Kem-Tron Technology Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 356/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6366 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIS A BOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Arm length price

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 356 / AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ) KEM TRON TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., B-2/15, BIDC GORWA, BARODA VS. CIT(A)-V, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AABCK5889K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI J. P. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRIS.A. BOHRA, JCIT O R D E R PER SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2007 OF CIT(A) V, BARODA FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.00 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF O UR APPELLANT CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-V, BRD HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ID. ASST. COMM . OF I.TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), BRD ON ACCOUNT OF UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION ON THE PLEA THAT SIMILARLY PLACED COMPANIES HAVE BE TTER MARGIN AS COMPARED TO YOUR APPELLANT'S COMPANY. 1.01 YOUR APPELLANT SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE HO N'BLE C.I.T.(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE OTHER INCOME, MAINLY C ONSISTING OF EXPORT I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 2 INCENTIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING MARGIN WI TH OTHER COMPANIES WHOSE NET PROFITS ARE COMPRISING OF THE OTHER INCOM E. 1.02 YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE HON'BLE C.I.T. (A) HAD ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF YOUR APPEL LANT THAT DATA FURNISHED BY THE ID. A.O. IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS COMPANIES IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF YOUR APPELLANT COMPANY ON VARIOUS REASONS F URNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HON'BLE C.I.T.(A), BRD., THE PRINCIPAL REASON BEING THE COMPANIES WHOS E DATA ARE FURNISHED BY THE ID. A.O. ARE NOT SIMILARLY PLACED COMPANIES. 1.03 YOUR APPELLANT SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE HON 'BLE C.I.T. (A), BRD HAD ERRED IN NOT TAKING ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE SUBMI SSION MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF DATA SUBMITTED FOR COMPARIS ON PURPOSE FOR CALCULATING NET MARGIN WITH THAT OF YOUR APPELLANT COMPANY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. ON PERUSAL OF P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.18,86,446/- AGAINST E XPORT SALES OFRS.2,82,70,233/- . THIS SALE WAS ENTIRELY MADE TO ITS PRINCIPAL HOL DING COMPANY. THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO COMES OUT TO 6.67% AND THE NET PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.9,22,281/- WHICH IS 3.26%. THE A. O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A TRANSACTION WITH THE RELATED CONCERN AS THE HOLDING COMPANY HAS 98% SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES A NEGATIVE FIGURE IF OTHER INC OME OF RS.18,28,677/- IS REDUCED FROM THE NET PROFIT DECLARED. THE OTHER IN COME COMPRISED OF INTEREST INCOME AND INCOME BY WAY OF EXPORT INCENTIVE. HE C ONCLUDED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NET PROFIT WILL BECOME NEGATIVE I.E. (-)3.21%. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3), THE A.O. ISSUED A SHO W CAUSE NOTICE. THE A.O. POINTED OUT THAT THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS ENSUING TO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE COEFFICIENT OF THE TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WITH IT S ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. AS THE OPERATING MARGIN APPEARS LOW, THE A.O. PROPOSED TO MAKE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN THE ALP BY TREATING THE INSTANCES OF SIMILARLY P LACED COMPANIES AND MADE I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 3 UPWARD ADJUSTMENT AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE A.O. STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE TRANSA CTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS PRINCIPAL WAS AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REVENUE HELD THAT THERE WAS A CASE TO DIS TURBED THE ALP HAD BEEN CULLED OUT FROM PROWESS SOFTWARE WHICH WAS A RELIAB LE DATA. 3. BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSION WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT HAS INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE C OMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO SALES TRANSACTION WITH AE AND ON THAT TRANSACTIONS BEING EXPORT SALES, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAD GIVEN INC ENTIVE IN THE FORM OF DEPB LICENSES, WHICH ARE ACCOUNTED AS OTHER INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CALCULATING THE MARGINS HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE INCENTIVE AND HAD MADE CALCULATION AFTER IGNORI NG THE INCENTIVE ONLY. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEY HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD CERTAIN ITEMS AT A HIGHER PRICE COMPARED TO THE OTHER SUPPLIERS FROM TURKEY AND CHI NA. HOWEVER, AS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AP PELLANT ARGUES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SELECTED THE NET TRA NSACTION MARGIN METHOD AND FOR THAT PURPOSE HAD SELECTED CERTAIN CO MPANIES FROM INDIA. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANIES WHIC H ARE SELECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH TH AT OF APPELLANT COMPANY DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS, MAIN REASON BEING T HE SIZE OF THE COMPANY, INFRA-STRUCTURE, TURN-OVER OF THE COMPANY, AND FULL DATA OF THE COMPANY, BEING NOT PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT CO MPANY. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE COMPARISON CAN BE MADE WHEN THERE EXIST SIMILAR SITUATION BUT NO COMPARISON CAN BE MADE WITH THE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR AND THIS FACT W AS ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETAILS DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUES THAT WHIL E CALCULATING NET MARGIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE OTHER INCOME WHILE DATA PROVIDED OF OTHER COMPANIES, IT APPEARS THAT T HEY ARE INCLUSIVE OF OTHER INCOME AND THE APPELLANT WAS IGNORANT ABOU T THIS FACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 4 TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE DETAILED WORKING OF FAS ANA LYSIS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SENT TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE A.O. FILED A REMAND REPORT ON WHICH ASSESSEES COUNTER COMMENTS WERE ALSO OBTAINED BY LD. CIT(A). AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT BY THE A.O. AND COUN TER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON A.O.S REMAND REPORT, LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN THE PRICE ADOPTED FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENT S OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS ADOPTED THE NET MARGIN METHOD TO MAKE AN UP-WARD AD JUSTMENT IN THE PRICE ADOPTED FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED-CONCERN. THIS ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDING TO LAW FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS: 6.1THE APPELLANT IS ALMOST A 100% SUBSIDIARY OF THE FOREIGN ENTERPRISE. THE PARENT COMPANY HOLDS 98% OF THE TOT AL NUMBER OF SHARES OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPAL C OMPANY IS IN A VANTAGE POSITION TO DICTATE OR DETERMINE THE SALE P RICE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. SECONDLY, THE PARENT COMPANY IS THE ONLY BUYER OF THE CUSTOMIZED COMPONENTS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY . IN SUCH A SITUATION IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE INDIAN ENTE RPRISE IS SELLING ITS' PRODUCTS TO FOREIGN ENTERPRISE AT ARM LENGTH PRICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT MAKING ANY PROFIT IN ITS ENTIRE OPERATION WITH THE PARENT COMPANY. ON CE EXPORT INCENTIVE AND OTHER INCOME ARE TAKEN OUT, THERE IS A LOSS OF ABOUT 3.21%. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PRICING OF THE PRODUCT IS NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IS A LOGIC AL AND DEFENDABLE CONCLUSION. 6.2 AS HAS BRIEFLY ALREADY DISCUSSED THE APPELLANT IS MANUFACTURING A PART OR COMPONENTS OF A PRODUCT FOR THE PARENT COMPANY. FOR THIS NO DIRECT COMPARABLE ARE AVAILABL E. NEITHER I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 5 THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO FIND ONE. THEREFORE, THE O NLY LOGICAL WAY IS TO ADOPT NET MARGIN METHOD TO DETERMINE WHET HER APPELLANT IS MAKING ANY PROFIT IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PRECISELY DONE THE SAME THING . 6.3 THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT FOR CALCULA TING NET MARGIN, OTHER INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO AC COUNT IS NOT CORRECT AS THESE INCOMES ARE NOT STRICTLY RELAT ED TO THE TRANSACTION. COURTS OF LAW HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT E XPORT INCENTIVES CANNOT FORM PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT ALTH OUGH IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT. EXPORT INCENTIVES ARE TO BE TAKE N AS OTHER INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF 80HHC.EXPORT INCENTIVE CO ULD BE INCIDENTAL TO EXPORT ACTIVITIES, BUT THIS IS NOT A FACTOR OF THE COST. 6.4 THE NET MARGIN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 3.768%, FROM THE AVAILABLE INTERNATIONAL COMPARABLE S, IS AGAIN A FAIRLY REASONABLE MARGIN. APPELLANT HAS CITED CAS ES WHERE COMPANIES HAVE ALSO INCURRED LOSSES, THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT TENABLE, BECAUSE THE BACK-GROUND OF THOSE CASES ARE NOT GIVEN AND APPELLANT COMPANY ALSO DID NOT FACE ANY ADVERSE OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A NEGATIVE M ARGIN. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TRANSFER PRICE BETWEEN THE A SSOCIATED ENTERPRISES IS TO BE SUITABLY ALTERED FOR DETERMINI NG CORRECT PROFIT FOR THE INDIAN ENTERPRISE I.E. APPELLANT COM PANY. THE UP- WARD ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUN TING TO RS.19,72,697/- IN THE ALP AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIO N MADE IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER A RGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. ON ACCOU NT OF UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ON THE GOURD THAT SIMILAR LY PLACED COMPANIES HAVE BETTER MARGIN AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE COMPANIES WHICH I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 6 WERE SELECTED BY THE A.O. ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE SIZE OF THE COMPANY, INFRA STRUCTURE, TURNOVER AND FULL DATA OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO REBUT THE F INDINGS OF THE A.O. MOST OF THE COMPANIES REFERRED FOR COMPARISON WITH THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WERE NOT EVEN DEALING IN THE GOODS IN WHICH ASSESSEE COMPANY DEALS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG I N NOT CONSIDERING THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAINLY CONSISTING OF EXPORT INVENTIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING MARGIN MONEY WITH THE OTHER COMPANIES WHOSE NET PROFIT IS INCLUDING OTHER INCOME ALSO. TO BE FAIR TO THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER INCOME OF THOSE COMPANIES SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED FORM THE NE T PROFIT OF THOSE COMPANIES WHILE COMPARING WITH THE RESULTS O THE ASSESSEE COM PANY. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALS O IGNORED THE DATA SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THEM FOR COMPARISON PURPOSE FOR CALCULATING THE NET MARGIN OF THE FIVE SIMILARLY PLACED COMPANIES WITHO UT GIVING ANY COGENT REASONS. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 200 6-07 AND 2007-08, THOUGH A REFERENCE U/S 92(C)(1)(A) OF THE ACT FOR THE COMPUT ATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS MADE TO T PO BUT NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE BY THE TPO IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. CON CLUDING HIS ARGUMENTS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF NET PRICE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS UNCALLED FOR IN THIS CASE THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE IN THIS CASE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 7. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIZES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHOSE 98% SHARES ARE HELD BY M/S. KEM-TRON TECHNOLOGIES INC. USA. T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENTS AND MACHIN ERY PARTS AND COMPONENTS OF SOLID OPERATING EQUIPMENTS AND PARTS USED IN OIL AND GAS FILLED MACHINERY. I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 7 THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUPPLY ANY COMPLETE COMPONENT BUT ONLY SPARE PARTS ARE BEING MANUFACTURED AND SUPPLIED THROUGH ITS HOLDING COMPANY. 9. AS THE ASSESSEES MAJOR SALES IN INTERNATIONAL M ARKET RELATED TO ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE SECTION 93E WAS APPLICABLE AND A REPORT IN FORM 3CEB WAS DULY FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESS EE. THE A.O. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT MADE ADDITI ON OF RS.19,72,697/- BY MAKING UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON WITH THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE ON THE GROUND THAT SIMILARLY PLACED COMP ANIES HAD BETTER MARGINS AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WHILE DOING SO, THE A.O. TOOK THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT (-) 3.21% INSTEAD OF 3.26% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, EXCLUDING THE OTHER INCOME OF RS.80,28,67 7/- FROM NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. A.O. WHILE HOLDING THAT SIMILARLY PLACED COMPANIES HAD BETTER MARGIN AS COMPARED TO ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAS NOT DON E THE SAME EXERCISE I.E. OTHER INCOME OF THOSE COMPANIES HAD NOT BEEN EXCLUD ED FROM THEIR NET PROFIT, WHICH ACCORDING TO US, IS NOT PROPER. WE FURTHER F IND THAT FULL DATA OF THE COMPANIES WITH WHICH ASSESSEES PROFIT MARGIN WAS C OMPARED, WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON THE OTHER H AND, THE DATA OF FIVE COMPANIES WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR TYPE OF BUSINESS, PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O., WAS TOTALLY IGNORED FOR NO CO GENT REASON. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTE R REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY TAKING THE AVERAGE OF NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE CO MPANIES CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. WHILE MAKING THIS UPWARD ADJUSTMENT AND THE CO MPANIES ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE TO SHOW THAT TRANSACTI ON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS PRINCIPAL WAS AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. WHILE DOING SO, SIMILAR FIGURES OF ALL THE COMPANIES SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION. IN CASE, OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXCLUDED FORM THE NET PRO FIT, THE OTHER INCOME OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED FROM T HEIR NET PROFIT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A.NO. 356/AHD/2008 8 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE 2011. SD./- SD//- (A. K. GARODIA) (D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED :17 TH JUNE, 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14/6/11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15/6/11. OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 16/6/11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 17/6/11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 17/6/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17/6/11 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. ..