Shri Ashok T.Goklani, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 584/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67955 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C TIWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.584/AHD/2010 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI PROP.OF RUTURAJ TRADERS 33, SHAKUNTAL OPP.RATNADEEP AVENUE SOLA ROAD AHMEDABAD / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2) AHMEDABAD ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFIPG6201 M ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.C.TIWARI, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 23/10/2013 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/11/2013 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 21/12/2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2001- 02. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.38,39,922/- U/S.68 MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S.144 OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS.38,39,922/- I N THE THIRTEEN ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 2 - DEPOSITORS ACCOUNTS OF SEVAK OF ASHARAM ASHRAM WER E PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS M ADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.38,39,922/- MADE U/S.68 BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.144 OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S.234A, U/S.234B, U/S.234C & U/S.234D OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED T HEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF RS.1,06,79,873/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF ALL THE EXPEND ITURE DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT OF RS.1,66,636/-. AGAINST THIS, THE MATTER REACHED UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE SECOND ROUND, DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.68,39,951/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,06,79,873/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.3 8,39,922/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MS.URVASHI SHODH AN SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFI RMATIONS AND PANS OF THE PARTIES. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA REPORTED AT (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 159 (GUJ.), ORDER DATED 20/03/2012, IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY GIVING PANS OF THE PARTIES. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 3 - AO INSISTED FOR PRODUCING THE CREDITORS. ON THE CO NTRARY, LD.SR.DR SHRI S.C. TIWARI SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FAILED, THERE FORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED RELIEF. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A BRIEF NOTE WHIC H IS PRODUCED AS UNDER:- BRIEF NOTE THE APPELLANT RAN SARAFI BUSINESS IN THE NAME & STYLE OF M/S RUTURAJ TRADERS. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY ADDING ALL THE LOANS AND DISALLOWING ALL THE EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT & LO SS A/C. AO MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,06,79,873/- ON A/C OF CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND RS. 1,66,636/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES CLAIMED. THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE ID. CIT(A)F ILING FRESH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION & OTHER DETAILS OF CREDITORS THAT WAS FORWARDED TO AO FOR REMAND REPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY AO ID. CIT(A)DELETED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,89,804/- TREATING THEM TO BE GENUINE AND CONF IRMED REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.97,90,069/- AND DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPE NSES CLAIMED OF RS. 1,66,636/-. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE ITAT WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 08/05/2009 SET ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ITS SAY ON THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO. LD. CIT (A) IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AFTER GI VING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO MAKE GOOD ITS SUBMISSIONS GAVE THE FINDING IN PARA 6 ON PAGE 22 AS UNDER - 'IN OTHER WORDS, THE CREDITORS APPEARING AT SR NO 1 TO 21 AND SR NO 33 OF ANNEXURE -A WOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED ALONG WIT H RS.8,89,804/- TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER & CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 9-11-2005. ALL THE REMAINING AMOUNTS WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. IN SHORT THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.68,39,951/- O UT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,79,873/-' ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 4 - THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST CONFIRMATIO N OF RS. 38,39,922/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED CROSS APPEAL AGAINST RELIEF GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO KINDLY REFER T O ANNEXURE 'A' TO THE APPELLATE ORDER GIVING COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION/E VIDENCE FURNISHED/RETURN OF LOAN AMOUNT ALONG WITH REMARKS. ANNEXURE GIVES DETA ILS OF TOTAL 36 DEPOSITORS OUT OF WHICH ID. CIT (A) TREATED 22 DEPOSITORS TO B E GENUINE AND CONFIRMED ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 14 DEPOSITORS REJECTING EVID ENCE PLACED ON RECORD. HEREIN BELOW KINDLY FIND DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE SU BMITTED BEFORE ID. CIT (A) ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES IN P/B - NAME OF THE CREDITOR AMOUNT (RS.) CONFIRMATION PAN BANK A/C P/B PAGE I WHERE - PAN AVAILABLE 31. SURESH DEVNANI 9, 72,988/- YES YES YES 2-7(II) 34. JANKIBEN HARPALANI 14,30,241/- YES YES YES 8-20(II) II WHERE - DEPOSITORS PRODUCED & STATEMENT RECORDED 23. ASHISHPSONI 1,16,962/- YES - YES 39-42(I) 27. SURESHBHAI L PATEL 1,40,772/- YES - YES 63-66(I) 30. SHOBHRAJ THAKKAR 1,26,994/- YES - YES 84-87(I) (NIL OUTSTANDING ON THE DATE OF IT AT ORDER) III WHERE DEPOSITORS PRODUCED & NIL OUTSTANDING ON THE DATE OF ITAT ORDER 26. GOKULBHAI DESAI 1,31,386/- YES - YES 57-62(I) 28. KISHOR CHAUDHARY 1,17,310/- YES - YES 69-73(I) 35. KARSANBHAI PATEL 2,54,976/- YES - YES 108-109(I) IV WHERE CONFIRMATION/BANK ACCOUNT/COPY OF ACCOUNT FILED - NIL OUTSTANDING 22. AMRATBHAI PRAJAPATI 12,110/- YES - YES 32-38(I) 24. BHAVESH B ROHITA 12,110/- YES - YES 43-49(I) 25. DEVIDAS T CHHATANI 1,31,386/- YES - YES 50-56(I) 29. SAJNIBEN G ROHITA 1,17,310/- YES - YES 74-80(I) 32. DRUPTIBEN BALANI 1,29,041/- YES - YES 97-98(I) 36. RAMESH VADUKUD 1,46,636/- YES - YES 114-115(I) RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT OF RANCHHOD NAVALKHA IN TAX APPEAL 11 OF 2011 (COPY ATTACHED). 4.1. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO PLACED BRIEF NOTE RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. WE FIND THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) AFTER ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 5 - CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.68,39,951/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.38 LACS. THE LD.CIT(A ) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT ALL THOSE CREDITORS IN GENUINE IN RESPECT OF WHOM - I) THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATION, THEIR PAN AND CONTRA ACCOUNT AND ALSO WHO ARE REPUTED AS DISCUSSED EARLI ER. THE CASE OF JANKIBEN N HARPALANI (RS.14,30,241/-) AT SR .NOD.34 WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE SHE IS STAY ING IN THE ASHRAM OF ASHARAM BAPU AND HER SOURCE IS NOT PR OPERLY EXPLAINED AS PER THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II) ALL THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1-4-2000. III) THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,019/- FROM MAHENDRAKUMAR & SONS WHO HAVE GIVEN A LEGAL NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT DATE D 3-8- 2002 FOR RECOVERY OF DEBT OF RS.5,00,019/-. IV) THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,89,804/- FROM THREE PARTIERS AS TREATED EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND RE PORT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CREDITORS APPEARING AT SR.NO.1 TO 21 AND SR.NO.33 OF ANNEXURE-A WOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINE D ALONG WITH RS.8,89,804/- TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN THE REMAND RE PORT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 90-11-2005. AL L THE REMAINING AMOUNTS WOULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. IN SHORT, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.68,39,951/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF R S.1,06,79,873/-. 4.2. AS PER ANNEXURE-A OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) FR OM SL.NOS.22 TO 32, PANS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF SL.NOS.33 & 34 PANS WERE FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE F ILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CONCERNED CREDITORS. IN THE ASSESSEES BR IEF NOTE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF SL.NOS.31 & 34 PANS, CO NFIRMATIONS AND ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 6 - BANK ACCOUNTS WERE GIVEN. IN RESPECT OF SL.NOS.23, 27 & 30 THE DEPOSITORS WERE PRODUCED & STATEMENT RECORDED AND T HERE IS NIL OUTSTANDING ON THE DATE OF TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN RESP ECT OF SL.NOS.26,28 & 35 DEPOSITORS WERE PRODUCED AND NO AMOUNT IS OUTSTA NDING ON THE DATE OF TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN RESPECT OF SL.NOS.22,24,25,29,3 2 & 36 CONFIRMATIONS/BANK ACCOUNTS/COPY OF ACCOUNTS WERE F ILED AND NIL OUTSTANDING. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA(SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 13. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS TAKEN MONEY BY WAY OF ACCOUNTS PAYEE CHEQUES FROM THE LENDERS W HO ARE ALL INCOME TAX ASSESSEES WHOSE PAN HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, THE INITIA L BURDEN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS DISCHARGED. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS GIVEN BY THOSE LENDER S. 14. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER GETS HOLD OF THE PAN OF THE LENDERS, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OF THOSE LENDERS, WHETHER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN THEY HAD SHOWN E XISTENCE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY AND HAD FURTHER SHOWN THAT THOSE AM OUNT OF MONEY HAD BEEN LENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IF BEFORE VERIFYING OF SUCH FACT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE LENDERS OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDES TO EXAMINE THE LENDERS AND ASKS THE ASSESSE E TO FURTHER PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSAC TION, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 15. IF ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THOSE LEN DERS DID NOT DISCLOSE IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN THE TRANSACTION OR THAT THE Y HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD C ALL FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAME. HOWEVE R, WITHOUT VERIFYING SUCH FACT FROM THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITO RS, THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXAMINING THE LENDERS OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS A WRONG APPROACH. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THOSE LENDER S HAVE MADE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT AS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND TH AT BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUN AL WERE JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE DELETION AS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WITHOUT TAKING STEP FOR VERIFICATION OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CR EDITORS, TOOK ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 7 - UNNECESSARY STEP OF FURTHER EXAMINING THOSE CREDITO RS. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF THOSE CREDITORS ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS AS REGARDS THOSE TRANSACTIONS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN QUESTION HAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISBELIEVE THE TRA NSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSME NTS OF THE CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN A CO-ORDINATE ASSESSING OFFICER I S SATISFIED WITH THE TRANSACTION. 16. WE, THUS, FIND THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE T RIBUNAL BELOW RIGHTLY SET-ASIDE THE DELETION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, BASED ON ERRONEOUS APPROACH BY WRONGLY SHIFTING THE BURDEN A GAIN UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITORS. THE POSITION, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THO SE CREDITORS WERE NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEES OR IF THEY HAD NOT DISCLOSED T HOSE TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS OR IF SUCH RETURNS WERE NO T ACCEPTED BY THEIR ASSESSING OFFICERS. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DATED 16/07/202 12 FURNISHING THE PHOTOCOPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR THE AYS 2007-0 8 & 2006-07. THESE EVIDENCES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSE QUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA(SUPRA), TH IS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONS IDERING THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS MADE IN THE BRIEF NOTE. THUS, GROUND N OS.1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES ONLY. ITA NO.584/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ASHOK T.GOKLANI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2001-02 - 8 - 6. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234A, U/S.234B, 7/S.234C & U/S.234D OF THE IT ACT WHICH I S CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE REQUIRES NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/ 11 /2013 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 15.11.13 (DICTATION-PAD 11- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.11.13 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.22.11.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.11.13 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