The ACIT, Circle-2, Surat V. Smt. Mitaben P.Panwala, Surat

ITA 4083/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6432 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 11A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHARAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4082/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SURAT VS. SMT. RITABEN BHUPENDRA PANWALA, 3/431, BASARI MOHOLLOW, NAVAPURA, SURAT I.T.A. NO.4083/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SURAT VS. SMT. MITABEN BHUPENDRA PANWALA, 3/431, BASARI MOHOLLOW, NAVAPURA, SURAT PAN : ABEPA8165C & ABEPP87164D RESPECT IVELY (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: P.K.KUREEL, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: R.N.VEPARI, A.R. O R D E R PER SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, AM :- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPE CT OF THESE TWO ASSESSEES INVOLVE COMMON ISSUE AND HENCE THEY ARE T AKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF SMT. RITABEN B PANWALA IN I.T.A.NO. 4082/AH D/2008, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF CONCESSIONAL RATE OF TAXATION U/S 111A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 ON CAPITAL GAIN RS.38,51,861/- ON THE TRANSACT IONS OF SHARES ON WHICH NO SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX HAS BEE N PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. O N THIS ISSUE. 2. IN THE CASE OF SMT. MITABEN B PANWALA IN I.T.A.NO. 4083/AHD/2008, THE GROUNDS ARE THE SAME AND ONLY THE CAPITAL GAIN INVOLVED IS RS.38,11,542/. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SHOWN SALE OF SHARES OF SEAGULL LEAFIN ON WHICH IT HAS SHOWN TO H AVE EARNED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.31,58,861/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CONCESSIO NAL RATE OF TAX @ 10% THEREON. THE A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW TH E EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASES AND COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF BROKER AND DETAILS OF PRICE LIST ON THE DA TE OF PURCHASE AND SALE. IT WAS SHOWN TO THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHARES W ERE SOLD THROUGH GRISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON 17.12.2004, 23.12.2 004 AND 30.12.2004 FOR A TOTAL SALE PRICE OF RS.48.64,561/- WHEREAS PURCHA SE PRICE THEREON WAS RS.10.17,926/- AS PER THE NOTE ISSUED BY HE ANOTHER BROKER RAJESH N ZAVERI SHOWING PURCHASE OF 1,66,600 SHARES OF SEAGULL LEAF IN ON 22.09.2004. AFTER CARRYING OUT INQUIRY, ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSE S AND GETTING THEIR REPLY, THE A.O. CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: (I) THE COMPANY SEAGULL IS A PENNY SCRIP AND NOT A RENOWNED SCRIP AND AS PER THE LETTER OF STOCK EXCHANGE, THE SAME IS NO T LISTED. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THIS IS NOT AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. (III) MOREOVER, AS APPARENT FROM THE RETURNED INCOME IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY SHARE TRANSAC TION OR SHARE INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR OTHER THAN THE ABNORMAL SHARE PROFIT SHOWN ON THE SALE OF SEAGULL SHARES. (IV) LOOKING TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT ON A PE NNY SCRIP WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME, THE SAID TRANSACTION SHOULD BE TAXED AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS AN INVESTMENT UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, SINCE THE TRANSACTION I S NOT THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE WITH PAYMENT OF STT AND HENCE, THE B ENEFIT OF CONCESSIONAL RATE OF INCOME-TAX CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 4. HE ACCORDINGLY APPLIED THE NORMAL TAX RATE OF 30 % ON THE SHARES PROFIT OF RS.38,51,861/-. 5. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE CIT(A), HE FOUND THAT THE A.O. WAS INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT SHARES WERE NOT LISTED WITH NSE AS THEY WERE LISTED WITH BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) FI NALLY RELIED ON THE NOTE OF THE BROKER WHERE IT WAS MENTIONED THROUGH NSC/5 2004 MEANING THEREBY THAT SHARES WERE TRANSACTED THROUGH NSE. W HEN IT WAS ENQUIRED FORM NSE, IT DENIED TO HAVE TRANSACTED IN SHARES AS CLAIMED AND ACCORDINGLY, NO STT WAS PAID. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 111A WERE NOT FULFILLED AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTAILED T O THE CONCESSIONAL RATE OF TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 111A OF THE AC T. HE HAD ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN ORDER U/S 154 ON 16.10.2008 RECTIFYING HIS ORDER DA TED 29.07.2008 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RECTIFIC ATION ORDER, LD. CIT(A) ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE BILLS RAISED BY GRISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HI M DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY HI M. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HE MENTIONED THAT THE BILLS SO FURNISHED CLEARLY SHOWED THAT BROKER HAD DEDUCTED A SUM OF RS.3654.79 AS STT FROM THE BILL NO.M18904/118045. HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 03 07.2008 IN CAS-II/199/O7-3S. VIDE LETTER DTD. 27.08.2008, SHRI R.N. VEPARI, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE APPELLATE ORDER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 154 OF THE I T ACT. THE GROUND ON WHICH THE RECTIFICATION AHS B EEN SOUGHT IS DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. THE AR HAS REFERRED TO PARA 5.1 OF THE APPELLATE OR DER WHERE IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED THAT SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) HAD NOT BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE/BROKER AND THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S 111A OF THE ACT WERE NO T FULFILLED. IT IS THE ARS CONTENTION THAT STT HAD BEEN PAID. THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY VOUCHER AND IS TO BE PAID ONLY IN FORM NO.10D WHICH IS THE PRESCRIBED FORM UNDER RULE 20AB. THE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT WAS THE DEDUCTION MADE BY T HE BROKER IN THE BILLS RAISED BY THEM AND SUCH BILLS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BOTH BEFORE THE A.O. AND ALSO IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR. THE AR HAS ONCE AGAIN FURNIS HED THE BILLS RAISED BY THE BROKER. THE BROKER HAD ADJUSTED HT S TT PAID FORM THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE BILK RAISED BY M/S. GRISHMA S ECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH I FIND HAD INDEED BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR SUBMITTED IN COURSE OF THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AND WHICH HAD REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERE D. THESE BILLS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE SAID BROKER HAD DEDUCTED SUM OF RS 3654.79 FROM BILL NO. M18904/118045. THE SAID SUM REPRESENT ED THE STT PAID BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS DEDUCTED FORM THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS OF THE CASE, THE OBSERVATION IN PARA 5.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. THE A.O. IS, THERFOR5E, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF CONCESSIONAL RATE OF TAXATION U/S 111A OF THE I T ACT. THE APPELLATE ORDER OF 3.07.2 008 WILL STAND RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS NO T APPRECIATED THAT SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT TREATED AS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY, NO BENEFIT U/S 111A OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PURCHASE BILL ISSUED BY SHRI RAJESH N ZAVERI BROKER CLEARLY SHOWED THE FOLL OWING REMARKS TAX TRANSFER NSC/5 OF 2004 AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE BILL FROM NSE IT WAS FOUND THAT SHARES OF SEAGULL LEAFIN WERE NOT LISTED ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND FURTHER, THE BILLS ISSUED BY GARISHMA SECURITIE S P. LTD. DID NOT REFLECT ANY PAYMENT OF STT. THE SUM OF RS.3654.79 CLAIM ED AS STT IS ACTUALLY SHOWN AS T.O. DE CHARGES AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE STT. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE BROKER; G ARISHMA SECURITIES P. LTD. HAS CLARIFIED BY A CERTIFICATE PLACED AT PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT SUM OF RS.3654.79 IS A SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX WHI CH HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE SUM PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS DONE FROM THE ASSESSEE ARE MENTIONED BY THE BROKER AS UNDER: WE HAVE SOLD THE FOLLOWING LISTED SHARES THROUGH T HE MUMBAI STOCK EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF RITABEN BHUPENDRAKUMAR PANWAL A: BILL NO.M18904/118045 SET NO.2004189 BILL DATE 23./12.2004 SECURITY NAME: SEAGULL QUANTITY 166600 AMOUNT PER SHARE RS.29.23 TOTAL AMOUNT RS.48,69,787/- SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX RS.3654.79/- WE HAVE DEDUCTED RS.3,654.79 AS A SECURITY TRANSACT ION TAX FROM ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AS PER LAW. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT P/O.DE CHG AS MENTIO NED ON THE SALE BILL DATE 23.12.2004 ISSUED BY GARISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. PLACED ON PAGE NO.19 IS IN FACT REFERS TO THE SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS TAXES/OTHER CHARGES. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 111A FOR ALLOWING CONCESSIONAL RATE OF T AX TO THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES IS THAT SUCH TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE TAKE N PLACE AFTER 1.10.2004 AND STT IS CHARGEABLE ON SUCH SALES. ONCE THE BROKER H AS CERTIFIED THAT IT HAS DEDUCTED STT THEN IT IS FOR THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO F IND OUT WHETHER STT HAS BEEN PAID OR NOT. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCER NED, IT HAS SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 111A. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE F OR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER O LD. CIT(A) PASSED ON 16.10.2008 WHEREIN HE HAS TR EATED THE SUM OF RS.3,654.79 AS STT ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE AND BILLS ISSUED BY THE BROKER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REFER TO SECTION 1 11A AS UNDER: 111A: (1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER HT HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AR ISING FORM THE TRANSFER OF A SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING AN EQ UITY SHARE IN A COMPANY OR A UNIT OF AN EQUITY ORIENTED FUND AND- (A) THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SUCH EQUITY SHARE OR UNIT IS ENTERED INTO ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 COMES INTO FORCE; AND (B) SUCH TRANSACTION IS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TR ANSACTION TAX UNDER THAT CHAPTER; THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF- (I) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX CALCULATED ON SUCH SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAINS AT THE RATE OF [FIFTEEN] PER CENT; AN D (II) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAYABLE ON THE BALANCE AMO UNT OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS IF SUCH BALANCE AMOUNT WERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE; .. FROM A READING OF ABOVE SECTION, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR CLAIMING CONCESSIONAL RATE OF T AX. THE 1STS CONDITION IS THAT TRANSACTION OF SHARES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN P LACE AFTER FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2004 HAS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1 ST OCTOBER 2004 AS NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE BY HE CENTRAL GOVE4RNMENT VIDE SO 1058(E), DATED 28.09.2004. SINCE THE SALE OF SHARES HAVE TAKEN PL ACE IN DECEMBER 2004, THE 1ST CONDITION AS PER SECTION 111A(1)(A) IS SATISFIE D. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH TRANSACTION I.E. SALE OF SHARE S IN SEAGULL LEAFIN ARE CHARGEABLE TO STT AS DEPARTMENT HAS NOWHERE ARGUED THAT THEY ARE NOT SO CHARGEABLE. THE ONLY CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUES IS THAT SUCH ST WAS NOT PAID. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENU E IS THAT THESE SALE OF SHARES ARE CHARGEABLE TO STT BUT THE BROKER HAS NOT DEDUCTED SUCH TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE TRANSACTION BEING CHARGEABLE TO S TT 2 ND CONDITION LAID DOWN IN SECTION 111A(1)(B) IS ALSO SATISFIED. SO FAR AS PAYMENT OR RECOVERY OF STT IS CONCERNED, IT CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF BY CHAPTE R VII OF THE FINANCE NO.2 ACT OF 2004 WHICH PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT, COLLECTI ON RECOVERY OF STT. RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE HAD BEEN EMPOWERED TO COL LECT THE STT, THE A.O. IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH STT AS PER SECTION 102 OF STT ACT AS PER CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2004. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH STT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE BROKER M/S. GARISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AS PER CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY THEM IS NOT FOUND INCORRECT. THE ONLY CONFUSION REMAINED WAS ABOUT TH E WORD USED IN THE BILL ISSUED BY GARISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. THE SAID B ROKER HAD MENTIONED THE WORD T/O.DE.CHG FOR THE SUM OF RS.3654.79 DEDUCTE D BY IT AND NOT TREATED BY THE REVENUE AS STT WHEREAS THE BROKER HA D CLARIFIED BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY THAT IT IS IN FACT STT. THERE IS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL TO HOLD THAT SUM OF RS.3,654.79 IS NOT IN FACT STT BUT SOME OTHER CHARGES EXCEPT THE APPREHENSION OF THE A.O. WHICH I S NOT FOUND SUBSTANTIATED. WE, ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS ACCEPTED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SUM OF RS.3,654.79 IS IN FACT STT DULY DEDUCTED BY THE BROKER FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO TH E ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES. 8. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. IS THAT T HESE SHARES TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THESE CON TENTIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ABOUT THE ALLEGE D GENUINENESS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS ONLY CHALLENGE D THAT NO STT HAS BEEN PAID ON SALE OF SHARES BY GARISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH WE HAVE HELD AGAINST THE REVENUE AS ABOVE. WE, ACCORDINGLY DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 4083/AHD/200 8 (MITABEN B PANWALA): SIMILAR ISSUES AS ABOVE ARE RAISED IN TH IS CASE ALSO. REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT NO STT WAS PAID WHEREAS BILLS ISSUED BY GARISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. SHOWED A DEDUCTION OF RS.3,654.32 UNDER T HE HEAD T/O DE CHG WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED AS STT BY GAR ISHMA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AS UNDER: WE HAVE SOLD THE FOLLOWING LISTED SHARES THROUGH T HE MUMBAI STOCK EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR RATI LAL JARIWALA: BILL NO.M18704/118044 SETT. NO.2004187 BILL DATE 21.12.2004 SECURITY NAME: SEAGUL QUANTITY: 20000 AMOUNT PER SHARE RS.28.48 TOTAL AMOUNT RS.5,69,600/- SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX RS.427.50 BILL NO.M18804/118043 SETT. NO.2004188 BILL DATE 21.12.2004 SECURITY NAME: SEAGUL QUANTITY: 77000 AMOUNT PER SHARE RS.29.06 TOTAL AMOUNT RS.23,37,960/- SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX RS.1679.37 BILL NO.M18904/118044 SETT. NO.2004189 BILL DATE 21.12.2004 SECURITY NAME: SEAGUL QUANTITY: 69600 AMOUNT PER SHARE RS.29.05 TOTAL AMOUNT RS.20,21,908/- SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX RS.1517.45 WE HAVE DEDUCTED RS.3,624.32 AS A SECURITIES TRANS ACTION TAX FROM ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AS PER LAW. 10. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED BY US IN THE CASE OF RITABEN B PANWALA ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN I N SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 111A ARE SATISFIED AND THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING ASSESS ED AT CONCESSIONAL RATES AS PROVIDED U/S 111A OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2011. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL SHRAWAT) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 31 ST MAY, 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 26.05.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.05.11 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.30.5.11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31.05.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.0 5.11 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.