Nirma Credit & Capital Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DY.CIT.,Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 681/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1302 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Search and seizure; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Notional interest; Tax effect; Revised return; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 234B; 14A; 80IB; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D , AM. SL. NO. ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT 1 4142 /AHD/2007 2000-01 NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. ACIT, CEN.CIR- 1(1), AHMEDABAD. 2 681/AHD/2009 2004-05 -DO- VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. 3 711/AHD/2009 -DO- DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. 4 712/AHD/2009 2005-06 -DO- VS. -DO- 5 CO NO.114/AHD/2010 -DO- NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. 6 1391/AHD/2011 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. VS. NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. 7 2371/AHD/2011 2007-08 -DO- VS. NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. 8 2172/AHD/2011 2007-08 NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. PAN AAACN5351J ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR REVENUE BY SHRI MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 21.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/6/2016 ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 2 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE SEVEN APPEALS AND ONE CROSS OBJECTION OU T OF WHICH THREE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEARS 2000-01 , 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). AS ALL THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE COMMON, THESE W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE REVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.711/A HD/2009. 712/AHD/2009, 1391/AHD/2011 AND 2371/AHD/2011 FOR A SST. YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY, F ILED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER :- APPEAL IN ITA NO. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER ITA NO.711/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DT. 19/12/2008 (IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-II/CC-1(1)/478/ 2007-08) ITA NO.712/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DT. 18/12/2008 (IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-II/CC-1(1)/472/2007-08) ITA NO.1391/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DT.07/03/2011 (IN APPEAL NO,CIT(A)-XI/802/2008-09) ITA NO.2371/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DT.15/07/2011 (IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XI/748/2009-10) 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.711/AHD/2 009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 IS AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 3 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) -II, AHMEDAB AD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONM ADE OF RS.18,82,637/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST ON OF CPN. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) -II, AHMEDAB AD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 1,07 } 349/- U/S. 14A OF THE IT. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - II AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - II AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE ITA NO.712/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IS AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) -II, AHMEDAB AD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.18,82,637/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST ON OF CPN. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) -II, AHMEDAB AD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 1,07,349/- U/S. 14A OF' THE I.T.ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - II AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 4 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - II AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1391/AHD/ 2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 IS AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [A) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11, 84,361/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST ON OFCPN . 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENS ES OF RS. 1,00,351/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [A] OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2371/AHD/ 2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 IS AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,84,361/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON OFCPNS ISSUED BY AKSHAT FINSTOCK PVT. L TD. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RA.1,63,040/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.!4A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 5 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . 