The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda V. Jewel Consumer Care Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 757/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0485 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO2618 AHD/2010 & 757/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), BARODA VS. JEWEL CONSUMER CARE PVT. LTD., SUBHAAG, B-15/16, RAMIN PARK, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AAACB8634Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI T SHANKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 27.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.2013 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) I, BARODA DATED 25.05.210 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND DATED 17.01.2012 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.E. I.T.A.NO. 2618/AHD/2010. GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .11,17,492/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON REPAIRS AS CAPITAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE REPA IRS HAD AN ENDURING BENEFIT. I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 2 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CO NSUMPTION OF STORES AND SPARES OF RS.98,78,195/- AND OUT OF THIS, THE A .O. HAS NOTED THREE EXPENSES OF RS.10,64,258/- IN RESPECT OF SET OF CAM DISCS AND SWITCHING DISCS, RS.1,14,657/- IN RESPECT OF BRAKE FOR MAIN D RIVE MOTOR AND RS.1,35,781/- IN RESPECT OF TAKOMAT STEP GEAR TOTAL ING RS.13,14,696/-. HE HELD THAT THIS IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,97,204/-, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,17,492/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.1.1 LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE AS THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). LD. D.R. HAS PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 203 ITR 201 (S.C.). 2.1.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WAS ON ACC OUNT OF REPLACEMENT OF COMPONENTS IN THE MACHINES BUT THERE IS NO BASIS INDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION. THE BILLS IN RESPECT OF THESE ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 11-18 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE FIRST VOUCHER IS ON PAGE 11 OF THE PA PER BOOK AS PER WHICH THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO INVOICE NO.834356 DATED 11. 09.2010 FOR THE PURCHASE OF SET OF CAM DISC AND SWITCHING DISC FOR DOUBLE OR TRIPLE FILAMENT BOX, TOOTHED BELT WITH PULLEY, CLAMING TUR RET, SPACERS FOR TRANSFER GRIPPER TO TC ETC. ON PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE RELEVANT BILL. FROM THIS NARRATION ON PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THESE ITEMS ARE FOR REPLACEMENT OF PARTS OF A MACHI NE OR IT CONSISTS OF A I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 3 SEPARATE MACHINE IN ITSELF. IN HE ABSENCE OF ANY B ASIS INDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION THAT THESE EXP ENSES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF REPLACEMENT OF COMPONENTS IN THE MACHINE, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS SUSTAINABLE. AT THE SAME TI ME, THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO THAT THESE EXPENSES AR E IN RESPECT OF A SEPARATE MACHINE IN ITSELF AND UNDER THESE FACTS AN D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BEFORE LD. C IT(A) AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO REPLACEMENT OF COMPONENTS IN A MACHINE OR THE SAME IS FOR A SEPARA TE MACHINE IN ITSELF AND AFTER EXAMINING THIS ASPECT, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD TO BOTH SIDES. 2.1.3 REGARDING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT CITED BY THE LD. D.R. HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SAR AVANA SPINNING MILS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, IT W AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT EACH MACHINE INCLUDING FRAME WAS IN DEPENDENT AND SEPARATE MACHINE CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONING AND THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR REPLACEMENT THERE ON WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CURRENT REPAIRS. LD. CIT(A) SHOULD FOLL OW THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RESTORE D TO HIM AFTER FINDING OUT AS TO WHETHER AN INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE MACHI NE CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT AND SPECIFIC FUNCTION WAS REPLACED OR O NLY SOME PARTS OF A MACHINE WERE REPLACED. 2.1.4 IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 2.2 GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 4 (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .10,33,460/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST COST INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING HUGE BANK INTEREST THAT WAS DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT. 2.2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT A SUM OF RS.93,95,092/- WAS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. AMIGO DISPENSING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE AC T AND NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED OR RECOVERED FROM THIS PARTY. THE A.O. HEL D THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS, INTE REST COST TO THE EXTENT OF THESE ADVANCES IS NOT ALLOWABLE. BEING AGGRIEVE D, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELE TED THIS DISALLOWANCE AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.2.2 LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHER EAS THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A RECENT JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.492/2012 DATED 28.01.2013. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGEMENT AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO REFERRED TO ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. IN T AX APPEAL NO.829/2007 WHERE, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE HUGE FUND S WERE AVAILABLE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST LIABILITY WITH THE ASSESSEE AN D WHERE THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS OF BORROWED MONEY HAVING BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH ADVANCE TO A SISTER CONCERN, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 2.2.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AVAILABLE ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 5 BOOK, THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS OF RS.2070.07 LACS WHEREAS THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO SISTER CONCERN WITHO UT CHARGING INTEREST WAS ONLY RS.93.95 LACS AND, THEREFORE, THE OWN INTE REST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS MANY TIMES MORE THA N THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERN AND NO DIRECT NEXUS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. BETWEEN SUCH INT EREST FREE ADVANCES AND INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. UNDER THESE F ACTS, AS PER THESE TWO JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAVING BEE N RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. (SUPRA), DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A .O. OF INTEREST IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 2.2.4 IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 2.3 GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .2,03,331/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER RULE 8 D R.W.S. 14A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THOUGH THE ASSES SEE CLAIMS TO HAVE INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT, IT IS PAYI NG INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL. 2.3.1 LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE AS IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INTEREST E XPENDITURE BUT THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MANY TIMES MORE OF TH E INVESTMENT ALSO AND, THEREFORE, THIS DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS PER THE SAME TWO JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. 2.3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT NOTED ABOV E. WE FIND THAT AS I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 6 PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AVAIL ABLE ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AT THE CLOSE O F THE YEAR WAS OF RS.51.76 LACS WHEREAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, SUCH INVESTMENT WAS OF RS.794.37 LACS. EVEN IF WE CONSIDER THE OPENING BALANCE OF INVESTMENT, THEN ALSO, THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSE E WERE MUCH MORE THAN SUCH INVESTMENT AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TAK EN TOGETHER AND NO DIRECT NEXUS OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS HAV ING BEEN INVESTED HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. UNDER THESE FAC TS, AS PER THE SAME TWO JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT NOTED ABOVE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR U/S 14A IN R ESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,03,3 31/-, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,238/- IS OUT OF INTEREST EXPE NDITURE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.25,093/- IS IN RESPECT OF OTHER EXPENSES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN INC URRED FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE EXTENT OF 0.5% OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS PER RULE 8D. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE SAME IS APPLICABLE FORM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF G ODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. VS DCIT AS REPORTED IN 194 TAXMAN 203, ALTHOUGH RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN ANY PERIOD PR IOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BUT DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE BY THE A.O. ON A REASONABLE BASIS. NORMALLY IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE RESTORE BA CK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH DECISION ON REASONABLE BASIS BUT SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. I S VERY MEAGER I.E. RS.25,093/- ONLY, WE FEEL THAT RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WILL BE A FUTILE EXERCISE AND HENCE, IN THESE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- WILL MEE T THE ENDS OF JUSTICE I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 7 AND, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 0,000/- ONLY AND THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. 2.3.3 THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 4. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 I.E. I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012: 4.1 GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,35,707/- ON ACQUIRING MOTOR TRIMMER, MOTOR GRINDING DISC., M OTOR SERVO AND MOTOR TRIMMER STAND, RING LUNGER, FILTER DUST F ILTER CARTRIDGE, FILTER SUCTION ETC., AS REVENUE EXPENDIT URE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EXPENSES, BEING IN CAPITAL FI ELD AND GIVING AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE, CONSTITUTE CAPITAL EX PENDITURE AS SETTLED IN THE CASE OF BALIMAL NAVAL KISHORE VS CIT 224 ITR 414 (SC). 4.1.1 BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SIMI LAR TO GROUND NO.1 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE SAME CAN BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINES. 4.1.2 IN THE YEAR 2007-08, WE HAVE RESTORED BACK TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER PARA 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 ABOVE AND HENCE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR AFRESH DECIS ION WITH THE SAME DIRECTION AS GIVEN BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . 4.1.3 THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 4.2 GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.9 ,93,805/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOS E WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING HUGE BANK INTEREST THAT WAS DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT. I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 8 4.2.1 BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT ON THIS ISSUE ALSO , THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 FOR GROUND NO.2 IN THAT YEAR. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND WE FIND THAT IN THAT YEAR, WE HAVE DELETED THE INTEREST DISALLOWAN CE ON THIS BASIS THAT OWN FUNDS ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN AND NO DIRECT NEXUS WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE A.O. BETWEEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AND INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE FIND THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERN WAS RS.90,34,592/- WHEREAS THE OWN FUNDS AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2091.47 LACS AND HENCE, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS JUSTIFIED AS PER OUR DECISION FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS PER PARA 2.2.3 ABOVE. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE I S REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD I.T.A.NO.2618 /AHD/2010 I.T.A.NO. 757/AHD/2012 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION 05/03/2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 06/03/2013. OTHER MEMBER 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 08/03/2013 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.8/3 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 08/03/2013 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .