The ITO,S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar V. Shri Bhaveshkumar G. Bhandari, Himatnagar

ITA 3562/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9829 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKER
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR. VS. BHAVESHKUMAR G. BHANDARI, PROP. OF SIMANDHAR FINANCE, NR. OLD STATE BANK OF INDIA, HIMATNAGAR. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI A. K. TIWARI, D.R. RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K. C. THAKER, AR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RAISING FOL LOWING GROUND:- (1) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 19 61 AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AGGREGATING TO RS.17,39,965/- I N RESPECT OF (I) M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT RS.6,25,160/-, (II) M/S GU JARAT TRANSPORT RS.9,49,805/-, (III) SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL RS.95,000/-, (IV) SHRI HARDIP R. PATEL RS.50,000/- WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE FACT REPORTED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT N ONE OF THE PROPRIETORS OF THE GUARANTOR NAMELY AMBICA TRANSPOR T AND GUJARAT TRANSPORT COMPLIED WITH SUMMONS U/S 131 NOR SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL AND HARDIP R. PATEL COULD BE LOCATED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES IN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR :2003-04 ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHE R ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE CREDITS APPEARIN G IN ITS BOOKS IN THE NAME OF ABOVE PARTIES. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 147/148 WERE UNDERTAKEN IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE AVOIDED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR LONG WHICH WAS FINALLY FILED ON 26.9.200 3, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(1) ISSUED ON 1.4.2005. PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WERE UNDERTAKEN. DURING THE COURSE O F THIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE CREDITED ACCOUNTS OF FOLLOWING FOUR PARTIES :- 1) M/S GUJARAT TRANSPORT RS.9,49,805/- 2) M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT RS.6,25,160/- 3) SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL RS.4,19,830/- 4) SHRI HARDIP P. PATEL RS.50,000/- ----------------- TOTAL RS.20,44,595/- IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND THUS CHEQUES OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WERE P RESENTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DISCOUNTING. THE CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES WAS DONE AS THEY STOOD GUARANTOR. THE AO CARRIED OUT EN QUIRIES AND FOUND THAT M/S GUJARAT TRANSPORT AND M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT HAVE DENIED TO HAVE GIVEN ANY CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID N OT AGREE AND HELD THAT ONCE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED PARTY-WISE ACCOUN T AND SAID PARTIES HAVE DENIED TO HAVE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESS EE THEN CREDIT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NAMES OF M/S A MBICA TRANSPORT AND M/S GUJARAT TRANSPORT ARE NOT GENUINE BUT ARE BOGUS . IN RESPECT OF SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL AND SHRI HARDIP R. PATEL THE AO NOTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF CHEQUES AND ENTRY OF RETURN OF CAS H. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION FROM THESE TWO PARTIES. NO ADDRESS OF THESE TWO ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 3 PARTIES WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER VERIFICATI ON WAS DONE. THE AO, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED THAT PEAK BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL WAS RS.90,000/- THEREFORE, HE DECIDED TO MAKE ADDIT ION OF RS.95,000/- IN THIS CASE/-, AS AGAINST TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.4,19,630 /-. ACCORDINGLY THE AO PROPOSED FOLLOWING ADDITION :- SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL RS.95,000/- AND HARDIP R. PATEL RS.50,000/- 4. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSES SEE PRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FRO M FOUR PERSONS NAMELY- NAME OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTER NAME OF GUARANTOR 1. KANUBHAI JETHATABHAI PATEL AMBICA TRANSPORT 2. MUKESH RAMANLAL SHAH GUJARAT TRANSPORT 3. HASMUKHBHAI P. PATEL -DO- 4. RAMESHBHAI M. PATEL -DO- AND SUBMITTED THAT CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES AND M/S GUJARAT TRANSPORT AND M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT HAD STOO D GUARANTOR FOR REALIZATION OF MONEY. FURTHER ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO SU BMIT CONFIRMATION FROM M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT AND GUJARAT TRANSPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY STOOD GUARANTOR THAT THE TRANSACTIONS DID NOT PERTA IN TO THEM. IN RESPECT OF SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL AND HARDIP R. PATEL IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THEY ALSO RELATED TO CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AND NOT FOR RECEIPT O F MONEY. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE EVIDENCED BY VOUCHERS AND THEREFO RE, THERE WAS NO CASE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED A LL THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO WHO EXAMINED THEM AND SUBMITTED FOLLOWING REPORT:- I HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT I HAVE ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 13 1 OF THE IT ACT ON 14.5.2007 AND IN RESPONSE TO SAID SUMMONS THE ABOVE FOUR PERSONS HAVE ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 4 FILED THEIR REPLY ON 21.05.2007. ON EXAMINED OF REP LY GIVEN BY THE ABOVE FOUR PERSONS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THEY HAVE NOT MAIN TAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEY ALL HAVE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT AB LE TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTED BY THEM DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1. 