Shri Shabbir Kutubuddin Boriyawala, Lunawada V. The ACIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

ITA 78/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5482 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 139(1); 27; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW;] LKOZJH OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA 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. 78/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWAL, HUSENI CHOWK, VOHAWWAD, LUNAWADA 389 230. / VS. ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, CIVIL LINES ROAD, GODHRA 389 001. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACFPB 5849 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 20/08/2018 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/11/2018 '# / 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 (APPEAL)-4, VADODARA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CAB/4-355 /2014-15 DATED 19.08.2015 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED UNDER S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTE R REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 31.03.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT IN ABSENCE OF ISSUE AND SERVICES OF VALI D NOTICES AS PER THE LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LA W IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2715117/- AS INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LA W IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES 1962. THE APPELLANT CRAVES PERMISSION TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEF ORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL HAS C HALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND RESIDING AT MUSCAT SINCE 1993. THE A SSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS EARNED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. 4.1 THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 27,15,117/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS. 4,65,229/-. ACCORDINGLY THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. THEREFORE, THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS TO BELIEF FOR THE ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 4.2 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY (POI) HOLDER NAMELY SHRI AKHTAR SAJIDHUSSA IN GHEEWALA APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CLAIMED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 3 - WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO P RODUCED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS SIGNED BY SHRI SHANKARBHAI DHOLI IN GUJARATI LANGUA GE BEFORE THE POA HOLDER. 4.3 THE POA HOLDER BEFORE THE AO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SIGN OF SHRI SHANKARBHAI DHOLI ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TH E NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE ORIGINAL SIG NATURE OF SHANKARBHAI DHOLI AS APPEARED ON THE POA IN THE CAPACITY OF THE WITNESS. 4.4 THE POA HOLDER ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS WAS VALID. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT HE HA S NOT RECEIVED NOTICE EITHER U/S 148 OF THE ACT OR U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U /S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER: ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 4 - 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEA RNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE GROUND OF APPELLANT THAT LEGAL NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED UPON H IM APPEAR TO BE INCORRECT AS THE SAME WERE DULY SERVED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON THE AUTHORIZED PERSON AS THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF COUNTR Y DURING RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A FTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DTD. 12.03.2013 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSES SEE WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DTD. 13.03.2013. THE CASE HAD TO BE COME TIME BARRED ON 31.03.2015 AND THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AMPLE TIME TO SERVE THE SAID NOTICES AND THERE APPEARS NO REASON FOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO NOT BEING ABLE TO SERVE PROPER NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 142(1) DTD. 24.05.2013 WAS SERVED BY RPAD DTD. 07.06.2013 AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO C ONTROVERT THE SAME. SUBSEQUENTLY, SHRI AKHTAR SAJIDHUSEIN GHEEWALA POWE R OF ATTORNEY FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND HE WAS SHOWN THE ACKNOWLE DGEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT SIGNED BY ONE SH ANKARBHAI DHOLI IN GUJARATI LANGUAGE. ON BEING SHOWN THE AIR INFORMATION WHICH WAS EXTRAC TED FROM THE SYSTEM, THE POA HOLDER STATED THAT HE WAS UNAWA RE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AN ACCOUNT WITH THE ICICI BANK, THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE OFFHAND N OT KNOWN TO HIM. HOWEVER, TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, SAID TRANSAC TIONS WERE NOT KNOWN TO HIM. THIS CONTENTION OF THE POA SHOWS THE MENTAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SAID PERSON. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO PROBABILITY THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICES WERE NOT SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN TIME AND THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED ONLY TO DIVE RT THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HAD THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE A PPELLANT, HE HAD TO RAISE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THROUGH THE POA. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEN DUTY BOUND TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON SUCH OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE, IT SEEMS THAT NO SUCH OBJECTIONS WE RE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE ME NO SUCH EVIDENCE, THAT APPELLANT HAD OBJECTED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS BEEN FIL ED. THEREFORE, FIRST PART OF THIS GROUND REGARDING SERVI CE OF NOTICE, IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 5 - 6. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-32 AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND OF NON SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE LD AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAI M RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. KANPUR PLASTIC-PACK LTD. REPORTED IN 95 TAXMANN.COM 140. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDRESS ON WHICH THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS AS GIVE N IN AIR AND THE SAME WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY SHRI SHANKAR BHAI DHO LI. THERE WAS NO RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AO TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO AFFI DAVIT FURNISHED BY SHRI SHANKAR BHAI DHOLI STATING THAT THE SIGNATURE ON TH E ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS NOT HIS SIGNATURE. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE NON SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE NOTE CERT AIN UNDISPUTED FACTS AS UNDER: I. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RETURN ED BACK TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AS UN-SERVED. ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 6 - II. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN AIR. III. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IV. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO ABOU T THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RESIDING IN MUSCAT SINCE 1993 AND HE HAS REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 148 OF THE ACT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS WAS A VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN THI S REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAYAWATI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 222 CTR 117, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 15. IN JAGDISH SINGH V. NATTHU SINGH AIR 1992 SC 1604 THE APEX COURT AFFIRMED THE CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT THA T THE NOTICE MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ADDRESSEE BY VI RTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE 'NOT ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AS THEY HAD COME BACK UNSERVED UPON THE ALLEGED REFUSAL BY THE APPELLANT TO ACCEPT THEM'. AGAIN, IN V. RAJA KUMARI V. P. SUBBARAMA NAIDU AIR 2005 SC 109 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE INCORPORATED IN SE CTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT CAN PROFITABLY BE IMPORTED IN A CASE WHERE THE SENDER HAS DISPATCHED THE NOTICE BY POST WITH THE C ORRECT ADDRESS WRITTEN ON IT. THEN IT CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN S ERVED ON THE SENDEE UNLESS HE PROVES THAT IT IS NOT REALLY SERVED AND T HAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH NON-SERVICE. ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION CAN LEAD TO A VERY TENUOUS POSITION AS THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE WHO IS LIABLE TO PAY THE AMOUNT WOULD RESORT TO THE STRATEGY OF SUBTERFUGE B Y SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDING THE NOTICE. 8.1 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD AR ON KANPUR PLASTIC-PACK LTD. (SUPRA) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS A LIMITED COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE IN INDIA WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFO RE US THE ASSESSEE IS AN ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 7 - INDIVIDUAL AND RESIDING IN MUSCAT SINCE 1993. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 8.2 SIMILARLY, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AO TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO RETUR N U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, THE GRO UND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 9. THE NEXT INTERCONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 IS THAT LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 27,15,117/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPT FROM THE ICIC I BANK AND ICICI SECURITIES LTD. AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS. 4 ,65,209/- AS EVIDENT FROM THE AIR INFORMATION. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INCOME TAX RE TURN THEREFORE THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF RS.27,15,117/- AS IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE RECEIPT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.19,00,310/ - AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,47,052/- ON THE SALE OF SHARES. 10.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER FORM N O.16A ISSUED BY THE ICICI BANK AND ICICI SECURITIES LTD, THE AMOUNT REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 25,53,654/- ONLY. THE ASSESSE E IN SUPPORT OF HIS ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 8 - CLAIM FILED THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM 16 A, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, BANK STATEMENT DETAILS OF SALE PURCHASE O F SHARES. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURNI SHED ONE LIST OF SHARES TRANSACTED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE C OST OF ACQUISITION AS WELL AS SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS. NO CASH BOOK/OTHER B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ABOVEMENTIONED LISTS AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTS FIL ED ARE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AS NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDL. E VIDENCES, IS FILED. THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE ADMITTED. DURI NG APPEAL, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED IN TOTAL AND MANY DO CUMENTS ARE IN VERNACULAR LANGUAGE. ON THE APPOINTED DATE, NOBODY ATTENDED TO EXPLAIN THE CASE. SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON REC ORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE ME TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE GROUND OF APPEAL, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,15,117/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS UPHELD. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LD AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION A S MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHEREAS THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD C IT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THESE WERE NOT FILED AS PER THE PROVISION OF R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 9 - TAX RULE. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE APPLICATI ON FOR FILING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DIRECTION TO FURNISH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS PE R THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX RULE 46A. WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD CIT(A) T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/11/2018 SD/- S D/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YK S[KK LNL; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.78/AHD/2016 SHABBIR KUTUBUDDIN BORIYAWALA V.ACIT A .Y. 2010-11 - 10 - !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % &' P ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( () / THE CIT(A)-4, VADODARA. 5. +,- ..&' , &'! , 01'%' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. -23 4 / GUARD FILE. $ % / BY ORDER, + . //TRUE COPY// &/% () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 08/10/2018 (PAGE-7) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 18/10/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 22/10/2018 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