7. WE OBSERVE THAT ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS BY REVENU E WERE PRESENTED ON FOLLOWING DATES:- ITA NO.711/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON 04/03/200 9. ITA NO.712/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON 04/03/2009 ITA NO.1391/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y.2006-07 ON 13/05/2011 ITA NO.2371/AHD/2001 FOR A.Y.2007-08 ON 19/09/2011 8. WE OBSERVE THAT ON 10.12.2015 THE CBDT HAS ISSUE D INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO.21/2015 PROHIBITING ITS SUB ORDINATE AUTHORITIES FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRU CTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ON PENDING APPEALS ALSO. THE TAX EFFECT ON DELETION OF THE TOTAL ADDITION IN EACH OF THE APPEALS WOULD BE LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRESENT APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED BEING T REATED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASES DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. I T IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, WHILE HEARING THE APPEALS, SUCH FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CASE, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE O R THEY FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTION, TH EN THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR REC ALL OF THIS ORDER. SUCH ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 6 APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN LIMITATION PROVI DED IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. 9. ITA NO.4142/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01 (ASSSS EES APPEAL). GROUNDS READ AS UNDER :- 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN POINTS OF LAW AND FACTS. 2. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S.148 OF I.T. ACT. 3. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING RE-ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) RWS 147 OF I.T. ACT. 4. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING VYAJ BADLA INCOME OF RS. 15 ,98,244 AS INTEREST INCOME INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN N OT APPRECIATING APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 15,98,244 IS ALREADY ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS INTEREST INCOME, W HICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. 6. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN HOLDING THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/SS. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF I.T. ACT I S CONSEQUENTIAL. 7. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN REJECTING APPELLANT'S GROUND REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(L)(C) OF I.T. ACT. 8 YOUR APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ADVISED FROM TIME TO TI ME. ADDITIONAL GROUND : ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 7 IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANTS CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234D OF INCOME-TAX ACT FOR RS.10,340/- 10. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE GROUNDS, WE OBSERV E THAT GROUND NO. 1 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEED N OT BE ADJUDICATED. 11. THROUGH GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGE D THE ACTION LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND CONFIRMING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 12. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY. IT FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,00,19,240 /- FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS I SSUED ON 27.7.2004 FOR THE REASON THAT DURING BLOCK ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS; ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS ON 22.5.2003 AS PER WHICH IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT INCOME OF RS.54,27,750/- FROM VYAJ BALDLA TRANSACTION AND THIS INCOME WAS SHOWN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RATHER THAN SHOWING INTEREST INCOME AND FURTHER THI S SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.54,27,750/- WAS SET OFF AGAINST OTHER CA RRIED FORWARD CAPITAL LOSSES OF 1996-97. NECESSARY REPLY WAS TAKE N FROM ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.15,98,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF VYA J BADLA INCOME. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FIRST SEPARATELY ADDRESSED TO THE OBJECTIONS R AISED BY THE ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 8 ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER SHOULD HAVE FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPOSED OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE ACT. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. DCIT, BHARUCH IN ITA NO.731 & 732/AHD/2007 DATED 5.8.2014 AND THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF M/S MOTEL SHIVASHERAY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.13 83/AHD/2011 DATED 28.11.2014 IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS MANDATED TO DECIDE THE OBJECTION OF NOTICE COMMUNIC ATED TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE ACT WHICH DEAL WITH SUCH SITUATIO N TO DEAL WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY LD. AR. THROUGH GROUND NO.2 & 3 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND RE- ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. WE OBS ERVE THAT AGAINST THE COMMUNICATION OF REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSES SEES CASE BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT NECESSARY RE PLY WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DEALT AND REPLIED SEPARATELY, ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 9 RATHER ADDRESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ITSELF. 15. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN TH E CASE OF M/S BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH SIMILAR ISSUE AND WE ARE MENTIONING THE DECISION IN THAT CASE WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 5. IN THIS CASE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED AND SERV ED ON ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2005. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.04.2005 STATED THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 06.11.2001, WHERE IT HAD SHOWN TOTAL INCOM E OF RS. 47,56,368/-, BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. THEREA FTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VID E ORDER DATED 22.03.2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 71,92,770/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE LD. CI T(A) ASSESSEE APART FROM CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF RE-AS SESSMENT PROCEEDNGS. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2006 UPHELD THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O AND THUS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT. : 1.1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDIT Y OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 1.2 IN DOING SO, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) ERRED IN FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 1.2.1 IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OUGHT TO PASS THE SPEAKING ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APP ELLANT AGAINST THE REASONS RECORDED FOR AND THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT; 1.2.2 IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AFORESA ID DISALLOWANCES BASED ON THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2002-03 IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OTHER TH AN MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD; 2 DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE CONSUMP TION OF PIT CONSTRUCTION AND LAND EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,28,831/- AND RS. 7,571 /- RESPECTIVELY BY TREATING THE SAME AS EXCESSIVELY CLAIMED; 2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CONSUMPTION O F PIT AND LAND EXPENSES BY TREATING THEM AS EXCESSIVELY CLAIMED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO N; ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 10 2.2.1 IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT, FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMPTION OF LAND AND PIT CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED AND CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME; 2.2.2 IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EACH YE AR IS INDEPENDENT AND ISOLATED AND ACCORDINGLY IGNORING THE SAID FACT, ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS WRONGLY APPLIED IN ADVANCE THE REVISED RATE PER M.T. OF SOLID WASTE WITH RESPECT T O THE CONSUMPTION OF LAND AND PIT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREAS THE SAID REVISED R ATE WAS ARRIVED AT IN THE LATER YEAR I.E. A.Y.2002-03 ON THE REVISION OF CAPACITY OF THE PITS TO HOLD THE SOLID WASTE; 6. ON THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIVING THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 11.01.2006 TO THE A.O OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 AND INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REOPENING WAS BASED ON CHA NGE OF OPINION, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID IN TH E EYES OF LAW. THE A.O WAS THUS REQUESTED TO DROP THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INI TIATED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. HE POINTED TO THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 34 ONWARDS IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O DID NOT PASS AN Y SEPARATE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED ON 23.02.2006 U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, REJECTED T HE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE NOW SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O W AS FIRST REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREAFTER THE A.O SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 14 3 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE A.O TO REJECT THE OBJECT IONS TO REASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION, HE REL IED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS IN DIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT. REPORTED IN (2012) 354 ITR 244. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE CO PY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO 731 & 732/AHD/2007 . A.YS. 2000-01 & 2001-02 4 SINCE THE A.O HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTION TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 BY A SEPARATE ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER THE ACT NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE A.O HAS REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE REJECTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOUL D BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. D CIT 354 ITR 244 RELIED ON BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M /S BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS DEALT IN THE D ECISIONS OF THE CO- ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 11 ORDINATE BENCH AND THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN CASE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS MANDATED TO DECIDE SEPARATELY THE OBJEC TION TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND SUPPLY OR COMMUNICATED IT TO THE ASSESS EE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER IN THE WRIT PETITION BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE SO AND HAS PASSED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE RE-ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS VIDE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE AC T, PASSED ON 24.03.2006 AND ALLOW GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY AS SESSEE. 17. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST . YEAR 2000-01 READ AS UNDER :- 4. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING VYAJ BADLA INCOME OF RS. 15 ,98,244 AS INTEREST INCOME INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN N OT APPRECIATING APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 15,98,244 IS ALREADY ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS INTEREST INCOME, W HICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. 18. WE FIND NO REASON TO ADJUDICATE THESE GROUNDS A S WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AND IT WILL BE JUST ACADEMIC TO DEAL WITH GROUND NOS. 4 & 5. SO THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 19. GROUND NO.6, GROUND NO.8 & ADDITIONAL GROUND AR E GENERAL & CONSEQUENTIAL AND GROUND NO.7 IS PREMATURE AND THER EFORE NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 12 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. NOW WE TAKE REST TWO APPEALS AND ONE CROSS OBJE CTION, ALONG WITH GROUNDS, FILED BY ASSESSEE BEARING NUMBER - (I) ITA NO.681/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 GROU NDS READ AS UNDER:- 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN POINTS OF LAW AND FACTS. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.31,50,057 BEING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN DIRECTING TO CHARGE INTEREST U/SS.234C AND 234D OF INCOME-TAX ACT, AS P ER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. YOUR APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ADVISED FROM TIME TO TI ME. (II) IN CROSS OBJECTION NO.114/AHD/2010 FOR ASST. Y EAR 2005-06 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RE SPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN POINTS OF LA W AND FACTS. 2) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPON DENT'S CASE, THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSESSING NOTIONAL IN TEREST OF RS.34,69,677 ON INVESTMENT IN OPTIONALLY FULLY CONVERTIBLE PREMIUM NOTES (OFC PNS) OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. 3) YOUR RESPONDENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR VARY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION AS MAY BE ADVISED FROM TIME TO TIME. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 13 (III) ITA NO.2172/AHD/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ( ASSSSEES APPEAL). GROUNDS READ AS UNDER :- 1) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN POINTS OF L AW AND FACTS. 2) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AP PEAL DOES NOT LIE ON THE ISSUE OF ASSESSING INCOME OF RS.43,02,286 ON INVEST MENT IN OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. 3) YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE ADVISED FROM TIME TO TIME. 22. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT SOLITARY GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS IN THESE TWO APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION AR E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING ADDITION S OF RS. 31,50,057 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05), RS.34,69,677 (F OR ASST. YEAR 2005-06) AND RS.43,02,286 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08) BEING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIE S LTD. 23. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COMMON ISSU ES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE RELATED T O ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST O N INVESTMENT IN OFCPN OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. AND IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE ITSELF SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO.3759/AHD/2007 AND THE DECISION WAS GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 24. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH ELIGIBLE TO RAISE THE GROUND BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AGAI NST ANY CLAIM NOT ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 14 GIVEN BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE INTENT O F THE LAW IS TO TAX THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH TYPE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MITESH IMPEX (2014) 46 TAXMANN. COM 30 (GUJARAT) WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON. SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) WAS ALSO DISCUSSED AND DIFFERENTIATED WITH THE FACTS DEALT THEREIN. 25. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE HAS VOLUNTARILY SHOWN THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT OF OFCPN OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE INCOME ASSESSED INCLUDED NOTIONAL I NCOME ON INVESTMENT ON OFCPN. LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE RAISED THIS GROUND BY SUBM ITTING THAT IT WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN TO AVOID LITIGATION AND UNDER PROTEST BUT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND APPL IED THE JUDGMENT OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE REVI SED RETURN FOR ANY CLAIM TO BE MADE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER W HICH WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEES GRO UNDS SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS AND DECISION REFERRED AN D RELIED ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE COMMON ISSUES IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 15 RS. 31,50,057 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05), RS.34,69,677 (F OR ASST. YEAR 2005-06) AND RS.43,02,286 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08). WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONS ARE THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ON OFCPN OF NIRMA INDUSTRIE S LTD. WHICH WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER PROTEST AND THEREAFTER GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 27. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN SUCH SITUATION IN WH ICH ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SOME INCOME VOLUNTARILY AND HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFORE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND RAISED IT FOR TH E FIRST TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IS HELD TO BE CORRECT AS PER THE OBSERVATIO N BY HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MI TESH IMPEX (SUPRA) WHEREIN HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 38. IT THUS BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA) IS CONFINED TO THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTING A CLAIM WITHOUT REV ISED RETURN. THIS IS WHAT SUPREME COURT OBSERVED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT WHILE DISTINGUI SHING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA) AND THAT IS HOW VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAVE VIEWED THE DICTUM OF T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA) . WHEN IT COMES TO THE POWER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OR THE TRIBUNAL, THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THEIR JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A NEW GROUND OR A LEGAL CONTENTION. A GRO UND WOULD HAVE A REFERENCE TO AN ARGUMENT TOUCHING A QUESTION OF FACT OR A QUESTION OF LAW OR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW OR FACTS. A LEGAL CONTENTION WOULD ORDINARILY BE A PUR E QUESTION OF LAW WITHOUT RAISING ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS. NOT ONLY SUCH ADDITIONAL G ROUND OR CONTENTION, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO, AS NOTED ABOVE, RECOGNIZED THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN A NEW CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIM E THOUGH NOT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT STRICTLY SP EAKING ADVERSARIAL IN NATURE AND THE INTENTION OF THE REVENUE WOULD BE TO TAX REAL INCOM E. 39. THIS IS PRIMARILY ON THE PREMISE THAT IF A CLAI M THOUGH AVAILABLE IN LAW IS NOT MADE EITHER INADVERTENTLY OR ON ACCOUNT OF ERRONEOUS BEL IEF OF COMPLEX LEGAL POSITION, SUCH CLAIM CANNOT BE SHUT OUT FOR ALL TIMES TO COME,MERE LY BECAUSE IT IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT RESORTING TO REVISING THE RETURN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 16 40. THEREFORE, ANY GROUND, LEGAL CONTENTION OR EVEN A CLAIM WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY OR THE TRIBUNAL WHEN FACTS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE SUCH GROUND, CONTENTION OR CLA IM ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. IN SUCH A CASE THE SITUATION WOULD BE AKIN TO ALLOWING A PURE QUESTION OF LAW TO BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT HA S HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT NEE D TO NOR DID THEY TRAVEL BEYOND THE MATERIALS ALREADY ON RECORD, IN ORDER TO EXAMINE TH E CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT. 41. IN THE DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED SUCH QUESTIONS WHEN A LEGAL CONTENTION OR A CLAIM WAS BASED ON MAT ERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD BUT RAISED AT AN APPELLATE STAGE. ON SUCH PREMISE WE WHOLEHEARTED LY AGREE THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN ANY SUCH NEW GROUND, LEGAL CONTENTION OR CLAIM. HOWEVER, IT IS ONLY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS P.LTD.(SUPRA), WHICH HAS TRAVELED A LITTLE BEYOND THIS PREPOSITION AND C OME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN IF FACTS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE SUCH A CLAIM ARE NOT PLACED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, NOT ON RECORD, THERE WOULD BE NO IMPEDIM ENT IN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ENTERTAINING SUCH A CLAIM. SUCH AN ISSUE DOES NOT A RISE IN THESE APPEALS. WE WOULD, THEREFORE, RESERVE OUR OPINION ON THIS LIMITED ASPE CT OF THE MATTER IF AND WHEN IN FUTURE THE QUESTION PRESENTS BEFORE US IN SUCH FORM. FOR T HE PRESENT, WE ANSWER QUESTIONS (3) AND (4) AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEES IN MANNER DESCRIBED ABOVE. 42. IN THE RESULT ALL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 28. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE(S) IN THESE T HREE APPEALS CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ADJUDICATED T HIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.3759/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF NIRMA CRDIT & CAPITAL LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-1(1), BY OBSERVING AS U NDER :- 2.8 AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AS UNDER: IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, T HE ADDITION OF RS.47,812/- BEING NOTIONAL ACCRUED INTEREST ON OPTIONALLY FULLY CONVE RTIBLE PREMIUM NOTES (OFCPNS) OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. MAY BE DELETED. 2.8.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASS ESSEES RIGHT TO RAISE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. VIDE TAX APPEAL NO.97 OF 1010 DATED 29.11.2011. HE ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 17 ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THIS JUDGEMENT IS A VAILABLE ON PAGES 161-166 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE, THEREFORE, ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND B ECAUSE LD. D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO HOW THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY LD. A.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 2.8.2 REGARDING THE MERIT OF THIS GROUND, IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PRESENT CAS E IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.03.2002 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 2 DATED 15.02.2002. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF THESE TWO FACTS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MAD E IN THE PRESENT CASE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ACCRUED ON OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUST RIES LTD. BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. REGARDING THE PECULIAR F ACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE DETAILS OF OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. IS AVAIL ABLE ON PAGES 7-14 OF THE COMMON PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE IS SUE DETAILS ON PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT HIS ISSUE PRICE IS RS.25,000/- AND FACE VALUE IS RS.33750/- AND THE TENURE IS FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE INVESTOR HAS AN OPTION TO PUT THE OFCPNS IN THE LAST QUARTER OF 5TH YEAR AND REGARDING CONVERTIBILITY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INVESTORS HAVE OPTION TO CONVERT EACH OF OFCPNS AT THE END OF 5TH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT INTO 2500 EQUITY SH ARES OF RS.10 EACH AT PAR BUT NO INTEREST IS PAYABLE TILL MATURITY. HE SUBMITTED THA T UNDER THESE FACTS, IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE OPTS FOR CONVERSION I.E. CONVERSION OF OFCPNS INTO EQUITY SHARES, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET ONLY 2500 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/ - EACH AT PAR IN LIEU OF ONE OFCPN OF ISSUE PRICE OF RS.25000 AND THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT G ET ANY MONETARY GAIN IN THE FORM OF INTEREST OR OTHERWISE AND ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXERCISE THIS OPTION THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE FACE VALUE I.E. RS.33750/- AF TER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME WHETHER NAMED AS INTEREST OR ANY OTHER NAME IS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF EACH YEAR IN THE FIRST FOUR YEARS AND ONLY IN TH E 5TH YEAR, IN CASE, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OPT FOR CONVERSION INTO EQUITY SHARES, IT CAN B E SAID THAT THE INCOME WILL ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACE VALUE OF RS.33570/- OF THE ISSUE PRICE OF RS.25000/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2.8.3 AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HIS FIRST SUBMISSION WAS THIS THAT ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFOR E LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, THIS ISSUE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS DE CISION. ON MERIT, HIS SUBMISSION WAS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND NOT A BUSINESS COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, THESE OFCPNS ARE IN THE CHARACTER OF FIX ED DEPOSITS (FD) AND SINCE IT COULD NOT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.2 DATED 15.2.2002 IS ILLEGAL, THE SAME SHOULD BE APPLIED AND INCOME SHOULD BE WORKED OUT A T THE END OF EACH YEAR IN THE LIGHT OF THIS BOARDS CIRCULAR. 2.8.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF VIDE LETTER DATED 11 .08.2004 ALTHOUGH UNDER PROTEST AND THIS ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 18 IS ALSO TRUE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE SAME IS RAISED BEFORE US BY WAY OF THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND. IDEALLY, IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE GENERALLY RESTORE BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) OR TO THE A.O. FOR THEIR DECISION FIRST. BUT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E, AS PER WHICH A LEGAL ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER AS PER THE TERMS OF OFCPN OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD., IT CAN BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME IS ACCRUING ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS O R NOT, WE FEEL THAT SINCE THE TERMS OF ISSUE ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE US AND THE SAM E WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALSO, THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED AT OUR LEVEL AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT WE MUST RESTORE BACK THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE A.O. /LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AS PER THE ISSUE DETAILS OF OFCPN OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. AVAILABLE ON PAGES 7 -14 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES. 2.8.4 AS PER THE ISSUE DETAILS OF THESE OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. AVAILABLE ON PAGE 7 OF THE COMMON PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE PRICE OF THESE DEBENTURES WAS R S.25000 EACH HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS.33750/-. THE TENURE WAS 5 YEARS FORM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT. ONE SUCH OFCPN IS CONVERTIBLE INTO 2500 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10 EACH A T PAR AT THE OPTION OF THE INVESTOR TO BE EXERCISED AT THE END OF 5TH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF A LLOTMENT AND IF SUCH OPTION IS NOT EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN ASSESSEE WILL GET TH E AMOUNT OF RS.33750/- BEING THE FACE VALUE OF EACH OFCPN AFTER FIVE YEARS. THESE FACTS A RE VERY IMPORTANT THAT IN THE INITIAL FOUR YEARS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER HE IS GOING TO EXERCISE THE OPTION OF CONVERTIBILITY OR NOT AND SUCH OPTION IS TO BE EXERCISED ONLY IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 5TH YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE WILL GET SHARES AT TH E END OF THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND NO INTEREST AS SUCH IS PAYABLE TILL MATURITY EVEN IF T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OPT FOR CONVERSION. THIS IS IMPORTANT FACT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NO T OPT FOR CONVERSION INTO EQUITY SHARES, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET RS.33750/- FOR EACH OFCPN AFT ER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THA T THESE DEBENTURES ARE TRANSFERABLE DURING THIS PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND THE COMPANY IS ALSO E LIGIBLE TO PURCHASE DEBENTURES AT DISCOUNT, AT PAR OR AT PREMIUM IN THE OPEN MARKET O R OTHERWISE. HENCE, IN THIS EARLIER PERIOD ALSO, EVEN IF ASSESSEE IS NOT OPTING FOR CON VERSION IN EQUITY SHARES, THE ASSESSEE CAN SELL THE DEBENTURES IN THE OPEN MARKET OR TO TH E ISSUER COMPANY AND IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT IN THE OPEN MARKET, SUCH DEBENTURES WILL COMMA ND SUCH PRICE WHICH WILL INCLUDE OFFER PRICE + PROPORTIONATE ACCRETION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE ISSUE PRICE AND FACE VALUE WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INTEREST ALTHOUGH NO SUCH NOMENCLATURE IS GIVEN FOR THIS ACCRETION IN THE ISSUE DETAILS. 2.8.5 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS, NOW WE HAVE TO D ETERMINE AS TO WHETHER IT CAN BE SAID IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT ANY INCOME HAS A CCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF OFCPN S OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ARGUMENT OF LD. D.R. IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INVESTMENT COMPANY AND NOT BUSINESS COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, THESE OFCPNS ARE IN THE CHA RACTER OF FDS. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF FDS, THERE IS NO OPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CONVERSION IN EQUITY SHARES OR IN ANY OTHER ASST. SIMILARLY, SUCH FD IS NOT TRANSFERABLE IN THE SAME MANNER AS OFCPN IN THE PRE SENT CASE IS TRANSFERABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IF THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION FOR CONVERSION INTO EQUITY SHARES AT THE END OF THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS, NO INCOME IS GOING TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 19 ASSESSEE WILL ONLY GET 2500 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10 EACH AT PAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, HOW IT CAN BE ACCEPTED THAT THESE OFCPNS ARE IN THE CHARAC TER OF FD. 2.8.6 THE 2ND ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. WAS THIS THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.2 OF CBDT DATED 15.02.2002 IS ILLEGAL. WE ARE AFRAID THAT HIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. IS ALSO NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE LEGALITY OF THIS BOARDS CIR CULAR IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. IS THIS THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO INCOME IS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF TH IS REASON THAT IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE DECIDES IN FUTURE AT APPROPRIATE TIME I.E. IN THE L AST QUARTER OF THE 5TH YEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO EXERCISE THIS OPTION FOR CONVERSI ON OF OFCPN IN THE EQUITY SHARES, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECEIVING ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THESE OFCPNS AND IN THAT SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE ULTIMATELY AFTER 5 YEARS DECIDES TO CONVERT THE OFCPNS IN EQUITY SHARES, WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS GOING TO GET IS ONLY P RESCRIBED NUMBER OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. AND NOT ANY AMOUNT AG AINST THESE OFCPNS. HENCE, WHETHER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2 DATED 15.02.2002 IS ILLEGAL OR LEGAL, IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY US IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECA USE OUR DECISION REGARDING ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN THESE FACTS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THIS BOARDS CIRCULAR. 