Maharaja Amarshinhji H. Rathod (Decd), Himatnagar V. Income Tax Officer,S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

ITA 761/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9898 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G C DAXINI
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKER
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Accommodation entries; Retraction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH * ** * IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LK KK KOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] ] ] ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 761/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD (DECD) L/R. JAYDEEPSINH AMARSINHJI RATHOD, PRATAP PALACE, HIMATNAGAR-383 001. / VS. ITO, S.K. WARD -3, HIMATNAGAR. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AATPR 4286 Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. C. THAKER, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. C. DAXINI, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 30/10/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/12/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)2, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-2 /ITO, S.K. WD- 3/HMT/91/13-14 DATED 16.01.2015 ARISING IN THE MATT ER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961(HERE- IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 19.03.2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS A NULLITY. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT ARE VALID IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DEICTIC THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS 35,8 2,131/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,66,857/- RELATABLE THERETO AD IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10 LACS. 4. ON THE FACTS MID IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THE ASSESSMENT MA DE ON A DECEASED PERSON TO BE A NULLITY, AND OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED H E PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 BEING VOID-AB-INITIO THEREBY ANNULLING THE ASSE SSMENT AND OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS. ASSESSM ENT. 5. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MAY BE ANNULLED BEING A NULLITY AND MADE IN PURSUANCE OF INVALID PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND DELETED. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND HEARING. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO FOR RS. 35,82,131/- TO RS.10,00,000/-. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK & INTE REST INCOME. THERE ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - WAS ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH W AS COMPLETED ON 28.12.2009. IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SHANTISURI SECURIT IES PVT. LTD. IT WAS DISCOVERED BY THE AO THAT IT HAS PROVIDED ACCOMMODA TION ENTRY OF RS. 35,82,131/- TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LOANS AN D ADVANCES. THEREFORE THE AO SOUGHT AN EXPLANATION FOR THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AND ADVANCES RECEIVED BY HIM FROM SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD . THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO IT FILED A CONFIRMATION FROM SHANTISU RI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. JUSTIFYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM SH ANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TAKE N LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- FROM SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS SUCH, THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANC E OF LOAN AND ADVANCE TAKEN FROM SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. OF RS.26,44,000/-. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HIS NAME IS NO T APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SHANTISURI S ECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION WAS PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER, THE AO DISAGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON PAGE NO.6 IS VER Y MUCH APPEARING. ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - THEREFORE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,82,131 /- ALONG WITH THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOAN OF RS. 1,66,857/- T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) REITERATED THE SUBMI SSION AS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN PART BY OBSE RVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS. 35,82,131/- FROM SHANTI SURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS THER E WAS A SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. DU RING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, IN THE CASE OF THAT COMPANY THE STATEM ENT ON OATH OF SHRI BHAVESH BHANDARI WAS RECORDED AND HE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE PARTIES WHO HAD ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY WERE EITHER BOGUS OR WERE MERE ENTRY GIVERS . HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE IN THE BUSINESS OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AND SHROFF FOR MANY YEARS. IT WAS ACCEP TED BY HIM THAT HE ROUTED THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM SHANTISURI SE CURITIES PVT. LTD. BY ACCEPTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THEN FORWA RDING THE MONEY RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION AND SHARE CAPITAL AS LOANS AND ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHO HAD GIVEN HIM IN CASH IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THESE FACTS IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THESE FACTS CLEARLY IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THAT THE RETRACTION MA DE BY SHRI BHAVESH BHANDARI HAS NO VALUE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE AFT ER MORE THAN TWO YEARS OF MAKING THEIR STATEMENT AND THERE IS NO OTH ER FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE RETRACTION. ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, THE AS SESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED AND THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ASSE SSED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, AS TH E SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHANTISURI S ECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 5 - THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE LIST O F THE NAMES MENTIONED BY SHRI BHANDARI IN THE STATEMENT. THE AM OUNT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CHEQUE, IT HAS ALSO FILED DULY SIGNED C ONTRA ACCOUNT FROM THE DEPOSITOR. CONFORMATION LETTERS WERE ALSO GIVEN . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ONLY RS. 10 LAKHS AND THE AMOUNT OF 26.44 LAKH WAS RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS OF T HE CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 35.82 LACS FROM SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IS UNDISPUTED. THE PERSON WHO WAS MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF THAT COMPANY HAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE COMPANY WAS IN T HE BUSINESS OF GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS EARLIE R RECORDED WAS WITHOUT ANY COERCION OR PRESSURE. SUBSEQUENT REFRAC TION AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS IS NOT A VALID RETRACTION. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF SHANTISU RI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. FOR THE SAME YEAR I.E. 2005-06 HAS BEEN C OMPLETED AND THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORD ER. THE RECORDS, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED UNS ECURED LOAN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD., THE AUTHORIZED PERSON HAS ACCEPTED THIS FACT THAT T HE UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WAS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACCOMMODATION EN TRY GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, T REATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THAT FIRM. SINCE IT HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. THAT TH E AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WAS IN FACT APPELLANT'S MONEY WHICH WAS G IVEN IN THE FORM OF CASH AND SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN BY WAY OF CHEQUE WERE O F SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD., THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO I S JUSTIFIED. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ITS NAME DOESN'T F IND MENTION IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE RECORDS CLEA RLY SPEAK ABOUT IT. THE DIRECTOR OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. HAS NOT QUALIFIED THAT THE LOAN GIVEN BY THAT COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT WAS PROPER A ND IT WAS NOT ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A O IN TREATING THE ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 6 - UNSECURED LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED WAS JUSTIFIED. THE AD DITION IS THEREFORE, UPHELD EN PROTECTIVE BASIS, AS IT IS THE UNEXPLAINE D MONEY OF THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOAN BUT SINCE THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHANTI SURI SECURITIES THE ADDITION HA S TO BE TREATED AS PROTECTIVE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKH WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. ADDITION OF RS. 26.44 LACS RECEIVED IN FI NANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 CANNOT BE MADE DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. NECESSAR Y ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE AO IN THAT YEAR FOR TAXING THAT AMOUNT . THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE AO ON THIS LOAN IS ALSO UPH ELD ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY, PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-30 AND DEMONSTRATED FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THERE. 6.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDENTI CAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE CASE OF M/S PRATIK ENTERP RISES VS. ITO IN ITA NO.620/AHD/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.201. ACCORDI NGLY, IT WAS PRAYED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROV ISION OF LAW. ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 7 - 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RAISED NO OBJECTIO N IF THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCOR DANCE TO THE PROVISION OF LAW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS THE ISSUE IN THE CASE ON HA ND ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATIK ENTERPRISE (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINE TO PLACE OUR RELIANCE ON SAID ORDER. THE RELEVANT EXTR ACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF LOAN OF R S. 2 LACS AS LOANS AND ADVANCES FROM SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED UNDATED LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT IT AS ON SUBSTANTIVE BAS IS ON THE GOUND THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHANTISURI S ECURITIES PVT. LTD AND IT WAS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSES WHICH HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD.. THE LD. CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THE .-DIRECTOR OF THE AFORE SAID COMPANY RECORDED ON 8.12.2009 AS PER PAGE NUMBER 15 OF THE PAPER BOO K NOWHERE IN THE LIST OF THE PARTIES IN RECEIPT OF ACCOMMODATING ENT RIES DEMONSTRATE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STA TED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY SH. BHAVNESH BHANDARI HAS IDENTIFIED THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE ENTRY OF RS.2,04,420/- IN THE FORM OF LOAN AND ADVANCES WERE GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT A S PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD PASSED ON 24.12.2009 THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED ON PAGE NUMB ER 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INDICATING THAT THE COMPANY HAS GI VEN ACCOMMODATING ENTRY OF RS.2,04,420/- TO THE ASSESSE E. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OBSERV ED THAT THE INFORMATION REVEALED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHANTISURI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH ADDITION ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 8 - WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE AFORESAID COMPANY RECORDED ON 8.12. 2009 WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LACUNA IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE ON MERIT, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE TH IS MATTER THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT DE NOVO AFTER PROVID ING AFORESAID INFORMATION AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSES SEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISION OF LAW. 8.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADVANC E ANY ARGUMENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THE OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL R AISED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. THEREFORE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. THUS WE DISMISS ALL OTHER REMAIN GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/12/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/12/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.761/AHD/2015 MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI H. RATHOD VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 9 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 31/10/2018 (DICTATION PAGE-3) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 04/12/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 06/12/2018 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 .. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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