Shri Rajeshkumar T.Lulla, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Surat

ITA 719/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60390 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: H V GANDHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SHRI RAJESHKUMR T LULLA PROP MAHALAXMI TEXTILES, 1096, ABHISHEK MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT, PAN NO.AAKPL3924A V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, (OSD-III), RANGE-2, SURAT (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY APPELLANT SHRI H.V.GANDHI, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.A. BOHRA, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 28-05-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-06-2012 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, SURAT DATE D 03-12-2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,20,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT US. 68 OF THE ACT AND HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST THEREON AMOUNTING TO RS.32,780/-. ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 2 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,265/- @ 25% OF RS.17,066/- OUT OF TELEPHONE, MOBILES AND VEHICLE EXPENSES. 3. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FIELD HI S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,09,510/-. SUBSEQUENT LY, CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.8,55,411/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RENT, UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, I NTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN, UNDER-VALUATION OF STOCK, UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES AND DISALLOWANCE ON LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. AGAINST THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSION OF ASSESSEE ALLOWED APPEAL IN PART AND REDUCED ADDITION FROM RS.8,55,411/- TO RS.5,30,045/-. HOWEVER, ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AN D INTEREST THEREON AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES A ND LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWN WAS CONFIRMED. 3. NOW, ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4.20 LAKH WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST THEREON AMO UNTING TO RS.32,780/-. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS PASSE D BY AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ERRONEOUS. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT ALL THE D EPOSITORS WERE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND CASH DEPOSIT WERE MADE OUT OF T HEIR REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME OR THERE OUT OF OPENING CASH-IN-HAND. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR PROVED FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS I.E . WITH REGARD TO PROOF OF ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 3 IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS RELEVANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. 159 ITR 78 (SC) AND WITH REGARD TO CAPACITY OF CRE DITOR THE RELEVANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE OF OCEANIC PRODUCTS EXPORTING CO. V. CIT 241 ITR 497 (KAR) AND IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DHANLAXMI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS V. CIT 228 ITR 780 (AP). LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THEIR PROOF OF IDENTITY IS WELL ESTAB LISHED. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE IR DETAILS I.E. PAN ETC ARE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS T O GIVE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THEY ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES. IT IS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE DETAILS OF THE D EPOSITS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN PARA-6 PAGE-2 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FINDI NG OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 10. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS ORDER WHICH IS DATED 27.082008. THAT HONBLE ITAT HAS ONLY OBSERVE D THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME WA S MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES. WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HON BLE MEMBER AND DULY KEEPING IN MIND THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DIS CIPLINE, I FIND IT NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE MY FINDINGS AS RECORDED IN P ARA-6.1 IN MY APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 18.3.2008 IN CAS/II/176/07-08 FOR THE AY. 2005.06. 6.1 HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE TRANSFER ENTRIES INTO SOM E OF THE ACCOUNTS, OR THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IMMED IATELY PRIOR TO THE GIVING OF THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM THAT SUCH DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE CRE DITORS, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. EVEN THOUGH RETURNS OF INCOME HA VE BEEN FILED ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 4 SHOWING INCOMES FROM BUSINESS YET, THERE WAS NO EVI DENCE OF THE CREDITORS HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS WHATS OEVER ESPECIALLY THE FIVE LADIES WHO WERE ALL HOUSEWIVES. THEREFORE, I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THEY HAD THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR THE MEANS TO GIVE SUBSTANTIAL LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER , THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOANS WERE TAKEN WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE LOANS WERE NOT TAKEN FOR MEETING A NY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OR BUSINESS COMMITMENTS, IT WOULD BE OB VIOUS THAT THEY WE SIMPLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED INCOMES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.2,06,000 UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE IT ACT IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 10.1 IN ANY CASE, NO RULE OF LAW CAN BE LAID DOWN I N RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE OBSERV ATION OF THE ITAT IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF TWO OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS WHICH WAS NOT DONE IN THE EARLIE R YEAR. THIS YEAR, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS AND OUT OF THE FIVE DEPOSITORS, ONLY TWO APPEARED, THE BIGGEST DEPOSITO R SHRI LEKHRAJ T WADHWA (DEPOSITS OF RS.2 LACS) SIMPLY FAILED TO APP EAR BEFORE THE AO ON SOME GROUND OR THEATER. THE STATEMENTS OF THE TW O LADY DEPOSITORS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THEY SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE THE RE QUISITE CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE THE LOANS. ALL THESE CASES WERE CASE OF CAPITAL BUILDING, WHICH WAS ABATED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IT HAS BEEN A VERY OLD PRACTICE OF BUILDING CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF LA DY MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD BY SHOWING INCOME FROM STITCHING, ETC. TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAD ACTUALLY E NGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES. THE INCOMES SHOWN WERE HARDLY SUFFICIEN T TO MEET THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS NOT TO SPEAK OF GIVING LOANS OF SUBSTA NTIAL SUMS. GIVEN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HEL D THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH LOANS TOTALING RS. 4,20,000 AS UNEXPLAINED, IN TERMS OF SEC. 68 OF THE IT ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, HE WAS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSITS. THE ADDI TIONS OF RS.4,20,000 AND OF RS.32,780 ARE THEREFORE CONFIRMED. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), IT APPEARS T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THE TWO LADY D EPOSITORS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) FOR REJECTIN G THE GROUND OF APPEAL SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEPOSITORS WHO ARE SUM MONED WERE LEADY MEMBER AND THEY COULD NOT EARN THE INCOME AS CLAIME D BY THEM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON R ECORD SHOWING THAT ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 5 THOSE LADY DEPOSITORS WERE NOT HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REASONING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LADY DEPOSITORS WERE NOT HAVING INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME. IT IS NOT DISP UTED THAT THE LADY DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND INCOME TAX RETUR N FILED BY THEM WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT TER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4.20 LAKH ALONG WITH INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS OF RS.32,780/-. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.4,265/- @ 25% OF RS.17,066/- OUT OF TELEPHONE, MOBILE AND V EHICLE EXPENSES. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT 25% IS VE RY EXCESSIVE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PERSONAL ELEMENT OF SUC H EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT, HOWEVER, 25% APPEARS TO BE EXCESSIVE, HE NCE, SAME IS RESTRICTED TO @ 10%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMP UTE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 9. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.73,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSIST OF 4 MEMBERS, HOWEVER, PARENTS RESIDE AT THE MATERI AL POINT OF TIME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY ONE CHILD WAS GOING TO SCHOOL H AVING SCHOOL FEE OF RS.3,000/- PER ANNUM. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THA T STANDARD OF LIVING CAN BE ADJUSTED FROM THE SCHOOL FEE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 IT WAS POSSIBLE TO RUN A FAMILY OF DRAWING RS.2000/- FOR THE ADULT MEMBER AND RS.1,250 FOR CHI LD TOTALING TO RS.6,500/- PER MONTH AND RS.78,000 P.A. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT PARENTS OF ASS ESSEE WERE HAVING THERE OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEY ALSO MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.73,000/- WA S UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 6 10. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN PARA-21 OF HIS ORDER, SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 21. NATIONAL SURVEYS HAVE REVEALED THAT THE HIGHES T PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS EARNED BY THE FAMILIES OF SURAT . THE AVERAGE ANNUAL PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN SURAT HAS BEE N PEGGED AT RS.4.5 LACS APPROXIMATELY. THIS ALSO MEANS THAT WIT H HIGHER MONEY SUPPLY AND HIGHER DISPOSABLE INCOME, THERE WOULD BE A HIGHER DEMAND LEADING TO HIGHER PRICES AND CONSEQUENTLY, A HIGHER COST OF LIVING. IF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE'S CONTENTION IS TO BE BEL IEVED, THAT THE ASSESSEES FAMILY COMPRISED ONLY OF SIX MEMBERS AND WITHDRAWALS OF APPROXIMATELY RS.1,38,000 WERE SUFFICIENT, IT WOULD MEAN AN EXPENDITURE OF ONLY RS.11,500 FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY PER MONTH AND RS.1,916 PER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. WHAT MUST NOT BE FO RGOTTEN IS THAT THEE ARE CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE AND INEVITABLE EXPENSES WHI CH A FAMILY HAS TO INCUR. 21.1 I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH WITHDRAWALS WERE GR OSSLY INSUFFICIENT TO MEET ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE FAMILY OF SIX MEMBERS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A MODEST LOCALITY, AND LEADING A SIMPLE LIFE; THE ASSESSEE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE HA D TO INCUR EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES ON THE RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY, ON SERVANTS, ON GAS, WATER & ELECTRICITY, REPAIRS TO THE FLAT, D AILY PROVISIONS, MEDICAL TREATMENT, CLOTHINGS, LAUNDRY, NEWSPAPERS, ON TRANS PORT, EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ON SOCIAL AND RE LIGIOUS OCCASIONS WHICH ARE QUITE NUMEROUS. THEREFORE, TO WHICHEVER C OMMUNITY ANY PERSON MAY BELONG OR WHICHEVER RELIGIOUS TENET HE M AY FOLLOW, THE NECESSARILY HAS TO INCUR THE AFORESAID EXPENSES FOR HIS VERY SURVIVAL AND ALSO THE SURVIVAL OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 21.2 THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE AO WAS VERY REASONABL E. THE POINT THAT EVERY APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TO NECESSARILY CONSID ER IS THAT INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT COVERED OR INFLUENCED BY THE ST RICT RULE OF EVIDENCE AS UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT. IT IS FOR THIS REASON TH AT THERE ARE A LOT OF DEEMING PROVISIONS IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND CONSEQ UENTLY, SEVERAL FACTORS ARE ASSUMED OR PRESUMED AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS ARE ALLOW ED TO BE DRAWN REGARDING THE CORRECT AND TRUE INCOME OF AN ASSESSE E. IN THE CASE OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, THE ASSUMPTION REGARDING INA DEQUACY IS DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPENDITURE THAT ANY ORDINARY M IDDLE-CLASS FAMILY IS LIKELY TO INCUR IN COURSE OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, S IMPLY BECAUSE THE AO DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT HOUSEHOLD ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 7 EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED FROM OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE DELETED. THE PRESUMPTION MADE BY THE AO AND ESTIMATION MADE WAS VERY MUCH REALISTIC. IN FACT, I T IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE. GIVEN THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF ANY ORDINARY MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILY, AND THE COST OF LIVING IN SURA T, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO WAS VERY MUCH ON THE LOWER SIDE. I HAVE T HEREFORE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.73,000. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IT APPEARS THA T FACTUM OF EARNING AND WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY BY THE PARENT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION OF RS.73,000/- APP EARS TO BE EXCESSIVE, WE THEREFORE, REDUCE THE ADDITION FROM RS.73,000/- TO RS.48,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE SAME ACCORDIN GLY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP - 07/06/2012 ()* + ,- ,- ,- ,- ../ ../ ../ ../ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. *.3 , ,4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ,4- / CIT (A) 5. /78 ...3, , .3 , ()* / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ,- , /TRUE COPY/ >/ ( ? , .3 , ITA NO.719/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SH RAJESHKUMAR T LULLAA V. ITO (OSD-II) RNG-2 SRT PAGE 8 ()* + STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 30/05 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 31/05, 1/06 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 1/06 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 05/06 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 07/06 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 07/06