The Dy,CIT., Circle-2, Surat V. Shri Anilkumar Shyamsunder Singhal, Surat

ITA 746/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 74620514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S B VAIDYA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , , , . .. . . .. . , , , , !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.746/AHD/2013 ( % & '& % & '& % & '& % & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DY.CIT CIRCLE-2 SURAT 395 001 % % % % / VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL MORNING IMPEX H.NO.2/645/646, GROUND FLOOR CHELLO MOHOLLO RUSTAMPURA SURAT 395 002 ( !' ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACRPS 0210 M ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK OJHA, SR.DR ,-(+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.B. VAIDYA %0 / ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 23/05/2014 12' / ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/5/14 !3 / O R D E R PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, SURAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31/12/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- [1] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.16,10,893/- OF DEPB BENEFIT ON ACCRUAL BASIS RELYING ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT WITHOUT ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - APPRECIATING THE FACT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS DIF FERENT FROM THE ISSUE DECIDED UPON IN THE CASE RELIED ON BY HE LD.CIT(A). [2] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE .CIT(A)- I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES INSPITE OF HE F ACT THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE THE COMMISSION EXPENSES GENUINE BY PROVIDING DETAILS OF SALES AND SALE PARTY IS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH IT FAILED T O DO. [3] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. [4] IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO HE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. FIRST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.16,10,893/- OF DEPB BENEFIT ON ACCRU AL BASIS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD EXPORTED OF CLOTHES AND RECEIVED DUTY DRAWBACK BENEFIT. ON VERIFICATION OF CALCULAT ION, THE AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECOGNIZED INCOME ON RECEIPT BASI S IN PLACE OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS PER AUDIT REPORT . THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT ON EXPORT ONLY DUE TO THIS INCENTIVE AND OTH ERWISE SELLING HIS GOODS AT LOSS, I.E. LOWER THAN PURCHASE PRICE. THE AO GA VE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS A VAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E BENEFIT OF DEPB ACCRUED ONLY ON REALIZATION OF EXPORT RECEIPTS AND AS SUCH HE HAD NOT EXPORTED THROUGH EXIM BANK. HE WAS NOT ENTITLED FO R ECGC COVER I.E. INSURANCE COVER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWED CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOU NTING. HOWEVER, IN ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - AUDIT REPORT, IT IS SHOWN AS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF A CCOUNTING. THE ASSESSEE EARNED NET PROFIT @ 3.20% AFTER TAKING INT O ACCOUNT DEPB INCOME. IF DEPB INCOME REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL RECE IPTS, THEN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WOULD BE IN LOSS. IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING AS HE RECOGNIZED LOSS FOR EXPORT IN YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT AND ACCRUE PROFIT OF DEPB IN NEXT YEAR AND THEREBY DEFE RRING HUGE PAYMENT OF TAX. THUS, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT U/S .145(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.16,10,893/- @ 8.2% OF EXPORT TU RNOVER. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLAN T HAS SHOWN INCOME ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ON AC COUNT OF DEPB WHEREAS THE AO HAS TAXED THE SAME ON ACCRUAL B ASIS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE ACT PROVIDE T HAT ANY PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB BENEFITS SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TA X UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE ISSUE THAT WHETHER THIS PROFIT HAS TO BE CHARGED TO TAX ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS OR ON ACCRUA L BASIS, HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT, MUMBAI VIDE ORDER DATED 08.02.2012 WHEREIN IT AHS BEEN HELD THAT NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED B Y ASSESSEE ON SALE OF DEPB, BUT SALE VALUE LESS FACT VALUE OF DEP B WILL REPRESENT PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB BY ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, ANY AMOUNT REALIZED BY ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE THE DEPB ON TRANSFER OF SAME WOULD REPRESENT PROFIT TO INCLUDE IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S.28(IIID) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF A PPELLANT, HE HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB AS TAXABLE WHE REAS AO HAS TAXED THE SAME ON ACCRUAL BASIS BY ESTIMATING @ 8.2 0% ON THE TOTAL EXPORTS MADE BY APPELLANT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED DUTY DRAW BACK BENEFITS OR N OT AND HE HAS SOLD THESE BENEFITS TO EARN PROFIT OR NOT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE CO NCLUSION DRAWN BY AO IS WRONG AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT IS, T HEREFORE, HELD THAT ADDITION MADE BY AO IS BASED ON WRONG APPRECIA TING OF FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I, THEREFORE, DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE L D.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT H AD NOT SHOWN DEPB INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN DEPB INCOME AS PER SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE ACT ON REALIZATION O F EXPORT SALE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITY GIVES CREDIT OF DEPB WHEN THE EXPORT IS REALIZED AND PASS THE INCENTIVE ORDER BY THE CUS TOMS AUTHORITY. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE EXPORT GENERALLY REALIZED IN 3-4 MONTHS OR SOME TIME IT TAKES MORE TIME, THEREFORE HE GOT THIS CREDIT OF DE PB WHEN IT WAS REALIZED. HE FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS T HE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2012) 349 ITR 49 (SC) AND ARGUED THAT THE LD.CI T(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. HE FURT HER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH (SPECIAL BENC H) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO REPORTED AT 33 S O 337 (MUM.)(SB), WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED THAT DEPB IS CHARGEABLE TO T AX U/S.28(IIID) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME, I.E. WHEN AP PLICATION FOR DEPB IS FILED WITH COMPETENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO EXPORTS AND PROFIT ON SALE OF ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - DEPB REPRESENTING EXCESS OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB O VER ITS FACE VALUE IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) A T THE TIME OF ITS SALE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIGT VS. EXCEL INDUST RIES LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.125 & 9101 OF 2013 WITH 51950 2013 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DEPB INCOME ACCRUES WHEN IT BECOMES DUE B UT IT MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CORRESPONDING LIABILITY OF THE OTH ER PARTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT. ONLY THEN CAN IT BE SAID THAT FOR THE PURP OSES OF TAXABILITY THAT THE INCOME WAS NOT HYPOTHETICAL AND IT HAD REALLY A CCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWED MERCANTILE S YSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, BUT DUTY DRAW BACK ACCRUED ONLY WHEN COMPETENT AUTH ORITY PASS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE H AS ACCOUNTED DUTY DRAW BACK IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD.AO APPLI ED GP ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT H E HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE GP A DDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FINDINGS AND, ACCORDINGLY, GR OUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDIT ION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF R S.9,30,945/-. 7.1. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISS ION OF RS.1,43,508/- AT RATE OF 0.5 AND 1%. HOWEVER, THIS COMMISSION TO SIMPTEX WAS PAID @ 2% ON SALES OF RS.4,65,47,237/-. THE AO ASKED TO ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - PROVIDE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES ON W HICH THE SALES COMMISSION HAD BEEN EFFECTED. THE AO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN EXPORT SALES AT RS.3.46 CRORES AND LOCAL SALE S AT RS.2.05 CRORES. THE COMMISSION AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN MATCHING WITH AN Y OF THESE TWO SALES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO SIMPTEX WAS A PROPRIETARY-CONCERN OF SHRI ADISHW AR B.KAPLASH. HE IS MBA. HE WAS PAID COMMISSION IN PREVIOUS YEAR ALSO AND HE HAD DISCLOSED THIS COMMISSION IN THE RETURNS. HE RENDE RED THE SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE PROVIDING MORE ORDERS FROM THE MARKET WITH RECOVERIES OF THAT DEBTORS. THIS NORMAL PRACTICE IN CLOTH MARKET IS T HAT WITHOUT COMMISSION AGENT NO ONE WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL TO INCREASE THE SA LE. THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION H AD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,30,945/-IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING A S UNDER:- 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS TO CLAIM THE C OMMISSION EXPENSES RS.9,30,945/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HIGHER RATE O F COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE PROPRIETOR OF SIMPTEX NAMELY SHRI ADESHWAR B .KAPLASH AS HE WAS GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY TO INCREASE THE LOCAL AS WELL AS EXPORTS SALES AND AGAINST THAT TO COLLECT THE SALE PROCEEDS ALSO. TH E CLAIM OF APPELLANT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILE D BY HIM DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIN D ANY DEFECT IN THE DETAILS SUBMITTED AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY APPELLANT. THE ONLY BASIS TAKEN BY AO TO DISALLOW THE COMMISSI ON EXPENSES IS THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT MATCH THE SALES PARTIES AND COM MISSION PAID AGAINST THEM. BUT THIS BASIS HAS BEEN PROVED WRONG AS THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SALE PARTIES ALON GWITH THEIR NAMES, ADDRESSES, SALE AMOUNT, COMMISSION PAID, ETC. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY SIMPTEX FOR EARNING COMMISSION ARE ALSO ESTABLISHED BY APPELLANT BY FURNISHING ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE AO COULD NOT ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - FIDE ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE DETAILS/EVIDENCE FU RNISHED BY APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE COMMISSION EXPENSES. IF THE AO STATES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT COMMISSION EXPENSES ARE NOTHING BUT ENTR Y OF ADJUSTMENT TO INFLATE EXPENSES, ONUS IS ON HIM TO PROVE THIS FACT WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, BUT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, HE HAS FAI LED TO DO SO. THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT PROVE HIS CLAIM THAT COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.9,30,945/- ARE GENUINE BU SINESS EXPENSES AND ALLOWABLE EXPENSES AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. I N VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF CASH EXPENSES BY AO IS WRO NG WHICH DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION A ND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD .SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS WIT H PANS, COPIES OF DEBIT NOTES, DETAILS OF SALE PARTIES AGAINST WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID, AMOUNT OF SUCH SALES, RATES OF COMMISSION,ETC. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO SIMPLY DOUBTED THE R ATE OF 2% COMMISSION PAID TO SIMPTEX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION OF RS.1,43,508/- WAS PAID FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL ON WHICH NO LIABILITY FOR COLLECTING THE DUES AS GOODS HAS B EEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, 2% COMMISSION WAS PAID ON SA LE DUE TO LIABILITY FOR COLLECTING THE DUES IS ON THE COMMISSION AGENT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.5 0-56 AND 67 TO 93 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHEREIN ALL THE DETAILS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS EXPORTED GIVEN WITH PANS, COPIES OF DEBIT NOTES, SALE PARTIES AGAI NST WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID, AMOUNTS OF SUCH SALES, RATES, ETC. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS A PRACTICE IN THE CLOTH MARKET THAT GENERALLY COMMISSION IS PAID TO PROVIDE CUSTOMERS FOR SELLING THE GOODS AND ALSO CO MMISSION AGENT TO TAKE A LIABILITY OF RECOVERY OF DEBTORS. THUS, COM MISSION GENERALLY PAID HIGHER COMPARED TO OTHER TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSE E HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO SUCH AS, NAMES A ND ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS, PANS, COPIES OF DEBIT NOTES, SALE PARTI ES AGAINST ON WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID, AMOUNTS OF SUCH SALES, RATES, ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD.SR.DR HAD NOT CO NTROVERTED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE WE DO NO T HESITATE TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ) ( .. ) !' ( MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT ) ( T.R. MEENA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/05/2014 ..%, .%../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.746/AHD/ 2013 DY.CIT VS. SHRI ANILKUMAR SHYAMSUNDER SINGHAL ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT 5. 49: ,% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;& <0 / GUARD FILE. !3% !3% !3% !3% / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27/28.5.14(DICTATION-PAD 19-P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27/28.5.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.5.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.5.14 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