/ // / -7 -7 -7 -7 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..5.3.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6..3.12 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