4.2002 TO 31.03.2004. A LETTER DATED 21.5.2007 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE XEROX COPIES OF CHEQUES DI SCOUNTED BY VARIOUS PERSON WITH YOU FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2002 TO 31. 3.2003 WHICH WAS CREDITED BY YOU IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF GUJARAT TR ANSPORT AND AMBICA TRANSPORT REFLECTED IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN R ESPONSE TO SAID LETTER, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.5.2007 REQUESTED TO K INDLY GRANT ONE MONTH PERIOD FOR COLLECTION OF COPY OF CHEQUES AND SUBMIS SION THEREOF. AGAIN ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 4.6.2007 HAS STATED THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE COPY OF CHEQUES DISCOUNTED BY VARIOUS PERSONS WITH HIM AS THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND BANK AUTHORITY IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE TH E SAME WITHIN THE TIME GIVEN BY HIM. HOWEVER, ALL THE FOUR PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN THE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SEN T TO THIS OFFICE UNDER COVER OF THE LETTER UNDER REPLY. THEY HAVE ALSO CON FIRMED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SIMANDHAR FINANCE IN THE NAME OF M/S AMBICA TRANSPORT AND M/S GUJARAT TRANSPORT W ERE THEIR OWN TRANSACTIONS OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AND NOT OF M/S A MBICA TRANSPORT/GUJARAT TRANSPORT WHO WERE ACTUALLY THE I NTRODUCED AND GUARANTORS. IT IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THESE PARTIES T HAT THESE WERE THE TRANSACTIONS OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AND NOT OF PLACI NG DEPOSITS WITH SIMANDHAR FINACE CO. THE CONCERNED TRANSPORT COMPAN IES NAMELY AMBICA TRANSPORT AND GUJARAT TRANSPORT HAD DENIED T O HAVE MADE ANY SUCH TRANSACTIONS WITH SIMANDHAR FINANCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. IN THE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FILED BY THE ABOVE NAMED FOUR PERSONS THESE TRANSPORT COMPANIES HAVE AGAIN DENIED THAT THESE WERE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THEIR BUSI NESS AND HAVE MENTIONED THAT THEY STOOD AS GUARANTORS FOR THE FOUR PERSONS NAMELY ABOVE. I HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, THE FOLLOWING FOUR PERSONS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. NAME OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTER NAME OF GUARANTOR 1. KANUBHAI JETHATABHAI PATEL AMBICA TRANSPORT 2. MUKESH RAMANLAL SHAH GUJARAT TRANSPORT 3. HASMUKHBHAI P. PATEL -DO- 4. RAMESHBHAI M. PATEL -DO- ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 5 THE ABOVE PERSONS HAVE SIMPLY FILED WRITTEN SUBMISS ION. THEY HAVE NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE AS CALLED BY THE UNDERSIGNED . FURTHER THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT ISSUED ON 28/5/2007 T O THE PROPRIETORS OF ABOVE GUARANTOR REQUESTING THEM TO ATTEND THE OFFIC E OF THE UNDERSIGN ON 5/6/2007 AT 11.30 A.M. HOWEVER, NONE ATTENDED NOR A NY WRITTEN REPLY FILED BY THEM. TWO PERSONS NAMELY VIJAY R. PATEL AN D HARDIP R. PATEL COULD NOT EXAMINED SINCE THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE LOCATED AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED B EFORE YOUR HONOUR. THE ABOVE STATED FACTS MAY BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN BRIEF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO P ROVIDE COPIES OF THE CHEQUES. THE PROPRIETORS ARE GUARANTORS DID NOT ATT END HIS OFFICE IN SPITE OF SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 SHRI VIJAY R. PATEL AN D HARDIP R. PATEL COULD NOT BE LOCATED AND HENCE THEY COULD NOT BE EX AMINED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : -` 4.7 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE ISSUE A ND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE ME, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE AP PELLANT AND AOS REPORT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AT HAND, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/ S 68 IS NOT IN ORDER. I FIND THAT THE AO HAS INITIALLY TOOK THE ISSUE AS RE CEIPT AND REPAYMENT OF DEPOSIT AND THOUGHT OF INVOKING S.269T OF THE ACT. BUT ON RECEIPT OF THE EXPLANATION THE EFFECT THAT THERE IS NO DEPOSIT OR REPAYMENT INVOLVED AND THIS IS ONLY A CASE OF DISCOUNTING OF CHEQUE THE AO DROPPED THE ISSUE OF INVOKING S.269T OF THE ACT. THE MATERIAL PRODUCED B EFORE HIM WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVINCE HIM THAT TRANSACTIONS RELATE D TO CHEQUE DISCOUNTING. THEN THE AO STUCK TO THE ISSUE THAT THE ACCOUNT NAM ES WERE BOGUS BUT EXPLANATION IN THIS RESPECT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO H IM. THE TWO TRANSPORTERS HAD DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY DEPOSIT WI TH THE APPELLANT AND THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED SHOWED THAT DISCOUNTING WERE DONE BY PARTIES WHO WERE STRANGERS TO THE APPELLANT AND WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE TRANSPORTERS WHO STOOD AS GUARANTORS FOR THEM AND THE APPELLANT THOUGHT IT FIT TO NAME THE ACCOUNTS AFTER THE GUARANTORS. EVEN AFTER THE E NTIRE ISSUE STOOD CLARIFIED THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND TH AT CREDIT IN THE NAMES OF TWO TRANSPORTERS WAS BOGUS. ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 6 4.8 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS OF THOSE PARTIES WHO HAD DISCOUNTED THE CHEQUES DULY ENDORSED BY THE CON CERNED TRANSPORTER AND REQUESTED THAT THESE BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSES SMENT WAS TAKEN UP AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR LEAVING JUST 3 WEEKS BEFORE LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY THE EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN ON RECORD AND WA S SENT TOGETHER WITH THE CONFIRMATION TO THE AO FOR NECESSARY ENQUIRY AN D REPORT. THE AO HAS SENT HIS REPORT ON WHICH APPELLANTS COMMENTS ARE A LSO OBTAINED. THE AO REPORTS THAT THE PERSONS WHO FILED CONFIRMATION LET TERS IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE CONFIRMED TO HIM THAT THEY STAND B Y THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTIN G AND NOT OF PLACING DEPOSIT WITH THE APPELLANT. THEY ALSO STATED THAT T HE TWO TRANSPORTERS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE TRANSACTIONS. 4.9 THUS CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AT HAND AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORGOING PARAGRAP HS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 IS NOT IN ORDER. THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS BUT HAS TRIED TO BECOME TOO T ECHNICAL TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF S.68 WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FA CE OF THE CLARIFICATIONS MADE AND NOW DULY CONFIRMED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ADDITION OF RS.15,74,965/- IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HE THUS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING CHEQUE DISCOUNT ING BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT THE CREDITS APPEARING FROM THOSE PARTIES. 6. AGAINST THIS, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE GUARAN TORS OR FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADDRESSES OF OTHER PARTIES WHO ARE CLAIMED TO H AVE DEPOSITED THE CHEQUES WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO FAILED TO PRODUC E THE PHOTOCOPY OF CHEQUES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY FOR DISCOUN TING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PROVED THAT IT HAS PAID THE CASH IMMEDIATE LY AFTER RECEIVING THE CHEQUES AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF ASSESSEES KITY SW ALLING BECAUSE OF THOSE CHEQUES. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A SHROF F CARRYING ON CHEQUE DISCOUNTING IS NOT EXPECTED TO KEEP THE DETA ILS OF ALL THE PARTIES WHO ARE COMING TO HIM FOR CHEQUE DISCOUNTING. HE AC CEPTS THE CHEQUES ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 7 FROM WHOSOEVER COMES FOR DISCOUNTING AND PAYS CASH LESS HIS COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE IN FACT OBTAINED GUARANTEE FROM GUJARAT TRANSPORT AND AMBICA TRANSPORT SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE CHEQUES AGAINST WHICH IT HAS PAID CASH ARE HONOURED AND ASSESSEE RE CEIVES MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) HA S RATHER HURRIEDLY PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXAM INING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD IMMEDIATELY MADE PAYMENT OF CASH TO TH E PARTIES AGAINST RECEIPT OF CHEQUES. THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM T HE RECIPIENTS OF THE CASH AGAINST THE CHEQUES SUBMITTED BY THEM. WE, THE REFORE, RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO CARRY OUT FOLLOWING ENQ UIRIES AND DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH :- (1) ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO WHO WILL FIND OUT AS TO WHEN THE CONCERNED PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THE CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN ASSESSEE HAS P AID THE CASH TO THEM. (2) ASSESSEE WILL SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE CASH AGAINST SUBMITTING CHEQUES AND TH E DATES WHEN SUCH CASH WAS RECEIVED. (3) ASSESSEE WILL SUBMIT NECESSARY VOUCHERS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF CASH TO THE PARTIES WITH THEIR IDENTIFIC ATION AND DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES SUBMITTED FOR DISCOUNTING SU CH AS BANK ON WHICH CHEQUE WAS DRAWN AND CHEQUE NUMBER, (4) THE AO WILL ALSO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WOULD FIND OUT TOTAL NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF CHEQUES RECEIVED BY IT DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR FOR D ISCOUNTING AND COMMISSION CHARGED THEREON AND SIMILAR DATA FOR TWO EARLIER YEARS SO AS TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUS INESS OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING. IF ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF CHEQ UE DISCOUNTING AND THE NATURE OF RECORD IN RESPECT OF OTHER CHEQUES RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 8 THE SAME AS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED CHEQUES IN T HE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, AND CASH HAS BEEN IMMEDIATELY PAID ON RECEI PT OF THE CHEQUES AS CONFIRMED BY THE RECIPIENTS AND SUPPORTED BY VOUCHE RS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE THEN NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE BUT IF CHE QUE SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE PARTIES HAVE COME TO SWALLOW TH E KITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO CO-RELATION OF RECEIPT OF THE CHEQU ES AND PAYMENTS OF CASH AGAINST THESE CHEQUES THEN RECEIPT OF THE CHEQUES F OR DISCOUNTING CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROVED AND ADDITION WILL HAVE TO BE M ADE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/9/10. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30/9/10. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.3562/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 9 1.DATE OF DICTATION 28 /9/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 29/9/2010 MEMBER.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 DICTATING 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 ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..