The ITO, Ward-5(1), Ahmedabad V. Nest Management Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 550/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 55020514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Gift; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM) ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06 SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR, PROP. M/S. JIBRIL AGENCY, SANTKANVARAM CHOWK, OPP. PARK AVENUE, BHAVNAGAR P. A. NO. AHNPP 1473 D VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(OSD), RANGE -2, BHAVNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI Y. P. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 27-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11-01-2013 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 21-11-2008 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XX/ 159/07-08, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PASSED U/S 250 READ WIT H SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS WHEREIN GROUND S NO.1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJU DICATION. GROUND NO.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HER EIN UNDER: 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) XX, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] ERR ED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.977/-, RS.3,288/- & RS.356/- RESPECTIVELY MADE O UT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES & TRAVEL ING EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING DONORS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. SR. NO. NAME OF DONOR AMOUNT 1 MRS. RASMIBEN SHAH 2,00,000/- 2 MS. HIRALBEN SHAH 2,00,000/- 3 MR. PRADEEPKUMAR VORA 4,00,000/- 4 MRS. DEEPIBEN VORA 4,00,000/- 5 MRS. REKHABEN GOSAI 1,00,000/- 6 MR. RAVINDRAGIRI GOSAI 1,00,000/- 7 MR. RAJUBHAI PATEL 1,50,000/- 8 MRS. GEETABEN PATEL 1,50,000/- 9 MR. HASITKUMAR SHAH 10,00,000/- TOTAL 27,00,000/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS COMMISSION AGENT AND WHOLESALE TRADING OF YEAST AND OTHER BAKERY POWER ITEMS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28-10-200 5 FOR THE ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.66,670/- ALONG WITH COPY OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORT IN F ORM NO.3CB AND 3CD. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT ON 19-12-2007 DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME THE ASSE SSEE AT RS.27,71,295/-, WHEREIN ADDITIONS OF RS.4,621/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF MISC. EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND TRAVELING & VEHICLE EXPENSE AND RS.27,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED GIFTS WERE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3.1 GROUND NO.2:- CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.977/-, RS.3,288/- & RS.356/- RESPECTIVELY MADE OUT OF MISC ELLANEOUS EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES & TRAVELING EXPENSES. THE LEARNED AO VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.4,885/- UNDER THE HEAD MISC. EXPENSES, RS.16,441/- AS TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND RS.1,783/- AS TRAVELING AND VEHICLE EXPENSES. SINCE ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORDS PRODUCED AND WERE NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHE THER THE SAME WERE WHOLLY INCURRED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE OF A SSESSEES BUSINESS, THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED RS.977/- FROM M ISC. EXPENSES, RS.3,288/- FROM TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND RS.356/- FRO M TRAVELING & VEHICLE EXPENSES AND ADDED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.4,6 21/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ISSUE, A LSO HELD THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 4 CLAIM BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNTS DISALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, EVEN BEFORE US, HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EXPLANATION WI TH REGARD TO HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENSES ALLEGED TO BE I NCURRED UNDER THE AFORESAID HEADS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THEIR ORDERS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. 4. GROUND NO.3:- CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM DONORS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE LEARNED AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GI FTS OF RS.27,00,000/- FROM 9 DONORS. IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF TH E DONORS. THE LEARNED AO, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GIFTS ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DONORS EXCEPT THA T OF MR. HASITKUMAR SHAH AND ALSO RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON OATH EXCEPT THAT OF MRS. DEEPTIBEN VORA BECAUSE SHE DID NOT APP EAR. FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCO UNTS THE LEARNED AO NOTED THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 5 (I) THE SOURCE OF INCOME CLAIMED BY ALL THE DONORS IS FROM BHARATGUTHAN, STITCHING, COMMISSION AND SHARE-TRADI NG ETC. (II) ALL THE DONORS HAD SHOWN NOMINAL INCOME IN THE IR RETURN OF INCOME. (III) MOST OF THE DONORS HAVE CONFESSED THAT THEY H AVE GIVEN THE GIFT AS PER INSTRUCTION OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND NOT VOLUNTARILY. (IV) ALL THE DONORS HAD NO SUFFICIENT FUNDS OF THEI R OWN BUT BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING THE GIFTS. (V) PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN ALWAYS DISCHARGES HIS LIABI LITIES AND THEN PREFERS TO MAKE ANY GIFT FROM THEIR SURPLUS FU NDS. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DONORS HAD RAISED LIABILITY TO MAKE GIFT WHICH IS NOT PRACTICAL. (VI) MOST OF THE DONORS WERE NEITHER FAMILIAR NOR H AD CLOSE FAMILY RELATION WITH THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OF HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS. (VII) IN MOST OF THE CASE IT SEEMS THAT WHATEVER TH E DONORS EARNED IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE ONLY. 4.1 THE LEARNED AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO MRS. DEEPTIBEN VORA BUT SHE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. ON VERIFI CATION OF THE DETAILS THE LEARNED AO FOUND THAT SHE HAD FILED RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOM E OF RS.46,820/- AND SHE HAD OPENING CAPITAL OF RS.4,3 4,495/- OUT OF WHICH SHE GIFTED RS.4,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE KEEP ING A BALANCE OF RS.63,315/-. THE LEARNED AO FROM THE COPY OF THE BA NK ACCOUNT FOUND THAT SHE HAD DEPOSITED RS.2,00,000/- IN CASH ON 13-08-2005 AND 14-08-2005 AND ON 16-08-2005 SHE HAD MADE A GI FT OF RS.4,00,000/- ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 6 4.2 WITH REGARD TO MR. HASITKUMAR SHAH, THE LEARNED AO FOUND THAT HE HAD FILED GIFT DECLARATION ON PLAIN PAPER WITHOU T ANY NOTARIZATION THAT HE HAD GIFTED RS.10,00,000/- OUT OF HIS PERSON AL SAVINGS, BUT HAD NOT FURNISHED ANYTHING ABOUT HIS BUSINESS OR PROFES SIONAL ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS HIS ANNUAL INCOME. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, T HE LEARNED AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT- (I) IN THE CASE OF MOST OF THE DONORS, THOUGH THEIR IDENTITY WAS ESTABLISHED BUT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPA CITY TO ADVANCE SUCH AMOUNT SEEMS TO BE DOUBTFUL. (II) ALMOST IN ALL THE CASES ON VERIFICATION OF THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND PASSBOOK IT WAS FOUND THAT THE C ASH WAS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO THE DATE OR AFTER THE DATE O F GIFT BUT WITH IN SHORT INTERVAL AND THE SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE DEPOSITED FROM ACCOUNTED SOURCE. HOWEVER AVAILABILITY OF CASH AS O N THAT DATE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE DONORS FOR VERIFICATION AND THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTION STOOD UNPROVED. 4.3 IN VIEW OF ABSENCE OF BASIC RELEVANT DETAILS AN D CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, THE LEARNED AO TREATED THE GIFT AMOUNT OF RS.27 LACS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE A S HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRECISION FINANCE (P) LTD. [2008 ITR 465 (CAL.)] , CIT VS R. S. RATHOD [212 ITR 390], ROSHAN DI HATI VS CIT [107 IT R 938] AND KALEKHAN MOHAMMAED HANIF VS CIT [ 50 ITR 1 (SC)]. ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 7 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CITATIONS RELIED BY HIM AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 5, 5.1 AND 5.2 ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR REFERENCE: 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE APPELLANT; THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY HIM AND FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION MAINLY EMPHASIZING THE POINT THAT DONORS WERE NOT CAPABLE FOR MAKING THE GIFTS, LOOKING TO T HE FACTS SUCH AS THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME, FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH TH EM AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE GIFTS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ALL THE 9 DONORS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PREPARED A SUMMARY WHICH IS MADE THE AN NEXURE AND A PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS SUMMARY RE VEALS ALMOST ALL THE FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE GENUINE NESS OF GIFTS SO CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. BESIDES, WHAT HA S BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ALSO SEEN IN THIS CASE THAT GIFTS FROM ALL THE 9 DONORS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2004 AND MOST OF THE STAMP PAPERS ON WHIC H THE GIFTS DEEDS ARE WRITTEN ARE IN CONTINUOUS SERIAL NUMBERS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AT THE SAME TIME. IT IS SE EN FROM THE COPIES OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE DONORS FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALS O BEEN BORROWED FROM OTHERS BY THESE DONORS AND WITH THEM THERE WAS NO ANY SUCH AMOUNT AVAILABLE AS CAPITAL WHICH CAN I NDICATE THEIR FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS SO AS TO MAKE GIFTS OF SU CH HUGE AMOUNTS. ALSO, THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THAT THE DONORS ARE NOT CLOSELY RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS STRANGE TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF GIFT AT RS.27, 00,000/- FROM 9 PERSONS. IT IS QUITE UNLIKELY AND AGAINST THE ORD INARY COURSE OF ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 8 HUMAN CONDUCT THAT A PERSON WOULD SUDDENLY RECEIVED ONLY ONE BUT NINE GIFTS AND THAT TOO OF SUCH LARGE AMOUNTS I N QUICK SUCCESSION FROM NINE DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED PERSON S AND THAT HE WOULD CREDIT ALL OF THEM IN HIS BOOKS SO AS TO B UILD UP THE CAPITAL BASE OR INTRODUCE THE MONEY IN THE BUSINESS . IT MAKES THE STORY OF GIFTS RECEIVED IN THIS CASE, COMPLETEL Y UNRELIABLE. 5.1 THE MERE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY CHEQUES OR THE ALLEGED DONORS WERE IDE NTIFIABLE WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE IM PUGNED GIFTS. ONE OF THE VITAL FACTORS IN THE CASE OF GENUINE GIF T IS THAT IT WOULD BE VOLUNTARILY AND NOT BY THE INTERFERENCE OR BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROVED THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOT VOLUNTARY. VOLUNTARINESS IS A NAT URAL INSTINCT WHICH CAN ARISE ONLY BETWEEN CLOSELY RELATED PERSON S. SUCH RELATIONSHIP SEEMS TO BE ABSENT IN THIS CASE. BESID ES, AN EXPLANATION TENDERED UNDER SECTION 68 CANNOT BE CON SIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORY UNLESS THE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THE CASH CREDIT IS ALSO FOUND TO BE GENUINE. THE CLAIM OF TH E GIFT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IS UN ACCEPTABLE, AS IT IS FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND COMMON COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT. THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT OR FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS OF DONOR IS MOST RELEVA NT IN CASE OF A GIF. THE INTERFERENCE OF GENUINENESS OF GIFT DOES N OT READILY FOLLOW MERELY ON IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR ON REC EIPT OF MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IN FACT, THE CREDIBILITY OF SUCH GIFTS EXCEPT WHERE IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT WOULD APPEAR TO BE RELEVANT. THIS RATIO HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE SUPR EME COURT IN CIT VS. P. MOHANKALA (2007) 291 ITR 278. THE SAME V IEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR (2007) 292 ITR 552. THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT OF THE CASE NARESH K. PAHUJA V. DY. CIT, C ENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI DECIDED BY ITAT MUMBAI BENCH J IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND REPORTED IN115 ITD 137 (MUM.). 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND FACTS OF T HE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN NOT TRE ATING THE GIFTS AS GENUINE AND MAKING THE ADDITION IS HELD TO BE JU STIFIED. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE OF RS.27 LAKHS TOWARDS UNE XPLAINED GIFTS IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 9 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THI S ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED THE LEARNED A R REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND A RGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH WAS FURTHER S USTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO. THE LEARNED DR F URTHER RELYING ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF (I) SANDEEP KUMAR (HUF VS CIT, 293 ITR 294 (DELHI), (II) PREM NATH GOEL AND CO. VS CIT , 291 ITR 390 AND (III) 256 ITR 331 (RAJ.) PRAYED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS CITED BY BOTH TH E PARTIES. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS FROM THE PEOPLE OF MEAGER RESOURCE AND FURTHER THEI R ENTIRE SAVINGS WERE RECEIVED AS GIFTS. NO BELIEVABLE JUSTIFICATION IS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE PERSONS TO MAKE SUCH GIFTS. MORE OVER, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXTRACTED HEREINABOV E ARE QUITE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HIM. ITA NO.550/AHD/2009 (AY- 2005-06) SHRI BHANUBHAI S. PARMAR VS ITO (OSD, BHAVNAGAR 10 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-01-2013 SD/- SD/- (D. K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAK LAK LAK LAKSHMIKANT SHMIKANT SHMIKANT SHMIKANTA AA A DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 08-01-13 DIRECT ON COMPUTE R 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. 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 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: