Shri Kalpesh Natvarlal Shah, Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,2(1), Baroda

ITA 714/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9310 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.714/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SHAH 4, MADHAVPARK SOCIETY LALBAUG ROAD, BARODA / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) BARODA ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIYPS 1574 M ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MILIN MEHTA, AR &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR * ) / DATE OF HEARING 28/12/2015 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/02/2016 / 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)-II, BARODA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 01/11/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUA LLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN TREATING THE GAINS OF RS.8,54,452/- ON SALE OF SHAR ES/SECURITIES AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) AND 27 1-B OF THE ACT. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD TO OR ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/11/2008. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) TREATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN O F RS.8,54,452/- AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,887/- ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE AND TELEPHONE EXP ENSES. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST TREATING THE GAIN OF RS.8 ,54,452/- ON SALE OF SHARES/SECURITIES AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF CAP ITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THA T THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 3 - NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING TWO PORTFOLIOS; ONE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPR IETARY-CONCERN AND ANOTHER ON INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE IS A SUB- BROKER IN SHARES AND CARRIES OUT HIS BUSINESS IN TH E NAME AND STYLE OF M/S.INVEX CONSULTANCY. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY MAINTAINS SEPARATE DEMAT ACCOUNT FOR DEALING IN SHA RES AND THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED TO THE CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SHRI DINESH SINGH VE HEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET NO INVESTMENT WAS REFLECTED EXCEP T FOR RS.500/- BEING SHARES OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. HE SUBMITTED TH AT VOLUME OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE REGULARITY OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE FACT THAT THE INCOME FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES INCLUDING SALARY WAS MUCH LE SS THAN SHARE TRANSACTION INCOME. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES IN THE IN DIVIDUAL PORTFOLIO AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PER TINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 4 - ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SHA RES UNDER THE PROPRIETARY-CONCERN. 3.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO BUTTRESS THEIR RESPECTIVE ARGUMENTS, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD) RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS. MR.NISHIL MARFATIA IN ITA NO.1526/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2 004-05 DATED 12/11/2010 AND DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI BH UPENDRA SHANTILAL SHAH IN ITA NO.1496/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07 DATED 2 8/08/2015. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.SR.DR HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMEN T OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF SANGAM INVES TMENTS LTD. VS. CIT, ALLAHABAD REPORTED AT (2014) 51 TAXMANN.COM 279 (AL LAHABAD), JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANO J KUMAR SAMDARIA VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2014) 52 TAXMANN.COM 247 (SC) AND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF MANOJ K UMAR SAMDARIA VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2014) 45 TAXAMANN.COM 394 (DELHI). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS/JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ANOTHER CLASSICA L EXAMPLE OF DISPUTE RELATED TO SALE OF SHARES TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INVESTMENT. ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 5 - THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TREATED SURPLUS ARISIN G OUT OF SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE AS CAPITAL GAIN. TO DETERMINE WHETHER SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES IS BUSINESS INCOME OR CAPITAL GAIN, NECESSARILY WOULD DEPEND UP ON FACT OF EACH CASE. NO STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY WHICH IT CAN BE DEDUCED THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVI TY IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR INVESTMENT ACTIVITY EXCEPT CERTAIN GUIDING FACTO RS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE CIRCULAR IS SUED BY CBDT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.8,54,452/ - ON SALE OF LISTED SECURITIES/SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCE DIVIDEND & INTEREST OF RS.1,78,419/- (EXEMPT) + RS. 84,026/- EARNED ON SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN INCOME FROM SA LARY RS.98,020/- AND PROFIT FROM PROPRIETARY BUSINESS RS.2,66,347/-. IF ALL THE INCOME FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE ADDED, THEN ALSO THE CAPITAL G AIN AS CLAIMED UNDER THE INDIVIDUAL PORTFOLIO IS HIGHER. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AO HELD THAT THE SURPLUS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A BUSINESS INCOME AND IS NOT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE VIEW OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2. 2. BEFORE ME IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS MAINTAINING TWO PORTFOLIOS ONE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPRI ETARY CONCERN AND ANOTHER ON INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN ARGUED THAT ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 6 - NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS OR FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACT IONS ARE NOT IMPORTANT FACTORS IN DECIDING WHETHER INCOME ON SHA RE TRANSACTION IS A BUSINESS INCOME OR AN INVESTMENT INCOME. IT H AS BEEN ARGUED THAT TRANSACTION DONE IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETARY CO NCERN INVEX CONSULTANCY IS DONE AT OFFICE ADDRESS WHILE THE TR ANSACTION DONE IN THE APPELLANTS OWN NAME IS DONE AT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION THAT THERE ARE TWO PORTFOL IOS IS PROVED. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT IN CASE IS SUBMISSION IS NOT ACCEPTED THIS CASE MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUGAMCHAND C.SHAH (2010 TIOL 336) ITAT (AHD) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SHARE S HELD FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS TRANSACT ION AND SHARES HELD FOR 30 OR MORE DAYS BE CONSIDERED ON ACCOUNT O F INVESTMENT. 2.3. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONS IDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN CONT ENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS DOING SHARE TRANSACTIONS SEPAR ATELY ON ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND ON INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT. IT IS HOWEVER, NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING BUSINESS IN PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND INDIVIDUAL NAME. APPARE NTLY THIS DISTINCTION IS A SUPERFICIAL DISTINCTION. THE APPE LLANT IS A SUB BROKER AND HES DOING SHARE TRANSACTIONS VERY REGUL ARLY AND IN HUGE VOLUMES. THIS FACT IS UNDISPUTED. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET SHARE ONLY WORTH RS.500/- SHOWN A S INVESTMENT. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS THE DETERMINING FA CTOR IN DECIDING WHETHER THE TRANSACTION DONE IS ON ACCOUNT OF INVES TMENT OR AS TRADING TRANSACTION. THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT DEMAT ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IS NOT IMPORTANT. IN FACT IT IS QUESTIO NABLE AS TO WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL CAN MAINTAIN TWO DEMAT ACCOUN TS. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IT CANNOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUGAMCHAND C.SHAH (SUPRA) FOR THE SIMPLE RE ASON THAT THE SECOND PORTFOLIO MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT CARRIE S SHARES ONLY WORTH RS.500/-. IN OTHER WORDS WHEN THE APPELLANT IN MAINTAINING CLEARLY IDENTIFIED TOW PORTFOLIOS, THE TRANSACTION DONE IN TRADING ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 7 - PORTFOLIO CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE INVESTMENT P ORTFOLIO OF THE SHARE FOR HELD MORE THAN 30 DAYS, WHEN AS PER BALAN CE SHEET THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE HAVING SHARES OF ONLY RS.500/-. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT HIS AVERAG ES HOLDING OF SHARE IS FOR 80 DAYS AND THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT TRANSACTION IS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THIS ARGUMENT IS SELF CONTR ADICTORY AND NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. WHEN TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS ARE NOT MAINTAINED AND BOTH TYP ES OF TRANSACTION ARE MIXED UP, ONLY THEN THIS ARGUMENT W ILL HOLD. WHEN TWO IDENTIFIABLE SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS ARE MAINTAINED IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO FOR WHAT PERIOD SHARES ARE HELD IN EACH PORTF OLIO. FOR INSTANCE IF THE SHARES SOLD WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM I NVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IT WOULD NOT BECOME A TRADING INCOME. CO NVERSE WILL ALSO BE TRUE. AND FOR REMOVAL OF ANY DOUBT IT HAS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE TWO PORTFOLIOS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS NOT IN THE SHAPE OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND ON ACCOUNT OF INDIVIDUA L AS ALREADY DISCUSSED EARLIER BUT THE TWO PORTFOLIOS ARE AS REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS AS INVESTMENT AND OTHERWISE. LOOKING INTO TH E TOTALITY OF FACT AS NOTED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DI FFER WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. TH IS GROUND IS REJECTED. 4.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD) RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MR.NISHIL MARFATIA IN ITA NO.1526/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2004-05 DATED 12/11/2010, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUGANCHAND C. SHAH VS. ACIT, SURAT IN ITA NO.2554/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2005-06 AND DI RECTED THAT WHERE SHARES ARE HELD FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT AND WHAT IS EARNED SHOULD BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 8 - OR LESS AS THE CASE MAY BE. SHARES WHICH ARE SOLD WITHIN 30 DAYS, SHOULD BE TREATED AS PART OF TRADING. MUCH WATER HAS FLOW N SINCE THE AFORESAID DECISION WAS PASSED. NOW SETTLED POSITION OF LAW I S THAT 30 DAYS HOLDING PERIOD IS NOT A RIGHT CRITERIA AS NO SUCH BASIS IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF C OORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI BHUPENDRA SHA NTIAL SHAH IN ITA NO.1496/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07(SUPRA) TO BUTTRESS THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN POSITION OF LAW WITH REGAR D TO MAINTAINING OF TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS. THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO MAINTAIN TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS, EVEN IF HE IS HAVING MAIN BUSI NESS AS SHARE-TRADING. BUT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH EV IDENCE THAT A PARTICULAR PORTFOLIO IS BEING MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF I NVESTMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAI NING TWO CLEAR PORTFOLIOS, THE SHARES PERTAINING TO INVESTMENT POR TFOLIO CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED INTO TRADING PORTFOLIO. WE FIND MERIT INTO THIS CONTENTION OF LD.CIT(A) THAT THE SHARES PERTAINING TO BUSINESS PO RTFOLIO CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. AS PER ASSESS EE, HE HAS BEEN INVESTING IN SHARES IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND TREA TING THE SAME AS INVESTMENTS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS ALWAYS A VERY FINE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSACTION EFFECTED AS BUSINESS AND INVEST MENT AND WOULD DEPEND UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE. THE TAXPAYER CANNO T BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HOLDING TWO PORTFOLIO, PRIMARILY WITH A MOTIVE TO AVOID TAX ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 9 - LIABILITY OR TO REDUCE TAX INCIDENCE. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING TWO DISTINCT PORTFOLIOS, BU T FACTS SPEAK OTHERWISE. THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTION IS GREATER IN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT A TAXPAYER THAT UNDER THE GARB INVE STMENT TRANSACTION HE CAN TREAT HIS REGULAR SHARE TRADING AS INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN SPE CIFIC FINDING QUA THE TRANSACTIONS, THAT HAS BEEN SHIFTED FROM BUSINESS P ORTFOLIO AND FREQUENCY THEREOF. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD PLACE ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CLAIM. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS PREMATURE AND, HENCE, DISMISSED A S SUCH. 6. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRES NO IN DEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/ 02 /2016 2.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.714 /AHD /2011 SHRI KALPESH NATVARLAL SOCIETY VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2006-7 - 10 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA 5. 7 8 &45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:; <* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 3.2.16 (DICTATION-PAD 12+ P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 3.2.16 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.16.2.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.2.16 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