2.8.7 NOW, WE HAVE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER ANY INCO ME IS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE OFCPNS ISSUED BY NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT AS PER THE ISSUE DETAILS OF THESE OFCPNS, THE ISSUE PRICE IS RS.25000 EACH, THE FACE VALUE IS RS.33750/-, THE PERIOD IS 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT I.E. 25.03.2002 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT OPTION WHICH CAN BE EXERCISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 5TH YEAR AND THEN ASSESSEE HAS ALSO THE OPTION TO C ONVERT SUCH OFCPNS AT THE END OF 5TH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT INTO 2500 EQUITY SH ARES OF RS.10 EACH AT PAR. THESE ISSUE DETAILS OF OFCPN SUGGEST THAT NO INCOME IS GUARANTE ED TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER 5 YEARS PERIOD FORM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT IF THE ASSESSEE O PTS FOR CONVERSION AND THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE INCOME BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACE VA LUE AND THE ISSUE PRICE ONLY IF SUCH OPTION OF CONVERSION IS NOT EXERCISED BY THE ASSESS EE WHICH HE CAN EXERCISE ONLY IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 5TH YEAR. THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT FORWARDED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT BEFORE THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 5TH YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OPTION TO SELL THESE OFCPNS BECAUSE THESE OFCPNS ARE TRANSFERABLE AND IN THAT SITUATION , THE ASSESSEE WILL GET AT LEAST ISSUE PRICE + PROPORTIONATE ACCRETION TILL THE DATE OF TR ANSFER OVER AND ABOVE THE ISSUE PRICE. THIS MAY BE CORRECT BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME IS ACCRUING TO THE A SSESSEE ON DAY TO DAY OR YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. THE OFCPN MAY BE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS INV ESTMENT OR TRADING ITEM. IF THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING OFCPN AS A TRADING ITEM AND TIL L THE SAME IS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CLOSING STO CK WHICH HAS TO BE VALUED AT THE COST OR AT THE COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER AND IN THAT SITUATION, EVEN IF THE MARKET PRICE IS MORE THAN COST PRICE I.E. ISSUE PRICE, THE N ALSO THIS INCOME IS NOT TO BE TAXED TILL THE SALE TAKES PLACE. ALTHOUGH, IF THE MARKET PRICE GOES DOWN BELOW THE COST PRICE I.E. ISSUE PRICE THEN IN THAT SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE CA N CLAIM LOSS TO THAT EXTENT BY VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF OFCPN AT MARKET PRICE BUT IN CASE THE MARKET PRICE IS MORE THAN THE COST PRICE, NO INCOME IS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE TILL T HE SAME IS SOLD. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 20 2.8.8 IN ANOTHER SITUATION, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS H OLDING THESE OFCPNS AS INVESTMENT THEN ALSO, THE INCOME IF ANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH CAP ITAL ASSET IS TAXABLE ONLY AS CAPITAL GAIN AND THAT TOO AFTER THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION IS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. TILL THE ACTUAL TRANSFER TAKES PLACE, NEITHER ANY INCOME IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET HAS GONE UP NOR ANY LOSS IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET HAS GONE DOWN. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED THESE OFCPNS IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THESE OFCPNS TILL THE LAST DATE OF THE PRE SENT YEAR IS MORE THAN COST PRICE I.E. ISSUE PRICE WHICH CAN BE ISSUE PRICE + PROPORTIONAT E ACCRETION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACE VALUE AND ISSUE PRICE. WE HAVE ALREADY DIS CUSSED THAT THE NATURE OF OFCPN IS NOT THAT OF FD AND IT IS ALSO NOT OF THE NATURE OF DDB BECAUSE OF CONVERTIBILITY OPTION AND UNCERTAINTY ABOUT RECEIPT OF ANY EXTRA AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE ISSUE PRICE. EVEN ON CONVERSION, SHARES ARE TO BE ALLOTTED AT PAR AND NO T AT A PREMIUM I.E. FACE VALUE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT IN THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO HE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF THESE OFCPNS OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. BECAUSE NO SALE HAS TAKEN PLACE AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEED INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER FIVE YEARS IN CASE THE ASSESSEE OPTS FOR CONVERSION INTO SHARES AT PAR. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 29. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES DEALT THEREIN ARE VERBA TIM SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE TWO APPEALS AND ONE CROSS OB JECTION AND, THEREFORE, APPLYING THE SAME RATIO TO THE PRESENT C ASES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITIONS OF RS. 31,50,057 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05), RS.34,69,677 (F OR ASST. YEAR 2005-06) AND RS.43,02,286 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08), AND WE DELETE THE SAME. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 30. GROUND NO.1 & 4 OF ITA NO.681/AHD/2009 FOR ASST . YEAR 2004- 05 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NEED NOT BE ADJUDIC ATED AND GROUND NO.3 IS CONSEQUENTIAL. ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 21 31. GROUND NO. 1 & 3 OF CROSS OBJECTION NO.114/AHD/ 2010 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NEE D NOT BE ADJUDICATED. 32. GROUND NO.1 & 3 OF ITA NO.2172/AHD/2011 FOR ASS T. YEAR 2007- 08 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEED NOT BE ADJUDICA TED. 33. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NO.4142/AHD/2007 IS PARTLY ALLOWED A ND ITA NO.681/AHD/2009, C.O. NO.114/AHD/2010 AND ITA NO.21 72/AHD/2011 ARE ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 27/6/2016 MAHATA/- 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 ITA NO. 4142, 681, 711, 712 & FOUR OTHERS ASST. YEAR 200-01 & OTHERS 22 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 21-24/06/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 27/06/2016 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: 28/6/16 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: