The ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Kanubhai Nathabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 527/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7804 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 43CA; 54B; 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD : , , BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.527/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) THE ITO WARD-2(2)(2) AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI KANUBHAI NATHABAHI PATEL 2, ANAND PARK SOCIETY NARANPURA BUS STAND NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACKPP 8703 D ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) '% ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR &'% ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN, AR ) * ( + / DATE OF HEARING 06/06/2018 ,-. ( + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 / 0 7 /201 8 / O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2016 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDA BAD. 2. THE MOOT POINT INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THIS AS TO WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE AN ERROR IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O), TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS AS PER VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY AS OF NOVEMBER 2010 WHEN T HE SALE AGREEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES INSTEAD OF THE RA TE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED ON 21.06.2011 ON THE PRESENT FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER THAT AS TO WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW - 2 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 DEDUCTION U/S.54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD TWO IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHERE THE VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION WERE RS.14,47,312/- UNDER DEED NO.1440 AND RS.5,42,688/- UNDER DEED NO.1441 REGIS TERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, DEHGAM. UPON VERIFICATION IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TWO PROPERTIES, ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR SALE WAS AT RS.66,57,000/- AND RS.24,79,591/- RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN U/S.139 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE CAPITAL GAI N ON THE ABOVE PROPERTIES AND HAS NOT PAID TAX. FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN THE SALE T RANSACTIONS, UNDERSTATED THE CONSIDERATION AS PER JANTRI RATE/VALUE ASSESSED BY STAMP AUTHORITY A ND THEREFORE A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE CAPITAL GAIN O F RS.84,41,755/- AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO WOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD THE AO MAD E ADDITION OF RS.84,41,755/- BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE FORUM. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAI LABLE AS ALSO ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1237/AHD/2013, FOR AY 200 8-09, DATED 30.09.2016 DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND AS PER VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IN NOVEMBER 2010 OR TOTAL CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARIN G FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD. - 3 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE MATTER OF DHARAMS HIBHAI SONANI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1237/AHD/2013 FOR THE AY 2008-09. 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RES PECTIVE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEAR S FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD TWO PROPERTIES BOTH WERE REGISTERED ON 21.06.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,57,312/- AND RS.5,42,688/-. SINCE THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION PRE VAILING ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CONSIDERAT ION AMOUNT, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DING TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTING LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN REPLY WHEREOF, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FULL CONSIDERATION OF R S.20,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE BY HIM ON 29.11.2010, POSSESSION WAS ALSO HANDED OVER ON 26.11.2010 AND THEREFORE TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED U/S.2(47) OF THE ACT ON NOVEWMBER-201 0, EXCEPT REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.50C AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO. TH E PROVISION OF SECTION 50C SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SALE TRANSACTION AS THE DATE ON WHIC H SALE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED B Y THE AO. THE AO CONSIDERED THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION PREVAILING ON T HE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED I.E. 21.06.2011 AND NOT THE CIRCLE RATE PREVAILING ON TH E SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29.11.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS NOT AN INSTRU MENT TO TRANSFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO TH E AO, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AND THEREFORE , VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT DATE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND NOT THE VALUATION PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. HE TH EN CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN OF - 4 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 RS.84,41,755/- BEING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE MATTER CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING NEW/PROVISO INSERTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2017: 'PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIX ING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITA L - ASSETS ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CL EARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER.' THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ALSO READ AS UNDER:- 'UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 50C IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSETS BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, THE VALUE ADOPTED O R ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAP ITAL GAINS, THE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION COMMITTEE (EASWAR COMMITTEE) HAS IN ITS FIRST REPOR T, POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF WHERE THE SELLER HAS ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY MUCH BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS FIXED IN SUCH AGREEMENT, WHEREAS SIMILAR PROVISION EXISTS IN SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT I.E.WHEN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SOLD AS A STOCK IN TRADE.' THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE INTERPRET ATION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.50C MADE BY THE LD. TRIBUNAL IN THE JUDGMENT OF DHARAMS HIBHAI SONANI VS. DCIT WHERE THE PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS CURATIVE IN NATURE IN ORDER TO AVOID GENUINE HARDSHIPS OF THE TAXPAYERS AND FOLLOWED THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE PROVISION FROM THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF SEC.50C I.E. 01.04.2003 INSTEAD OF INSERTION OF PROVISION FROM 01.04.2017. ON THIS PREMISE, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY IS REQUIRED TO BE CALCULATED ON THE R ATE PREVAILING IN NOVEMBER-2010 SINCE THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION BY WAY O F CHEQUE PAYMENT IN NOV-2010. - 5 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 6.2. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH IN THAT MATTER IS AS FOLLOWS: THE PROVISO TO S. 50C INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2016 W.E.F. 01.04.2017 TO PROVIDE THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF EXE CUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SHOULD BE ADOPTED INSTEAD OF THE VALUATION ON THE DATE OF EXE CUTION OF THE SALE DEED IS CURATIVE AND INTENDED TO REMOVE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSE E AND AN APPARENT INCONGRUITY. IT SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2003, I.E. THE DATE EFFECTIVE FROM WHICH S.50C WAS INTRODUCED. 6.3. IT APPEARS THAT FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGME NT, THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND AS PER VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY PREVAILING IN NOVEMBER 2010 WHEN THE TOTAL CONSIDER ATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUES. THE CAPITAL GAINS WERE DIRECTED TO BE CALCULATED BY THE AO ON SUCH VALUATION AS ON NOVEMBER 2010 OR TOTAL CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. 6.4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE MATTER, THE PROVISION OF LAW AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD . TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND D ECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMI SS THE GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN NEGATED BY THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED THIS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) IN APPEAL DIRECTED TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AND TO ALLOW THE SAME PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES ALL THE CRITER ION IN TERMS OF THE SAID SECTION AGAINST WHICH REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE FACTS IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PUR CHASED TWO AGRICULTURAL PLOT OF LAND ON 25.10.2011 AND 07.02.2013 FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.1,44,000/- RESPECTIVELY; PAYMENTS WERE MADE PARTLY BY CHEQUES AND PARTLY BY CASH. THE DEDUCTION - 6 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.54B OF THE ACT WAS NEGA TED BY THE AO ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAID CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCO ME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE HEARING OF THE MATTER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE NEW AGRICULTURE LAND IN NEX T YEAR WITHIN TIME LIMIT OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF OLD LAND, DETAILS WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS: DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT BANK 25/10/2011 73059 500000 ADC BANK 07/02/2013 84273 144000 ADC BANK 24/08/2011 BY CASH 977300 PAYMENT OUT OF CASH ON HA ND THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN VESTED OUT OF SAID PAYMENTS OF RS.7,05,464/- TAXABLE L.T.C.G. IN THE NEW AGRICULT URAL LAND THE SAME IS EXEMPTED U/S.54B OF THE ACT AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREAS THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE FIND FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS THAT THE AO PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. ACCORDING TO THE AO, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ESTABLISH HIS CON TENTION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WHICH WAS SOLD WAS BEING USED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. FURTHER THAT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME WAS ONLY FILED ON 30.12.2015 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN NOVEMBER-2010, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE INVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER-2012. THE PAYMENT O F RS.1,44,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.02.2013 IS BEYOND TWO YEARS TIME AS PRESCRIB ED UNDER THE STATUTE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON 31.07.2011. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE MONEY HAD NOT BEEN INVESTE D BY THE ASSESSEE BY THAT TIME, THEN THE - 7 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN ANY DESIGNATED B ANK ACCOUNT BUT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE, NEITHE R THE COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED NOR EVIDENCE OF SUCH PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 10. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAS NOT BEEN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME CAN NOT BE DENIED IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE SAME. HE THUS, DIRECTS THE AO TO VERIFY THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AND TO ALLOW T HE SAME IF THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE APPROACH TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DEALING WITH THE CLAIM U/S.54B OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUST AND PROPER, WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, WHATSOEVER, AND WE THUS FIND NO REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE FURTHER ADD THAT THE AO SHOULD GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM ON THIS ISSUE. THE G ROUND OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18/ 07/2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/ 07/2018 0+..) , .)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 8 - ITA NO.5 27/AHD/2017 ITO VS. KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 12 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD 5. 67 8 )2 , + 2 . , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 :; < * / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, & 6 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 12.6.18/11.7.18 (DICTATION-P AD 15+11 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEA L-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.6.18/12.7.18 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.18.7.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.7.18 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