Shri Purshottamdas Shankarlal Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. The CIT-I, Ahmedabad

ITA 877/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 87720514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S KALYAN
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD . , !' # $ $ $ $ % &', # BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.877/AHD/2013 ( ) $*) ) $*) ) $*) ) $*) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI 8, MALAY VILLA SCIENCE CITY ROAD OPP.SOLA GAM NEAR MURLIDHAR PARTY PLOT AHMEDABAD 380 060 / VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AHMEDABAD #+ !' ./,- ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AHNPP 1739 M ( +. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) +. 1 ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH RAJVAIDYA, AR /0+. 2 1 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.S. KALYAN, CIT-DR %$3 2 '' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 12/8/2013 4* 2 '' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/09/2013 !5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AHMEDABAD (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 28/02/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED ON LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THAT THE FACT THAT THE NECESSARY INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTE D BY THE ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS U/S.143(3) BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. 2. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER U/S.143(3) DTD 2-08-2010 ON THE GROUND THAT DETAILS OF SHARE AS INVESTMENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT VERIFI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS BASELESS AND WITHOUT BR INGING ON RECORD ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD SUBMITTED IN THE DETAIL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF CAPITAL GAINS T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE CONS IDERING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DERIVED FROM SALE OF SHARES CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHILE NOT CONS IDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE NOT CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN DETAIL ALONGWITH LEG AL SUBMISSION THERE AND MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES HAD RE OPENED THE VALID COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 02/08/2010 THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) COMPUTED THE INCOME AT RS.39,26,210/-. THE ONLY ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WIT HDRAWALS. THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO WAS REVISED BY THE LD.CIT WHILE INV OKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT. THE REASON FOR INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT IS AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND THE NUMBER OF SCRIPS (130) IN WHICH PURCHASE/SALE WAS C ARRIED ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - OUT, THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SHARE TRADING IS REQU IRED TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAINS AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. MOST OF THESE SHA RES WERE SOLD WITHIN A SPAN OF 1-2 MONTHS AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS FAR AS BRICK BUSINESS IS CONCERNED. TH ERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 1 7/01/2013 MADE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02/08/2010 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE A SSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT, IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI MANISH RAJVAIDYA SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIF ICATION ON THE PART OF THE CIT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WE LL AS ORAL SUBMISSIONS. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THE NA TURE OF BUSINESS AS CAPITAL GAINS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CAS E WHERE THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE DETAILS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS COMPUTED INCOME FROM SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG-TERM C APITAL GAIN. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT I N THE FORM 3CD ALSO, IT IS MENTIONED THAT NATURE OF BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT ACTIVITY OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE DETAILS AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO. THE AO IN HIS ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - WISDOM ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE TRANSACTION WAS IN NATURE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF BU SINESS ACTIVITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.263 OF THE ACT, TWO CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED, I.E. THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ER RONEOUS AND IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT, THE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT 243 ITR 83(SC). HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN AN ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS SEVERAL CHOICES AND HE ADOPTS ONE OF THE CHOICES IT CANNOT BE INFERRED WITH UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THE CHOICE OF EXERCISE BY THE AO IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND OR WHOLLY CONTRARY TO THE LAW. THE REVISIONAL POWER CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT AN APPELLATE P OWER, BUT A SUPERVISORY POWER. THUS, A COMMISSIONER CANNOT SIT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 263 ON AN ORDER PASSED BY A N ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE POWER U/S.263 CAN BE INVOKED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING SUCH WRONGS, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE B ECAUSE OF NON- APPLICATION OF LAW OR FOR A WHOLLY INCORRECT APPLIC ATION OF LAW AND WHEN SUCH APPLICATION OR NON-APPLICATION OF LAW CAUSES P REJUDICE TO THE REVENUE. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SHRI D.S.KALYA N VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT IS JUSTIFIED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH TH E AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM BRICK AND ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS & INTEREST INCOME, BUT NOWHERE I N HIS ORDER IT IS ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE O F INVESTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN A LARGE NUMBER OF SCRIPS (I.E. 130 SCR IPS). FROM THE FREQUENCY & VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES IT CAN VERY WELL BE INFERRED THAT THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF INVESTMENT ACTIVI TY. THE LD.CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD.(SUPRA), AN INCORRECT AS SUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUI REMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS P ASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLIC ATION OF MIND. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE AO HAS FAIL ED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES MERELY BECAUSE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE AO HAS MAD E ENQUIRIES AND APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ANY ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT FACTOR FOR DECIDING ANY TRANSACTION BEING BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR INVESTMENT TRANSACTIO N WOULD BE WHETHER SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDEL INES OF THE CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 16/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE ENQUIRIE S AND APPLIED HIS MIND IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES MENTIONED IN TH E SAID CBDT CIRCULAR AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.CIT PASSED THE ORDER U/S.263 ON THE BASIS TH AT CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND THE NUMBER OF SCR IPS (130) IN WHICH ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - PURCHASE/SALE WAS CARRIED OUT, THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SHARE TRADING IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT S HORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. MOST OF THESE SHARES WERE SOLD WITHIN A SPAN OF 1-2 MONTHS AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTI VITY AS FAR AS BRICK BUSINESS IS CONCERNED. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE AO, ON THE OTHER HAND IN HIS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM BRICK BUSINESS AND ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS & INTEREST I NCOME AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE AV AILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKE N TO BE THE ASSESSED INCOME. AS PER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE COMM ISSIONER IS EMPOWER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE A CT AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT IF ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO IS ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MA KING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELING THE ASSESSME NT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE LD.CI T AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANCELLED THE ASSE SSMENT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT. THIS ORDER OF THE LD.CIT IS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF AO AND IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE B EFORE THE AO AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE DETAILS SO FURNISHED AND AFTER APPLYING HIS ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - MIND THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REFORE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. LD.CIT IS NOT JUSTIF IED FOR REVISING THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE AO ON THE BA SIS OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EMBARKED UPON THE ENQUIRY QUA TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION OR A NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS IS IN THE NATURE OF INV ESTMENT OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 16/06/2007 AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. AS PER THE SAID CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE AO HAS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE BORROWED FUND WA S APPLIED OR THE TRANSACTIONS WERE EFFECTED BY OWN FUND, THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING, ETC. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE LD.CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 HAS GIVEN A FIND ING THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY AND NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE TR ANSACTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 16/6/2007 AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANYTHING FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO OR ANY DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER-BOOK THAT THE AO MADE ANY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF LD.CIT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY AND NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. THE HONBLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EAC H AND EVERY TYPE OF ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THEN THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACT ED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE S AME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND THE VOLUM E OF TRANSACTION IS MORE THAN THE OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC FINDING WHETHER HE MADE AN ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS AND APPLIED HIS MIND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 16/6/2007. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTI NG THAT THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRY AND APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE TRANSACTIO NS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY PLACING THE DETAILS ON RECORD WOU LD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE ENQU IRY AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NON- APPLICATION OF MIND AND NON-CONDUCTING OF THE ENQUIRY BY THE AO TANTAMO UNT TO ORDER PASSED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF T HE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AF RESH THE AO WOULD AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND D ECIDE THE ISSUE BY APPLYING HIS MIND ON THE FACTS AND LAW. THE DIRECT ION CONTAINED IN IMPUGNED ORDER IS MODIFIED AS INDICATED HEREINBEFOR E. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS IN DICATED HEREINBEFORE. ITA NO.877/AHD/ 2013 SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI VS. CIT-1 ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- SD/- (. ) (% &') !' # # ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 09 /2013 8.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !5 2 /'9 :!9*' !5 2 /'9 :!9*' !5 2 /'9 :!9*' !5 2 /'9 :!9*'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' %; / CONCERNED CIT-1 4. %;() / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. 9$&< /' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <) =3 / GUARD FILE. !5% !5% !5% !5% / BY ORDER, 09' /' //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / , , , , ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 3 & 4.9.2013 (DICTATION-PAD 27 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 4.9.2013 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 S 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.13.9.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13.9.13 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