The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Ambuja Intermediates Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 599/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6115 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVESH SHAH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 145; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.599/AHD/2015 AY 2008-09 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.78/AHD/2015 2008-09 ( IN ITA NO.599/AHD/2015 AY 2008-09 ) THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. 901-A, NARNARAYAN COMPLEX SWASTIK CHAR RASTA, OFF.C.G.ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD 380 009 # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCA 1236 B ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR ) REVENUE BY : SHRI VILAS SHINDE, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVESH SHAH, AR '()* / DATE OF HEARING 21/12/2107 +,-.)* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 /02/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTA NCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 24/12/2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W. S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') DATED 08/10/2013 CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION IN THE REVENUES APP EAL SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,02,17,252/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S.145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FRAMED UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S.263 OF THE ACT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,17,252/- T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE AO DECLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOU NT OF RS.1,02,17,252/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDITS BEING NET D IFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE OF UNUTILIZED CENVAT CR EDITS AT ITS DISPOSAL CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT, THE SAID UNUTILIZED BALANCES OF CENVAT CREDIT REQUIRES TO BE ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSED INCOM E WAS ACCORDINGLY INCREASED BY THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE A O. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ENUME RATED BY A.O. AND AS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. 1 HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAW S RELIED ON BY A.O. AS WELL AS APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, SUBMISSION AND CONTENTION OF BOTH A.O. AS WELL AS OF APPELLANT, GROUND WISE ADJU DICATION IS AS FOLLOWS: GROUND NO. 1 WITH SIX SUB-GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE A DDITION OF RS. 1,02,17,252/- INVOKING SECTION 145A OF THE ACT FOR UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDITED BOTH ON LEGAL AS WELL AS ON MERIT GROUNDS. I AM INCLINED WITH CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT AS PER ITS SUBMISSION DT. 29/05/2013 BEFORE A.O. WHERE IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF A.O. THAT APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACC OUNTING CENVAT AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD REFLECT THAT EVEN IF I NCLUSIVE METHOD IS FOLLOWED, THERE WON'T BE ANY EFFECT ON TOTAL PROFIT I.E. SUCH AN EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE AND ALSO THE RATIO OF VARIOUS ALPANIL INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICAL LTD. (SUPRA) ETC., NO SUCH ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON MERIT AS WELL AS ON LEGAL PROPOSITION. IN THE CASE OF GUJARA T FLUORO CHEMICAL LTD. (SUPRA) AS RELIED ON BY APPELLANT, HON'BLE IT AT AH MEDABAD HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE EXAMPLE SO NARRATED BY A.O.. I AM AL SO INCLINED BY APPELLANT THAT LD. C1T(A)VI, AHMEDABAD IN APPELLANT'S OWN CAS E FOR A.Y. 09-10 (I.E. SUBSEQUENT ASTT. YEAR) ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND SIM ILAR FACTS VIDE ORDER DT. 02/12/2013 (APPEAL NO. CLT(A)VI/DCLT CIR.1/160/11-1 2) HELD AS FOLLOWS: ' I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R . OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT I S WORTHWHILE TO REFER TO SOME CASE-LAWS ON ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - THE ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. S.P. FABRICATORS (P) LTD. (10 SOT 652 (MUMBAI) THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. SECTION 145A WAS INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.99. IN OTHER WORDS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-20 00 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF ASSESSMENT TO WHICH SECTION 145A IS APPLICABLE. IN THE CASE IT WA S HELD THAT 'WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS IMPOSED A NEW SYSTEM OF VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK I T IS BOUND TO HAVE AN IMPACT IN THAT YEAR, BUT BECOMES NEUTRAL IN NATURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA R. WHILE APPLYING SEC. MBA FOR VALUING CLOSING STOCK IN THE FIRST YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE PERMITTED TO ADJUST THE OPENING STOCK OF THE YEAR'. THUS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IS THAT FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 THERE WAS NO NEED TO ADJUST THE OPENING STOCK IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION MBA IN THE CASE OF CROYDON CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. LTD. VS. ACIT (11 SOY 295) (MUMBAI) THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION WAS A.Y. 1999- 2000. IT WAS HELD THAT 'IN VIEW OF S. 145A, A.O. WA S JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE DEBIT BALANCE IN MODVAT ACCOUNT AS ON 31 ST MARCH 1999, TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK'. THE SA ID DECISION HAS NO APPLICATION AS TO WHETHER THE OPENING STOCK IS A LSO TO BE ADJUSTED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ELEMENT OF MODVAT. MOREDVER, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE FIRST.YEAR AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION MBA. 3.3. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BECK INDIA LTD., 26 SO T 141 (MUMBAI) RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED A.R., IT WAS HELD THAT 'CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIR ECTING THE A.O. TO MAKE CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE OPENING INVENTORY ALSO WHERE A.O . ADDED BACK CENVAT CREDIT TO CLOSING STOCK ONLY'. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2001- 02. IN THE CASE OF L & T DEMAG PLASTICS MACHINERY (P) LTD. VS. ITO 124 TTJ (MUMBAI) 490 IT WAS HELD THAT 'IN VIEW OF MANDATORY PROVISION OF SEC. MBA, IS BOUND TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR ANY CENVAT ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO PURCHASES A ND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTORY; MATTER REMITTED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR COMPUTING ASSESSEE'S INCOME AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT SUCH'. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2001-02. IN THE CA SE OF DCIT VS. HITECH PLAST CONTAINERS (1) LTD. 31 SOT 112 (MUMBAI), IT WAS HELD THAT 'FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENT OF UNUTILIZED MODVAT CREDIT IN THE CLOSING STOCK THE AO CANNOT SIMPLY RE LY ON THE COMMENTS IN THE AUDITOR'S REPORT BUT HAS TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT AFTER CONSIDERING TH E EFFECT OF DUTY PAYMENTS ON PURCHASE, SALE OF GOODS AND STOCK AS WELL AS OPENING INVENTOR Y AND ONLY THEREAFTER THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WHICH IS (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT HAD RECOURSE TO S UB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BUT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T IN A POSITION TO DEDUCE TRUE PROFITS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUCH DUTY OF CENTRAL EXCI SE IF ADDED TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WOULD RESULT IN ENHANCED OPENING STOC K ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEXT ACCOUNTING PERIOD, NAMELY, APRIL 1, 1997. SO THE NEXT YEAR'S P ROFITS WOULD GET DEPRESSED ACCORDINGLY. OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THE WHOLE EXERCISE WOULD EVEN OUT, IN OTHER WORDS, BE REVENUE NEUTRAL. AT THE SAME TIME WHILE DISTURBING THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT CHANGE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLO YED. (C) THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 1997-98 THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL , 11999 COULD NOT BE INVOKED.' ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED.' 3.6 AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN ITS DECISION DT. 06. 01.2012 IN THE CASE OF JALARAM CERAMICS LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-4 IN ITA NO.2187/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, HELD:- `'5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES , IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR THE EXCISE DUTY A ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE EXCISE DUTY LEVIABLE ON FINISHED GOOD STOCK BEFORE THE FIL ING OF THE RETURN. THE EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT AND IT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION CASE LAW CITED IS CIT VS. PARRY CONFECTIONERY 299 ITR 32 1. THE NEXT ARGUMENT IS THAT THE EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE AND INCLUDABLE IN THE CLOSING STOC K WHEN THE STOCK IS CLEARED FROM THE FACTORY. SINCE IT WAS NOT CLEARED FROM THE FACTORY, THEREFOR E NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK. CASE LAW RELIED UPON IS ASST. CIT VS. NARMAD A CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 327 ITR 369 (GUJ.). IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT IN THE PAS T NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT WAS EVER MADE, HENCE THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT OTHERWISE REVENUE NEUTRAL FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION CASE LAW RELIED UPON IS CIT VS. REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LTD. 307 ITR 202 (SC). ASSESSEE-HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON ASHWIN A . SHAH 1 ITR 356 (TRIB) [AHD] FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE LIABILITY ARISES ONLY AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL OF GOODS FORM THE FACTORY. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW DISCUSSED ABOVE WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDING OF TH E ID. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THIS GROUND. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' 3.7 IT IS SEEN FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOV E MENTIONED CASE-LAWS THAT ONLY IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 1999-2000, BEING THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THE I NSERTION OF SECTION 145A, THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER ONLY CLOSING STOCK HAD TO BE ADJUSTED OR WHETHER ALL THE THREE ELEMENTS NAMELY, PURCHASES, SALE AND INVENTORY ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE THE ELEMENT OF VAT. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE ARS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IS THAT ALL THE THREE ITEMS NAMELY, PURCHASES, SALE AND THE INVENTORY (AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 145A) ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE ELEMENT OF VAT. AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R., SUCH AN EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. 3.8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IMPUGNED ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOW ED.' THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAW S I.E. HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD ORDER DT. 13/07/2012 IN THE CASE OF RAJ R ATNA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (ITA NO. 3297/AHD/2011) WHICH WAS IN REFERENCE TO ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT ON THIS ISSUE ITSELF. THOUGH IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, SUCH ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS APPEALABLE ONLY BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT HENCE NO COMMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR SUCH ORDER. BUT, THE RATIO OF HON'BLE ITAT ORDER IN ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - THIS CASE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE ON MERIT ALSO. HON'B LE ITAT CONSIDERED RATIO OF HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS BAHUBALI ELECTRONICS WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INDONIPPON CHEMICAL CO. 261 ITR 275 IS APPLIED TO HELD THAT SU CH ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE ON MERIT ALSO. IT IS THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY APPELLANT AND DISCUSSED ABOVE, RATIO OF LD. CIT(A)V I, AHMEDABAD ORDER IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 09-10 AND THE FACTS T HAT APPELLANT CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD WITH DUE CERTIFICATION B Y TAX AUDITOR THAT INCLUSIVE METHOD WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE, SUCH ADDIT IONS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON MERIT AS WELL AS ON LEGAL PROPOSITION RELATED TO TH E ISSUE AS WELL AS SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE OF RS. 1,02,17,252/-. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGL Y. GROUND NO. 1 ALONG WITH SUB-GROUNDS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D IS NOW CONSEQUENTIAL IN VIEW OF RELIEF GRANTED AT GROUND N O. 1 ABOVE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE SUCH INTEREST IF REQUIRED ON LY AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE RELIEF GRANTED IN GROUND NO.1. THIS GROUND IS THER EFORE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), T HE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSE E AND LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE, WE NOTE THE ASSERTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITH DUE CERTIFICATION BY THE TAX AUDITOR FOR RECORDING THE INVENTORY WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE IN VALUATION. WE ALSO NO TICE THE PLEA OF THE ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - ASSESSEE THAT ADOPTING INCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUN TING WILL NOT ALTER THE RESULTANT PROFITS AND SUCH CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING WIL L BE A REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. WE ALSO NOTICE THA T SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 WAS ALSO REVERSED BY THE CIT(A). HAVING REGARD TO THESE FACTS, WE CONCU R WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). IT IS NOT GAIN SAYING THAT UNUTILI ZED CENVAT CREDIT ONLY REPRESENTS THE AVAILABILITY OF EXCISE CREDIT AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF THE YEAR ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OF AGAINS T FUTURE LIABILITY THEREFORE, APPARENTLY THE UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VALUATION OF INVENTORIES IN SPH ERE OF S.145A OF THE ACT. IN THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. GUJARAT GAS CO.LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.90 OF 2017 DAT ED 07/02/2017. 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND IN THE L IGHT OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENU ES APPEAL MERELY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE REVE NUES APPEAL BEING DISMISSED, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND THUS DISMISSED. ITA NO.599/AHD/ 2015 DCIT VS.M/S.AMBUJA INTERMEDIATES LTD. ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/ 02/2018 SD/- SD/- () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/ 02 /2018 2..',.'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'!# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345* 6* / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6* ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD 5. 789*'45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &7** //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..2.2.18 (DICTATION-PAD 10- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 2.2.18 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.12.2.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.2.18 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