Mansi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 914/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 91420514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA CITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Recovery proceedings; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., !' #$ #$ #$ #$ %% % &, ' ( ' BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER $./ I.T.A. NO.914/AHD/2009 ( * * * * / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VIKAS CHAMBERS OPP.UNIVERSITY HOSTEL NR.DADA SAHEB NA PAGLA NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ASST.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) AHMEDABAD '+ (, $./- $./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAALM 000 4 F ( +. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) +. 1 ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA /0+. 2 1 ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-D.R. %3 2 &, / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2011 45* 2 &, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/ 9/2011 (6 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-I, A HMEDABAD DATED 6.2.2009 PASSED FOR AY 2005-06. THE ONLY GR OUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,79,00,000/- , BEING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME/RECEIPT FROM KARTIK J. PATEL FOR THE SALE ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - OF A LAND. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT O NLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THAT TOO HAVIN G BEEN REPAID AND THE IMPUGNED DEAL HAVING BEEN CANCELLED, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. HAS WRONGLY BEEN CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(A) AND THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.10,79,00,000/- REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. A) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER :- 2. FACTS IS BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 28 /12/2006 WERE THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTOR MR.VIKAS A. SHAH WAS SUBJE CTED TO SEARCH ON 09/02/2005. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED A SEIZED DOCUM ENT MARKED AS ANNEXUREA186 AND THE PAGES REFERRED WERE NO.95 TO 104. THAT WAS A DOCUMENT, ALLEGED TO BE AN AGREEMENT DATED 27/05/2004, FOUND TO BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, I.E. MANSI BUILDERS LTD. AND ONE MR. KARTIK J.PATEL. THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS STATED TO BE IN RESPECT OF A LAND ADMEASURING 7 0,430 SQ.YARDS (THIS AREA AS MENTIONED BY A.O. WAS LATER ON CORREC TED AND THE CORRECT AREA WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTRO VERSY WAS FOUND TO BE 17,430 SQ.YARDS). THE AO HAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS SOLD THE SAID LAND ADMEASURING 17,430 S Q.YRDS. TO MR. KARTIK J.PATEL @ OF RS.5,850/- PER SQ.YARD FOR A TO TAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.10.79 CRORES. A STATEMENT OF THE SAID DIREC TOR WAS RECORDED U/S.131(1A) ON 28/02/2005. AS PER THE SAID STATEMEN T, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS.16 LACS WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND A SUM OF RS.5 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH, THUS T OTALLING TO ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - RS.21 LACS WAS STATED TO BE RECEIVED IN TERMS OF THE SAID DOCU MENT. WITH THIS BACKGROUND, A SHOW-CAUSE WAS ISSUED BY TH E AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.10.97 CRORES AS AGREED UPON SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 AS UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS RECEIPT. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT THE SAID LAND DEAL WAS CANCELLED AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.21 LACS WAS ALSO RETURNED BACK. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID EXPLANATION AND REJECTED BY ASSIGNING CERTAIN REASO NS, SUMMARIZED BELOW:- (A) THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED WHEREIN SHRI VIKAS A.SHAH HAD EVEN ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.21 LAKHS FOR THE SAME. (B) UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL FROM HIS CUSTODY IS NOT RELATED TO HIM/ALREADY EXPLAINED/NOT CORRECT, ETC., WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE. (C) ADMISSION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERS ONS MAKING IT FOR WHICH THE A.O. RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF PRANAV CONSTRUCTION V/S. ACIT (MUM) ITAT. ACCORDIN G TO THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTI NG PROOF TO PROVE THAT HE RECEIVED ONLY RS.21 LAKHS, O UT THE TOTAL SALE PRICE OF RS.10.79 CRORES DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. (D) MOST OF THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE IN CASH AND IT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BECAUSE OF NON -CO- OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - (E) THE PAYMENTS/RECEIPTS OF ON-MONEY IN LAND DE ALS IS THE PREVAILING PRACTICE AND SHRI VIKAS A SHAH HA D ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131(1A) OF T HE ACT, WHILE EXPLAINING THE SEIZED PAPERS, THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS WERE PAID/RECEIVED, IN ADDITION TO DOCUMENTED PRICE OF LAND OR BUILDING, AS ON-MONEY , WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. THE A.O., HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF R OHINI RAMNATH LELE 117 CTR 208 ITAT (MUM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PREVAILING PRACTICE OF PAYING ON MO NEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EVEN IF THE PURCHASER DENIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED ONLY RS.21 LAKHS, YET THE SEIZED PAPERS [P AGE NO.95 TO 104 OF A-186] SHOWED THAT IT RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10.79 CRORES. (F) THE SEIZED MATERIAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED PARTL Y CORRECT AND PARTLY INCORRECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) AND THEY HAVE TO BE TAKEN IN TOTALI TY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE SEIZE D PAPERS ARE ONLY PARTLY CORRECT IS NOTHING BUT AN AT TEMPT TO ESCAPE THE TAX LIABILITY AND MISLEAD THE DEPARTM ENT. FINALLY, A SUM OF RS.10.79 CORES WAS TAXED AS UNAC COUNTED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER W AS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. B) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY :- 3) BEFORE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF THE DI RECTOR MR.VIKAS A.SHAH WHICH WAS RECORDED U/S.131(1A) ON 28/02/2005 BUT WHILE ANSWERING QUESTION NO.12, 72 AND 155 HE HAD CATEGOR ICALLY STATED ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - THAT BY THAT DATE HE HAD ONLY RECEIVED RS.21 LACS F ROM ONE SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL, ALLEGED PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THAT WHY THE VERACITY OF THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NOT CROS S-CHECKED BY THE AO AND SPECIALLY WHY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT EXAMINED SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL ? IT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED TO LD.CIT(A) THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND WAS STILL WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT EVE N AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION, NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.10.79 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO C ONTESTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY TAXED IN ONE YEAR BECAUSE AS PER ONE OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THE PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SAID AGR EEMENT. AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE LD.CIT(A) THAT MUKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, VIBHAG-II WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED AS SATYASAI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VIDE AN ORDER DATED 18/08/2006 AS PER 7/12 EXTRACT APPRO VING THE CHANGE OF THE NAME OF THE SOCIETY ON FORM NO.4, AS ISSUED BY DISTRICT REGISTRAR (RURAL) AHMEDABAD. HENCE, IT WAS CONTEST ED THAT ONCE THE LAND WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF TRANSFER OF LAND AS ALSO THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF R ECEIVING THE SAID HUGE AMOUNT. CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES HAVE ALSO BEEN R AISED THAT BURDEN WAS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THE SAID ALLEGATION AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC BASIS, IT WAS NOT REASONABL E TO ASSESS THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER BY REL YING UPON A ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - DECISION HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESH WARI COTTON MILLS (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), IT WAS ARGUED THAT AN ASSESSMENT MADE PURELY ON A GUESS WORK, WHICH IS DEHORS OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IS A BAD ASSESSMENT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLA CED ON R.Y. DURLABHJI 211 ITR 178 (RAJ.) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSIT ION THAT AO HAD TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL GATHERED FROM BOTH THE ANG LES, I.E. FROM THE ANGLE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FROM THE ANGLE OF THE REVENUE. FEW MORE CASE LAWS HAVE ALSO BEEN CITED, FOR REFERENCE LISTED BELOW:- 1. SHANKERLAL NEBHUMAL (HUF) VS. DY.CIT (2004)135 TAXMAN 33 (AHD.)(MAG.) / 80 TTJ (AHD.) 69. 2. RAMAKANT UMASHANKER KHETAN VS. ACIT (2000) 66 TTJ 378 (NAG.) 3. BHARAT A.MEHTA VS. ITO (2001) 116 TAXMAN 301 (AHD.) (MAG.) 4. KAMLESH R.SONI V. ITO (2002) 123 TAXMAN 190 (AHD.) (MAG.) 5. ELITE DEVELOPERS VS. DY.CIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (NAGPUR) 3.1. A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY LD.CIT(A ). IN REPORT, THERE WAS A REFERENCE OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27/05 /2004 FOR THE REASON THAT AS PER ONE OF THE TERMS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE OTHER PARTY. IN THE SAID REPORT THE AO HAS INTERALIA REITERATED THAT FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH WAS AGREED ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - UPON AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT HAD ACCRUED TO THE A SSESSEE AND CHARGEABLE U/S.5 (1) OF THE I.T.ACT. ALTERNATIVEL Y, IT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED BY THE AO IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT THAT B Y VIRTUE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED HIS RI GHTS TO THE PURCHASER, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPOR T, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT WAS NOT A REGISTERED AGREEMENT AND IT WAS SIMPLY A MOU. SINCE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE FOLLOWED, THEREFORE, THE DEAL WAS CANC ELLED AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WIT HOUT EFFECTING ANY CHANGE. NO OWNERSHIP, TITLE, OR RIGHTS WERE TRANSFERRED BECAUSE THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT A REGISTERED DOCU MENT . AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD.CIT(A) THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND, THE AO HAD ATTACHED THE PROPERTY AS IS EVIDENT FROM AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 19/03/2007 ISSUED BY T.R.O. CENTRAL-I, AHMEDABAD. THE SAID NOTICE WAS ADDRESSE D TO SHRI VIKAS A. SHAH AND THE PROPERTY WAS ATTACHED. HENCE IT WAS ARGUED THAT BY THAT VERY FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ATTACHED BY THE TRO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT TRANSFERRED. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREE MENT AND VIDE A STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR, IT HAD CONFIRMED THE SAID FACT. LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED CLAUSE-6 OF MOU FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ALSO HANDED OVER. ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - AS FAR AS THE SUBMISSION REGARDING CANCELLATION OF SALE, LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS MERELY AN AFTER-THOUGHT BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE TH E SALE AND RECEIVED RS.21 LACS. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SAL E-DEED TOOK PLACE AND THERE WAS NO CANCELLATION OF THE DEAL, HENCE TH E AO WAS RIGHT TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION. APPEA L WAS DISMISSED AND THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. THAT ORDER IS NOW CHALLENGED BEFORE US. C) ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT :- 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LD.AR MR.G.C. PIPARA APPEARED AND ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD GONE WRONG IN CONSIDERING ONE MOU AS AN AGREEMENT. HE HAS DRAW N OUR ATTENTION ON THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID MOU DATED 27/ 05/2004, AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD, AND DEMON STRATED THAT THE PROPOSED SALE WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF SEVERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE AT RS.9.50 CRORES BY ADOPTING RATE OF RS.5,454/- PER SQ.YARDS, WHICH WAS WRONGLY TAKEN UP BY THE AO AS RS.5,850/-.. THE TER MS OF PAYMENT WERE ALSO AGREED UPON AND THAT THOSE INSTALLMENTS W ERE TO BE PAID IN THE YEARS TO COME. THAT THE SAID SUM WAS TO BE PAI D WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT, OUT OF WHICH RS.2 CRORES WAS TO BE PAID WITHIN 12 MONTHS. IT WAS ALSO AGREED U PON THAT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE AND OTHER CLEARANCES AS WELL AS THE SAN CTIONING OF THE ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - REVISED PLAN WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE VENDOR. LD.AR HAS THEREFORE CONTESTED THAT IT WAS NOT AN OUTRIGHT SAL E BECAUSE THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED BUT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON COMPLETION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT WAS ME RELY A MEMORANDUM TO BE CARRIED-OUT TO GET THE SAID DEAL O F LAND FINALIZED LATER ON. LD.AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON FORM NO.ITCP-6 DATED 19/03/2007 ISSUED BY TRO, CENTRAL-I, AHMEDABAD TO SHRI VIKAS A.SHAH IN RESPECT OF 17540 SQ.METERS OF LAND AT VILLAGE THALTEJ, TALDASCROI, DISTAHMEDABAD. THROUGH THIS LETTER OF RECOVERY, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS VERY MUCH UNDER THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. LD.AR HAS ALSO VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO EXAMINE SHRI KATIK J.PAT EL. IN THIS REGARD, LD.AR HAS SOUGHT INFORMATION FROM THE CONCE RNED REVENUE OFFICER, VIDE A LETTER DATED 20/07/2011 AND IN RES PONSE VIDE A LETTER DATED 27/07/2011 ACIT CENTRAL CIR-1(2), AHMEDABAD H AS INFORMED THAT NO STATEMENT OF SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL WAS RECORDED AND ALSO THAT NO CORRESPONDENCE/ ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SAID PERSON. THE LD.AR HAS THUS CATEGORICA LLY STATED THAT NO POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO MR. PATEL. 4.1. THE LD.AR HAS THEREAFTER NARRATED A BRIEF BACK GROUND THAT ORIGINALLY A LAND ADMEASURING 22,430 SQ.YARDS WAS I N THE NAME OF MUKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY SINCE 1981. A ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY AND THE SAID SOCIETY TO DEVELOP THE LAND. FIRSTLY, A SCHEME OF SEVEN TOWERS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THERE WAS AN ANOTHER CONTRACT TO BUILD ONE TOWER WITH AN ANOTHER AGENCY M/S.HELLY ENTERPRISES UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI CHHAGANBHAI V.DESAI. THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE ABOUT THE OUTSTAND ING PAYMENT TO HELLY ENTERPRISES. ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN MIS-UNDERS TANDINGS, THE MUKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY WAS SPLITTE D INTO TWO PARTS; ONE WAS, MUKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOC IETY VIBHAG-I. THERE WAS A REMAINING LAND ADMEASURING 17,430 SQ.YA RDS WHICH WAS GIVEN TO MUKTINAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY VIBHAG-I I. ON THAT PORTION OF THE LAND, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CONST RUCTED TWO TOWERS. IN RESPECT OF THAT PORTION OF LAND IN FEBRU ARY-2004, THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH KARTIK J.P ATEL FOR SALE OF LAND ALONGWITH PARTLY CONSTRUCTED TWO TOWERS. BUT THE DISPUTE COULD NOT BE RESOLVED AND THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND REMA INED WITH THE ASSESSEE. 4.2. CONTINUING THE PLEADINGS, LD.AR HAS MENTIONED THAT IN AN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.75, SHRI SHAH HAS IDENTIFIED CERTAIN PAPERS AND INFORMED THAT THOSE PAPERS WERE IN RESPECT OF L ITIGATION OF LAND. LIKEWISE, VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.94, IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI CHHAGAN V.DESAI HAD INTRODUCED BOGUS MEMBERS IN THE SAID SOCIETY. THAT LAND WAS PROPOSED TO BE SOLD TO SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL BUT BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT COMP LETED. ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 11 - 4.3. LD.AR HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT IN THE MOU IT WAS STATED VIDE CLAUSE-4(D) THAT A TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF T HE SAID PROPERTY WAS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. CLAUSE-5 SAYS THAT ONLY ON PROVIDING THE TITLE CLEARANCE CER TIFICATE THE OTHER PARTY WOULD PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT. SINCE THERE W AS SOME DISPUTE AS STATED VIDE QUESTION NO.76, THE TRANSACT ION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. LD.AR HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT IN THE YEA R 2006, A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE MUKTINAGAR CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIET Y VIBHAG-II WAS INCORPORATED AND VIDE COPY OF 7/12 EXTRACT DATE D 18/08/2006, THE NAME OF SATYASAI CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY WAS CHAN GED AS ISSUED BY DISTRICT REGISTRAR (RURAL) AHMEDABAD. LD.AR HAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID EVIDENCE ITSELF HAS PROVED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL. LD.AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON AN ANOTHER PO INT THAT VIDE AN ORDER U/S.281B DATED 12/09/2006 AT SL.NO.23 THE NAM E OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAD APPEARED WHICH WAS UNDER ATTACHMENT. AT SL.NO.23 OF THE SAID ATTACHMENT ORDER, NAME OF MUKTINAGAR CO -OP.HOUSING SOCIETY VIBHAG-II WAS MENTIONED AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER POSSESSION OF MANSI BUILDERS LTD ., I.E. THE APPELLANT. LD.AR HAS ALSO REFERRED A LETTER WRITTE N BY SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL DATED 19/05/2007 IN RESPONSE TO AN ORDER U/ S.281B DATED 29/03/2007 AND IN THAT LETTER MR.PATEL HAS STATED A BOUT THE CHANGE IN THE NAME, HOWEVER, STATED THAT MR.VIKAS A.SHAH OR M /S.MANSI BUILDERS DID NOT HAVE THE POSSESSION OVER THE LAND. THROUGH THIS LETTER, IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE LAND WAS IN A VACANT STATE. ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 12 - LD.AR HAS THEREFORE CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID LETTER OF SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL HAD ADMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT-CUM-CONSTRUCTION AGR EEMENT WITH SHRI SHAH. PAPER-BOOK PAGE NOS.38 & 39 WERE THE EVI DENCES IN RESPECT OF CHANGE OF NAME FROM MUKTINAGAR HOUSING S OCIETY TO SATYASAI HOUSING SOCIETY. PAPER-BOOK PAGE NOS.45 & 46 WERE IN RESPECT OF ATTACHMENT MADE U/S.281B OF THE I.T. ACT . D) ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE :- 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.CIT DR MR.S.K.G UPTA APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. HIS FIRST PLANK OF ARGUMENT WAS THAT ONCE AN AGREEMENT WAS EX ECUTED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES AND A PART CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED THEREFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TOOK PLACE T HEN AND THERE HENCE THE AO WAS RIGHT IN IMPOSING THE TAX ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. LD.DR HAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEREFORE ALSO THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD ACCRUED WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MR.GUPTA, CIT HAS A LSO PLEADED THAT THE MOU SHOULD BE READ IN FULL, THEREFORE, AS PER T HE MAIN TERMS & CONDITIONS THE SALE WAS EXECUTED AND THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. LD.DR HAS REFERRED SOME OF THE CLAUSES OF THE MOU F OR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO ARRANGE THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE AND THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PA RT WAS REQUIRED TO ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 13 - PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT, HENCE THE AGREEMENT WAS I N ABSOLUTE TERMS THEREFORE THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD ACCRUED TO ASSESSEE ON THE DAY WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED. E) CONCLUSION:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT LENGTH. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED AND THE CASE LAWS CITED. AT THE OUTSET, WE CAN PLACE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF I.T. ACT DO NOT STRICTLY APPLY ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THIS CASE. AS PER THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION, THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OF A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT INCLUDES ALL INCOME F ROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, WHICH IS RECEIVED OR IS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA OR ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE TO HIM IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE INDIA. THEREFORE THE LIABILITY TO PAY INCOME TAX ON AN INCOME IS WHEN IT ARISES OR ACCRUES TO A PERSON. WHILE DISCUSSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION SUB-SEC.(1) OF S ECTION 5, THE HONBLE COURTS HAVE OPINED THAT THE TWO WORDS ACCR UE AND ARISE ARE USED TO CONTRADISTINGUISH THE WORD RECEIVE. A N INCOME IS SAID TO BE RECEIVED WHEN IT REACHES THE ASSESSEE BUT IT MAY NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN TERMS OF SECTION 5(1) OF THE ACT. AN ENFOR CEABLE LEGAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE AN INCOME SHOULD VEST WITH THE ASSESSEE. AN ACCRUAL OF INCOME DEPENDS UPON THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT. THOS E TERMS SHOULD GIVE RISE A DEFINITE RIGHT TO THE RECIPIENT. MERELY RECEIPT IS NOT THE ONLY TEST OF CHARGEABILITY TO TAX. IN THIS CON TEXT, WE MAY ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME IS CERTAINLY A WELL ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 14 - ACCEPTED RULE. THIS CONCEPT IS TO BE APPLIED IN APP ROPRIATE CASES BUT WITH CIRCUMSPECTION. AN INCOME WHICH HAS REALLY AC CRUED OR ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE , ONLY THEN TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS. REALITY OF ACCRUAL CAN BE JU DGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. WHETHER A N ACCRUAL HAD TAKEN PLACE OR NOT, MUST BE JUDGED IN APPROPRIATE C ASES ON THE PRINCIPLE OF REAL INCOME THEORY. IF A PAYMENT HA S BEEN MADE EITHER AS A RESULT OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OR AS A RESULT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, THEN IT IS RELATED TO THE PROFITS. BUT IF A PAYMENT IS ATTACHED WITH CERTAIN OBLIGATION OR THE PAYMENT IS SUBJECT TO AN OVERRIDING TITLE, THEN SUCH A RECEIPT CANNOT BE SAI D TO ACCRUE TO THE RECIPIENT. THEREFORE, IF NO INCOME RESULT AT ALL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAX. WITH THIS LEGAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE T O SEE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, A DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL DATED 27/05/2004. FACTS HAVE REVEALED THAT IT WAS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. FACTS HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT NO TITLE OR THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. RATHER THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT WAS NOT LEGALLY SOUND SO AS TO ENFORCE THE TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THIS DOCUMENT CANNOT BE HELD AS AN AGREEMENT, BUT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING IT WAS SIMPLY A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU). EVEN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF WAS T ITLED AS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 15 - 5.1 ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE PAYMENT, AS ENUNCI ATED IN ONE OF THE CLAUSE WAS THAT, A SUM OF RS.3 LACS WAS TO BE R ECEIVED FROM THE PARTY ON THE OTHER SIDE, I.E. SHRI KARTIK J. PATE L AND REMAINING AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE D ATE OF THE MOU, OUT OF WHICH RS.2 CRORES WAS TO BE PAID WITHIN 12 M ONTHS. THERE IS ONE MORE CLAUSE THAT PARTY OF THE ONE SIDE, I.E. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ARRANGE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE TIT LE. THERE WERE CERTAIN RIDERS AS WELL, WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE R EMOVED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PAYMENT TERMS OF THE MOU. FROM T HE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT A DISPUTE HAD CROPPED UP BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WHICH W AS RECEIVED CONSEQUENCE UPON THE EXECUTION OF THE MOU, WAS REFU NDED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. A CHEQUE ( NO.252243 DEPOSI TED IN HDFC BANK OF THE COMPANY) OF RS.16,00,000/- AND A CASH O F RS.5,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 14/06/2004, HOWEVER, UNDISPUTEDLY THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.21 LACS( RS. 16 LACS VIDE CHEQUES BEAR ING NO.338867&338877 AND 5 LACS CASH) WAS RETURNED ON 15.6.2004, I.E. VERY NEXT DAY . IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE, EVEN THE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALSO NOT INDICATED, THAT THE POSSESS ION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS EVER HANDED OVER TO SHRI K ARTIK J.PATEL, PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, ON EXECUTION OF THE AGREE MENT. 5.2 TO STREAMLINE THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CONNECTED SECTION, I.E. SECTION 2(47) WHICH DEFINES TRANSFER MEANS, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, (I) THE S ALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF ASSET, (II) THE EXTIN GUISHMENT OF ANY ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 16 - RIGHTS THEREIN, (III) COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND (I V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMM OVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT. WE ARE NOW EXAMINING THE CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 2(4 7) OF THE ACT TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY. THIS CLAUSE REFERS SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 WHICH DEFINES PART PERFORMANCE, MEANS WHERE ANY PERSON CONTRACTS TO TRANSFER FOR CONSIDER ATION ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WRITING SIGNED BY HIM WHICH C AN BE ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY AND THE TRANS FEREE HAS IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TRANSFEREE HAS PERFORMED HIS PART OF CONTRACT, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT WHEN THERE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER AND THAT THE TRANSFER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED IN THE MANNER P RESCRIBED, THEREFORE BY THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, T HE TRANSFEROR SHALL BE DEBARRED FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE T O CONTINUE WITH THE POSSESSION OTHER THAN A RIGHT EXPRESSLY PROVIDE D BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. ON PLAIN READING, IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT TRANSFEREE SHOULD TAKE OVER THE POSSESSION OR SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THE POSSESSION ONLY WHEN THE TRANSFEREE HAS PERFORMED HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT. AGAIN IT IS IMPORTANT THAT A TRANSFEROR I S TO HANDOVER THE POSSESSION IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. A TRANSFEROR IS ALSO UNDER OBLIGATION TO OTHERWISE COMPLETE ALL FORMALIT IES IN PERFORMANCE OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. HOWEVER, STRICTLY SPEAKING THE TERMS OF THESE CLAUSES HAVE NOT BEEN A CCOMPLISHED IN THE MOU UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE PART OF THE TR ANSFEROR, I.E. THE ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 17 - ASSESSEE, THE PROCUREMENT OF CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE, ETC. WERE NOT TENDERED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE POSSESSION WAS NO T HANDED OVER. RATHER ON DEMAND THE ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS.21 LACS W AS RETURNED BACK TO THE TRANSFEREE. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) R.W.S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y ACT HAVE NOT BEEN ADHERED TO BY EITHER SIDE, THEREFORE, IT WAS W RONG ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO HOLD THAT TRANSFER OF PRO PERTY TOOK PLACE VIDE IMPUGNED MOU. 5.3. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT P OSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WITH SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL. THIS F ACT WAS ESTABLISHED DUE TO THE REASON THAT CONSEQUENCE UPON THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE DEPARTM ENT HAS ATTACHED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND VIDE AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 19/03/2007 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, CENTRAL-1, AHMEDABAD HAD ADDRESSED THE ATTACHMENT O RDER TO SHRI VIKASH A.SHAH BY REFERRING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION . MOREOVER, THERE WAS AN ORDER U/S.281B OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 12 /09/2006 WHEREIN AS WELL AT SL.NO.23 THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIO N WAS ATTACHED IN THE NAME OF MUKTINAGAR CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY, VIBHA G-II IN POSSESSION WITH MANSI BUILDERS LTD. AND SHRI VIKASH A.SHAH BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND. THOSE RECOVERY NO TICES AND THE ATTACHMENT ORDER OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAVE ITS ELF ESTABLISHED THAT THE POSSESSION HAD IN FACT VESTED WITH THE ASS ESSEE OR WITH ONE ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 18 - OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT NO POSSESS ION WAS HANDED OVER TO SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL. 5.4. IT IS VERY PECULIAR THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMEN T HAD NEVER EXAMINED SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL THOUGH IT WAS ALLEGED THAT BEING PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY HE HAD PAID OR YET TO PAY THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT UNDER DISPUTE OF RS.10,79,00,000/-. IF THE REVENUE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN FACT THE PROPERTY HAD TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL, THEN IT WAS QUITE OBVIOUS TO INVEST IGATE THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF SHRI KARTIK PATEL. AS FAR AS THE ASS ESSEE IS CONCERNED, A PHOTOCOPY OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OF SHRI KARTIK J.PATEL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS ALSO FURNISHED DEPICTING THE SOURCE INC OME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND PROFITS AND GAINS AS PER P&L ACCOUNT OF SHANTAM ELECTRONICS. THOSE RECOR DS OF SHRI KARTIK PATEL HAVE NOT REVEALED ABOUT THE TRANSACTIO N IN QUESTION AND ALSO DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE HUGE INVESTMENT WAS EVER MADE BY HIM IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 5.5. WE CAN THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT SINCE THE AMOUN T AS PASSED ON IN TERMS OF THE MOU DATED 27/05/2004 WAS RETURNED BACK THE VERY NEXT DAY TO THE ALLEGED TRANSFEREE AND THE POSSESSI ON OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED WITH THE TRANSFEROR, I.E. THE ASSESSEE. TH US THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO INCIDENCE OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS IMMATER IAL WHETHER THE ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 19 - ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BECAUSE AN INCOME CAN BE CHARGED TO TAX WHEN IT IS EARNED THROUGH AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT SO THAT ASSESSABLE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CASES WHERE A TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERT Y ITSELF IS HAVING A QUESTION MARK, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE N THE INCIDENCE OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME BECAME DOUBTFUL. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT THE TRANSFEROR, I.E. ASSESSEE, HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED HIS PART OF PERFORMANCE, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR AN Y CLAIM OF CONSIDERATION. HENCE THE RESULT IS THAT THE SAID C ONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AT TH E END THE OUT COME OF THE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION IS THAT WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION IN QUESTION HAD NOT AT ALL ACCRUED OR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN ITS HA NDS. THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE EXONERATED FROM LEVY OF TAX. THUS, TH E GROUND IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/ 9 /2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30 / 9 /2011 7.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 914/AHD/2005 MANSI BUILDERS LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 20 - (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*& (6 2 /&8 (8*&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ & %9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. %9() / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 8<= /& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >3 / GUARD FILE. (6% (6% (6% (6% / BY ORDER, 08& /& //TRUE COPY// / // / $ $ $ $ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 19.09.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.09.2011 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 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 30.9.11. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.9.11 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