The ACIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra V. M/a. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda

ITA 478/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9480 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Rule of consistency; Source of fund; Retrospective amendment; Permanent establishment; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 5(2)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.478/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, PUNCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA. / VS. M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. LANDMARK, 7 TH FLOOR, RACECOURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. :AABCP 2643 Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ALOK KUMAR, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. J. SHAH, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 19/01/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/01/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, BARODA, DATED 29/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN (I) DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.58,58,591/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT BOARD HAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER CIRCULAR IN THIS REGARD VIDE CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 2009, DATED 22.10.2009 AND HAS THUS OVERVIEWED PARA 4(II) OF THE ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - AFORESAID CIRCULAR WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE CIRCULAR CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THAXPAYER WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS OF SECTION 9 OF THE IT ACT OR WITH THE INTENTION BEHIND THE ISSUE OF THE CIRCULAR. (II) NOT APPRECIATING THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS, THE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER SECTION 195 IS APPLICABLE OR NOT RESTS ONLY WITH AO AS PER SECTION 195 (2) AND ASSESSEE CANNOT ASSUME SUCH AUTHORITY, AS THIS WILL MAKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 195 UNWORKABLE. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.58,58,591/- IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO ITS FOREIGN AGENTS IN CONNECTION WITH EXPORTS MADE BY IT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX THEREON IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195, RELYING UPON CIRCULAR NO.786 OF 2000. CIRCULAR NO.786 OF 2000 HAD BEEN ISSUED AS A CIRCULAR CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE TO CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 AND VIDE CIRCULAR NO.7/2009 [F. NO.500/135/2007-FTD-I] DATED 22/10/2009, CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. HENCE, AS ON DATE CIRCULAR NO.23 OF 1969 AND CIRCULAR NO. 786 OF 2000 ARE NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD & ANR. VS. CIT 239 ITR 587(SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SEC.195 ON AMOUNTS PAID TO NON-RESIDENTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE AMOUNT MAY NOT BE THE INCOME OR PROFITS OF THE RECIPIENTS. ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 4. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH SE (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2004, DATED 15/09/2008) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT A JUDICIAL DECISION ACTS RETROSPECTIVELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO PRONOUNCE A NEW RULE BUT TO MAINTAIN AND EXPOUND THE OLD ONE. JUDGES DO NOT MAKE LAW; THEY ONLY DISCOVER OR FIND THE CORRECT LAW. A SUBSEQUENT DECISION WHICH ALTERS THE EARLIER ONE HAS TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND CIRCULAR NO. 7/2009, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER ON OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.58,58,591/- MADE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD APPLY AND THE PAYMENT MADE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.58,58,591/- IS THEREFORE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY DISALLOWANCE WERE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) TO THE TUNE OF RS.58,58,591/- 6. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R., WHO RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O., WHEREAS LD. A.R. HAS CITED AN ORDER OF OUR OWN BENCH IN ITA NO.1443 AND 1444/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2007-08, IN THIS CASE, IN BOTH ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - THE DEPARTMENT APPEALS, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (I) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.26,15,696/- AND RS.37,35,582/- RESPECTIVELY IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO FOREIGN AGENT, IN CONNECTION WITH EXPORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A) (I) READ WITH SECTION 195 OF THE IT ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOTH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AS PER PROVISIONS MENTIONED ABOVE. 8. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO FOREIGN AGENTS IN RESPECT OF EXPORT ORDERS PROCURED FROM SUCH AGENTS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OUTSIDE INDIA. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE IT ACT, SINCE TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ONLY FROM PAYMENTS WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT REPRESENTS BUSINESS INCOME OF NON-RESIDENTS, NONE OF THE PAYEES ARE HAVING PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 9 OF THE IT ACT, NON-RESIDENTS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5(2) OF THE IT ACT OR IN TERMS OF VARIOUS DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS AND SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT PAID FOR ROYALTIES OR TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW FEES DEEMED ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 07-02-2000 AND IN CASE OF NQA QUALITY SYSTEM REGISTRARS LTD. VS CIT 2 SOT 249 WHEREIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH HAS DECIDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENTS U/S 40 (A) (I) OF THE IT ACT CAN BE MADE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WHERE SUCH PAYMENTS TO NON-RESIDENT ARE NOT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF IT ACT OR ADTA. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE COMMISSION WAS PAID IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO NON-RESIDENTS IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUTSIDE INDIA, TAX IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN INDIA AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT AT SOURCE FROM SUCH PAYMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 07-02-2000 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT FROM 20.10.09 WITHOUT HAVING ANY RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FOR SUCH PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A. P. LTD. VS CIT 239 ITR 587 SUPPORTS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE AO HIMSELF IN THE REMAND REPORT IN THE APPEAL FOR AY 2005-06 STATED THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO FOREIGN AGENTS ARE COVERED BY THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR AND HE NO TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVEN THE FINDINGS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HIS FINDINGS IN ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - AND THE AO THROUGH JT. CIT, PANCHMAHAL RANGE CONFIRMED THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF TDS AND THEREFORE, NO TAX IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCTED. FURTHER THOUGH BOARD HAS WITHDRAWN THE SAID CIRCULAR RECENTLY THAT TOO FROM IMMEDIATE EFFECT, I AM OF OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE AT DISADVANTAGE AS THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS VALIDLY APPLICABLE DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. CONSIDER SAID FACTS, CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD AND ITS APPLICABILITY AND DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.26,15,696/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BOARD VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO.7/2009 DATED 23-10-2009 HAS WITHDRAWN THE EARLIER CIRCULAR NO.23 DATED 23-07-1969 AND CIRCULAR NO.786 DATED 07-02-2000. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CIRCULAR WAS WITHDRAWN LATER ON, THEREFORE, REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE AO WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AS IS HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE EARLIER CIRCULARS WERE WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT VIDE CIRCULAR DATED 23- 10-2009, THEREFORE, EARLIER CIRCULARS ARE NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 19-08-2009 FILED BY JCIT, PANCHMAHAL RANGE, GODHRA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS IS REFERRED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TDS WAS NOT TO BE DEDUCTED AS PER EARLIER CIRCULARS OF THE BOARD AND THAT JCIT, GODHRA HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOARD ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - HAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER CIRCULARS WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT VIDE SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR DATED 23-10-2009 WHICH WERE LATER TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS. 11. HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED BECAUSE INCOME TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ONLY FROM PAYMENTS WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR COMMISSION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA BECAUSE THESE PAYMENTS REPRESENTED BUSINESS INCOME OF NON-RESIDENT AND THAT NONE OF THE PAYEES HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 9 OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT NON-RESIDENTS WERE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA DUE TO VARIOUS DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENTS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT PAYMENTS WERE NOT FOR ROYALTY OR TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND THEREFORE, TAX WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER BOARD CIRCULAR RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT VIDE SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR DATED 23-10-2009; THEREFORE, EARLIER CIRCULARS WOULD NO LONGER SURVIVE. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR BECAUSE LATER CIRCULAR DATED 23-10-2009 WAS HAVING NO RETROSPECTIVE ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - EFFECT AND ALSO COULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING BOARD CIRCULAR. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DEDUCT TDS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BASED UPON ITS OPINION ON THE CBDT CIRCULARS. THE JCIT, GODHRA RANGE IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE) EXAMINED SIMILAR ISSUE AND THE AO STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE EARLIER BOARD CIRCULAR NO.786 (SUPRA). IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF TDS PROVISIONS. SINCE THE AO (JCIT, GODHRA) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN HIS REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE AO CANNOT DEVIATE FROM ITS EARLIER STAND TAKEN ON THE IDENTICAL MATTER AGAINST THE SAME ASSESSEE. THE BOARD CIRCULAR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO GAVE THE REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE, WERE ADMITTEDLY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2007-08 BECAUSE THE BOARD CIRCULAR WAS WITHDRAWN LATER ON, ON 23-10-2009. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA V. SATISH PANALAL SHAH [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC) DEPRECATED THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCEPTING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENTS IN PARTICULAR CASE AND IN CHALLENGING ITS CORRECTNESS IN ANOTHER CASE. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS CHEMI GUM INDIA [2005] 276 ITR 32 HELD THAT 'SINCE THE SOURCES OF INCOME IN ANY EARLIER YEAR NOT CHALLENGED, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO CHALLENGE ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - THE SAME IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR'. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASWAMI SATSANG VS CIT 193 ITR 321 HELD THAT 'CONSISTENCY IN THE APPROACH BY THE REVENUE DEPTT. SHOULD BE MAINTAINED'. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. 324 ITR 391 HELD THAT 'WHEN THE ORDER FOR EARLIER YEAR HAS BECOME FINAL, THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED'. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED UPON THE CIRCULAR EXISTING AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23/01/2017 SD/- SD/- . . ( ) ( ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/01/2017 ITA NO.478/AHD/2014 ACIT VS. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19/01/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 5 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20/01/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER