The ACIT(OSD)-I., Range-4, Ahmedabad V. Karnavati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3487/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76640 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.3487/AHD/2010 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) THE ACIT (OSD)-I RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD / VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. D/501, STATUS OPP. T.V.TOWER DRIVE-IN-ROAD AHMEDABAD ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. :AAACK 4583 D ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.D.R. ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 01/04/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/04/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 14/10/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2005- 06. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.77,67,754/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT A INTEREST PAYMENT BU T STILL IT WAS CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT BEING MADE UNDER CONTRACT BETWE EN TWO ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - PARTIES AND SAME WAS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND T HEREFORE SAME WAS REQUIRED DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMAND BACK TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO ASCERTAIN THE BASIS FOR WORKING OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.64,91,913/- AND RS.12,75,840/- DEBITED BY M/S.UNITECH LIMITED O N 3/03/2005 IN THEIR BOOKS AND THEREAFTER READJUDICATING THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE TAX-PA YER. THE AO AGAIN MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.77,67,754/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE ONLY EFFECT IVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.77,67,754/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - AGREEMENT, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO CARRY OUT THE WORK WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, IN THAT EVENTUALITY, TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE GOOD OF EXPENSES MADE BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. B Y GETTING THE WORK FROM ANY OTHER ENTITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN FROM M/S.UNITECH LTD., THEREFORE PAYMENT OF IN TEREST DOES NOT ARISE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. FOR DELAY IN EXECUTION OF WORK, SUCH PAYMENT CANNOT BE TERMED AS PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF T HE INTEREST. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINE D THE ISSUE AND HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR CAREFULLY. IT IS SENT HAT M/S.UNITECH LTD. HAD DEBITED THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY A SUM OF RS.77,67,754/-. IN IT S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS M/S.UNITECH LTD. HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT HAVE INTEREST . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID BY T HE APPELLANT TO MRS. UNITECH LTD., THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT T DS ON THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S.UNITECH LTD., PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT 1961 APPLICABLE AND HENCE HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.77,67,754/-. THE APPELLANT CARRIED THE MATTER T O CIT(APPEAL) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE APPELLA NT THEN CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE ITAT. THE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER IN I TA NUMBERS 2277/AHD/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 07/ 01/2009 SET- ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE AO HE NODDED TO ASCERTAIN T HE BASIS FOR WORKING OF THE AMOUNT CLASSIFIED AS INTEREST IN THE AFORESA ID COPY OF ACCOUNT SPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE AGREEMENT S TIPULATING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE TAXPAYER. ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - 3.4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO THE APPELLANT. THE A PPELLANT STATED THAT THEY HAD MADE QUERIES TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. IN ORDER TO AS CERTAIN THE TRUE NATURE AND OF THE DEDUCTION MADE BY MESSRS. UNITECH LTD. VIDE THEIR REPLY DATED 24/03/2007 MRS.UNITECH STATED AS UNDER: THIS IS TO CONFIRM THAT AMOUNT OF RS.77,67,754/- ( RUPEES SEVENTY SEVEN LACS SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDR ED FIFTY FOUR ONLY) WAS RECOVERED FROM M/S.KARNAVATI INFRAST RUCTURE PVT.LTD. D-501, STATUS, OPP. T.V. TOWER, DRIVE-IN-R OAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 054 ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM S, EXTRA EFFORTS AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES BY UNITECH LIMIT ED WHICH EMANATED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY BY M/S.KARNAVATI INFRA STRUCTURE PVT.LIMITED IN EXECUTION OF KADODARA-SAIJPURA ROAD PROJECT. THIS LETTER IS ISSUED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR RIGH T AND OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF TH E MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN MRS. UNITECH LTD. AND THE APP ELLANT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED THE DETAILED WORKINGS OF RECOVERY OF RS.77,67,754/- FROM THE APPELLANT BY M/ S.UNITECH LTD. 3.5. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION S TO BE VALID OBSERVING THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPE LLANT COMPANY THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN SHOWN AS INTEREST. THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED AND FINALIZED BEFORE SUCH CLARIFICATION WAS ISSUED BY M/S.UNITECH. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QU ESTION WAS INTEREST BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN SO CLASSIFIED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF M/S.UNITECH LTD. 3.6. THE AR HAS INSISTED ON THE FACT THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. ARE NOT THE CORRECT GUIDE TO DETER MINE THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. IT WOULD BE SENT HAT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE APPELLA NT AND M/S.UNITECH LTD. DID NOT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF ANY INTEREST AT ALL. IN THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE SUM OF RS.77,67,754/- A LSO THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY INTEREST BEING CHARGED BY M/S.UNITEC H LTD. THE DETAILED ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - WORKING OF THE SUM OF RS.77,67,754/- WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN IGNORED. 3.7. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MERITS. IT IS SENT HAT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D M/S.UNITECH DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST. AS P ER PARA-3(111) OF THE AGREEMENT THE ENTIRE WORK HAD TO BE COMPLETED BY TH E APPELLANT AS PER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT ENTERED BETWEEN M/S.UNITECH A ND THE MAIN CONTRACTEE. THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIF Y M/S.UNITECH LTD. FOR ANY DELAY EFFECT OR OTHER LIABILITY ARISING FRO M NON-PERFORMANCE OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF STIPULATION OF THE MAIN CONTRACT. 3.7(I) IN THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS CLEA RLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE AMOUNT PAID WAS BECAUSE OF EXTRA COSTS M/S.UNITECH LTD. HAD TO INCUR BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT COMPLETE THE WORK T AKEN ON SUBCONTRACT FROM M/S.UNITECH LTD. THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE A MOUNT OF RS.77,67,754/- WAS DULY CERTIFIED BY M/S.UNITECH LT D. AND FILED WITH THE AO. INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE SAME IN ORDER TO VERI FY THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. THE AO SIMPLY B RUSHED THIS ASIDE AND HELD THAT THE PAYMENT TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. WAS I NTEREST ONLY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DEBITED AS SUCH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF M/S.UNITECH LTD. NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO PRO VE THAT THE DETAILS FILED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. OR THE CERTIFICATE THAT T HE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT INTEREST, IS WRONG. 3.7(II) THE APPELLANT HAD NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER O VER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES PASSED BY M/S.U NITECH LTD. IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE FACT THAT M/S.UNITECH LTD. H AD DEBITED THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY A SUM OF RS.77,67,754/- AS INTEREST IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT PAID INTEREST TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. THIS BECOMES MORE CLEAR IN VIEW O F THE FACT THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE APPELLANT A ND M/S.UNITECH DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR LEVY OF ANY INTEREST. MOREOVE R M/S.UNITECH LTD. HAD GIVEN A CERTIFICATE TO CONFIRM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.77,67,754/- RECOVERED FROM M/S.KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. W AS ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS EXTRA EFFORTS AND MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES INCURRED BY MRS. UNITECH LTD. WHICH EMANATED FROM THE DELAY BY THE APPELLANT IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT OF KADODRA-BAIJPURA ROAD PRO JECT. 3.7(IV) THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 77,67,754/- WAS ALSO PREPARED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. THIS WORKING WAS ALSO SIGNED BY SHRI IA PRAJAPATI CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER OF PROCESS UNITECH LTD. THE AO HAS ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY HE DOES NOT ACCEPT T HIS WORKING FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS A RESULT OF THE ITAT ORDER. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS WORKI NG. HE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY VERIFICATION ABOUT THIS ASPECT OF DIFFEREN CE WITH M/S.UNITECH LTD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS H ELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.77,67,754/- DEBITED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD., FROM TH E PAYMENTS MADE TO THE APPELLANT AS INTEREST IN THE PURELY MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.7(V) THE MERE FACT THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS M/S.UNITECH LTD. HAD SHOWN THE PAYMENTS AS INTEREST WOULD NOT BE THE FINAL WORD IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPEL LANT. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES CITED ABOVE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTR OVERTED BY THE AO, IT WAS NOT RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID INTEREST TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE W ORKINGS AND CERTIFICATES OF M/S.UNITECH LTD. THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED COS T RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT FOR DELAY IN COMPLETING THE PROJECT WHICH M/S.UNITECH HAD TO BEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT WA S NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DE DUCT ANY TDS ON THIS AMOUNT. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DE DUCT TDS ON THIS AMOUNT HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O IS NOT JUSTIFIED THE SAME IS DELETED. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. WH ICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER TH E CERTIFICATE BY OBSERVING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A MOUNT OF RS.77,67,754/- REPRESENTED AS RECOVERED ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT O F CLAIMS, EXTRA EFFORTS AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES BY UNITECH LIMITED IS NO T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, EXTRA EFFORTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2277/A HD/2008 FOR AY 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 07/01/2009 HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE BASIS FOR WORKING OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.64,91,913/- A ND RS.12,75,840/- DEBITED BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. ON 30/03/2005 IN THEIR BOOKS. NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE SUGGESTING THAT ANY NOTICE WA S ISSUED TO M/S.UNITECH LTD. IN THIS REGARD. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUI RY FROM M/S.UNITECH LTD. 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A C ERTIFICATE FROM M/S.UNITECH LTD. STATING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.77,67 ,754/- WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM S, EXTRA EFFORTS AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES BY M/S.UNITECH LTD. WHICH EM ANATED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY BY M/S.KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. I N EXECUTION OF KADODARA-BAIJPURA ROAD PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO PLACED ON RECORD A WORK-SHEET STATING THEREIN WORK DONE BY M/S.UNITE CH LTD. ON BEHALF OF M/S.KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT.LTD. (AT RISK AND COST). ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE IS THAT BEING CONTRACTUAL P AYMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE R EVENUE IS MISPLACED. AS PER SECTION 194C OF THE IT ACT, 1961, ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A SPECIFIED P ERSON IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CAS H. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PAYMENT TO A CONTRACTOR. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS A CONTRACTOR WHO HAD UNDERTAKEN TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN WORK WHICH HE COULD NOT COMPLETE WITHIN THE STIPULATED T IME AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT, THEREFORE, M/S.UNITECH (PRINCIPAL) GO T THE WORK EXECUTED BY SOME OTHER CONTRACTOR AND RECOVERED THE AMOUNT P AID TO SUCH- ITA NO.3487/AHD /2010 ACIT VS. KARNAVATI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - CONTRACTOR. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THI S GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/04/2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 8.4.14(DICTATION-PAD 12-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.4.14 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 FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.11.4.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.4.14 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