Shri Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 244/AHD/2014

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2008-09. The first appeal contested the addition made to the assessee's income due to unexplained sources of investment in property amounting to Rs. 50,10,000/-. The second appeal challenged the penalty imposed for concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of investment through agricultural income and cash on hand, which was supported by substantial evidence including income tax returns, cash books, and wealth tax returns.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133675 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘बी बीबी बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd/2014 िनधा榁रणवष榁/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi, 44, Yogeshwar Bungalows, Gulab Tower Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380059 PAN : AAUPD 7851 Q Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi, 17, Kalhar Exotica, Anmol, Nr. Sukhan Bungalows, Science City Road, Sola Ahmedabad – 3800060 PAN : AAUPD 7851 Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸/ (Appellant) 灹瀄 灹瀄 灹瀄 灹瀄 यथ牸 यथ牸यथ牸 यथ牸/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई क琉 तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क琉 तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee; one against the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad in quantum proceedings arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for AY 2008-09 and the other is against the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the 2 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment /furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income pertaining to the addition made to the income of the assessee in quantum proceedings. Since both the appeals are interrelated, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. We shall first deal with the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceedings in IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd/2014 for A.Y 2008-09. 3. At the outset itself learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the solitary grievance of the assessee in the present appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) was in confirming the addition made to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained source of investment in a property to the extent of Rs.50,10,0000/- applying the provisions of section 69A of the Act. It was pointed out that against the investment in cash made by the assessee in the property of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee’s explanation of source of the same to the tune of Rs.4,66,771/-, which the ld. CIT(A) had enhanced and accepted the explanation to the tune of Rs.99,90,000/-, thus confirming the addition to the tune of Rs.50,10,000/-. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard, therefore, are as under:- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts while considering an amount of Rs.99,90,000/- as the funds available for the purpose of investment in 17, Kalhaar Exotica as against Rs.1,50,00,000/- claimed by the appellant, being out of agricultural income of the family for the period 1981 to 2008. In view of the facts, details and evidences submitted, entire investment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in 17, Kalhaar Exotica being out of agricultural income of the family of the last 28 years, requires to be considered, as against considered by 3 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 the AO of Rs.4,66,771/- which has been considered by CIT(A) of Rs.99,90,000/-. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law while confirming addition of Rs.50,10,000/- in the year under consideration as unexplained investment in 17, Kalhaar Exotica, ignoring the fact that the same was out of Opening Balnace of the Cash on Hand which has been accepted by the AO as Cash on Hand in all the earlier years. Therefore, this year being application of the said funds, addition made in the year under consideration requires to be deleted.” 4. The facts relating to the issue, as emanate from the orders of the authorities below, are that during the course of search at the premises of Shri Govind Atmaram Dalwadi, a small diary was found and seized and the contents of the same revealed that one plot, No. 17 at Kalhaar Exotica, had been purchased by the assessee and Smt. Naynaben D. Dalwadi from Smt. Pratima Bharatbhai Patel and Smt. Arunaben Dashrathbhai Patel on 28.04.2008 for a total consideration of Rs.1,64,13,800/-. However, the sale deed reflected consideration of only Rs.12,00,000/- and the remaining payment of Rs.1,53,08,800/- was made in cash. This fact was admitted by the assessee. Out of aforesaid amount, Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid during the impugned year in three installments of Rs.50,00,000/- each on 22.01.2008, 27.02.2008 and 19.03.2008. On being asked to explain the source for the same, the assessee contended that it was out of cash accumulated by the assessee and his family from agricultural activities carried out over the past many years and, in evidence, he filed returns of income of all members of the family for the past 28 years reflecting agricultural income therein, evidence of land holding and crops grown therein by way of statement in Form 7/12, copy of cash book for all the years – initially kept manually by different family members and subsequently in computerized form reflecting the availability of cash for making impugned investment and also copy of some invoices of sale of crop. The Assessing Officer, however, on the basis of the land holding 4 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 documents produced before him inferred therefrom that at the most the family of the assessee could have earned agricultural income over the years, since 1981, to the tune of Rs.4,66,771/- only and accordingly granted relief for the source of investment in the impugned property to this extent only confirming addition of the balance amount as remaining unexplained. 5. When the matter was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the contentions made before the Assessing Officer and further pointed out the anomalies and discrepancies of the Assessing Officer while calculating the agricultural income which the family members of the assessee could have earned over the years since 1981. Learned CIT(A) found merit in the contention of the assessee in this regard and accordingly taking note of the same, he arrived at his own figure of agricultural income ,which the assessee along with his family members could have earned over the years, at Rs.1,50,00,000/- as opposed to Rs.4,66,771/- calculated by the Assessing Officer. Reducing this agricultural income by 10% for agricultural expenses which may have been incurred for earning of the same, he held that the cash generated from agricultural activities of the assessee and his family members over the years would amount of Rs.99,90,000/- and to this extent he held the source of investment in the property purchased by the assessee in Kalhaar Exotica could be treated as explained. Accordingly, he reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained source of investment to Rs.50,10,000/- and thus aggrieved by this the assessee has now come up in appeal before us. 6. Brief synopsis of the arguments in writing was filed by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us and referring to the same, arguments were made before us. The gist of the arguments made by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee is that both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have partly 5 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 accepted assessee’s explanation of the source of investment as being out of accumulated agricultural income of the family of the assessee from the past several years, based on their estimation of agricultural income which the assessee could have earned from lands held by it. That while doing so they have totally ignored the strong and speaking evidences filed by the assessee explaining the entire source of investment. 7. Drawing our attention to paragraph Nos. 4.5 to 4.11 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the learned CIT(A) in these paragraphs accepted the anomalies pointed out by the assessee in the estimation of agricultural income resorted to by the Assessing Officer and thereafter arrived at his own estimation of the agricultural income being Rs.1,11,00,000/-. 8. He drew our attention to paragraph No. 4.5 of the order pointing out that the ld. CIT(A) noted in the said paragraph the assessee’s explanation of the source of investment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in 17, Kalhaar Exotica as being made out of the cash in hand of different family members supported with the agricultural income shown in the cash book – copy of which submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings along with evidences in support of agricultural income. He also drew our attention to paragraph no. 4.6 of the order pointing out there from that the ld. CIT(A) noted the first aspect of the mistake in the AO’s calculation of agricultural income earned by the family of the assessee at Rs.4.66,771/-, that the Assessing Officer had not considered the entire agricultural land held by the family. The learned CIT(A), he pointed out, noted and accepted the mistake of the Assessing Officer that while the Assessing Officer had taken the total area of land with the assessee and his family members from the year 1981 onwards at 504 bighas, the actual land holding was in fact 1029.7 bighas. From 6 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 paragraph no. 4.7 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), he pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) accepted in this paragraph the mistake pointed out by the assessee vis- à-vis yield of jowar which was noted by the Assessing Officer from the land holding of the assessee finding ultimately that yield taken by the Assessing Officer was required to be increased roughly by 1.5 times. From paragraph no.4.8 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), he pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) accepted the mistake committed by the Assessing Officer of having taken the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of the crops, when the actual selling price, for which evidence was also submitted by the assessee, had been provided. He pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) noted on account of the same with respect to the crop of jowar itself, the amount taken by the Assessing Officer of Rs.4,66,771/- would be equivalent to roughly Rs.28,00,000/-. From paragraph no. 4.9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer accepted the mistake pointed out by the assessee of the Assessing Officer of having accepted only one crop grown in the land owned by the family i.e. jowar; whereas the evidence produced by the assessee showed three crops in a year i.e. jowar, wheat and pulses. Accordingly, he noted that the gross receipt from the different crops so grown would be Rs.58,10,000/- relating to wheat crop, Rs.24,90,000/- with respect to pulses, taking the total agricultural income of the assessee and his family members over the years from three major crops grown i.e. jowar, wheat and pulses to Rsx.1,11,00,000/-. He, thereafter, drew our attention to paragraph no.4.11 of the order pointing out there from that from this yield the ld. CIT(A) further reduced 10% to factor in the agricultural expenses and considered an amount of Rs.99,90,000/- as the reasonable amount of agricultural income generated by the assessee and his family members over the years which could explained the source of investment in the property at Kalhaar Exotica. 7 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 9. Having so pointed out, the learned Counsel for the assessee thereafter contended that both the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) resorted to estimation of the agricultural income earned by the assessee and his family members over the years arriving at their own figures though the assessee had supported his contention of the entire investment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in the property being out of agricultural income of the family by way of filing income-tax returns of all the family members for all the past years right from 1981 reflecting income of Rs.1,80,30,251/-. Our attention was drawn to the details of agricultural income shown in the return of income of the different family members of the assessee for the past many years from AY 1965-66 onwards to AY 2009-10 reproduced at page nos. 34 & 35 of the CIT(A)’s order as under:- “Details of Agricultural income shown in Return of Income Asst. Year Govindbhai Dalwadi Arvindbhai Dalwadi Dipakbhai Dalwadi Shantaben Dalwadi Govindbhai Dalwadi HUF Deepakbhai Dalwadi HUF Arvindbhai Dalwadi HUF TOTAL 1965-66 72400 72400 1966-67 93250 93250 1967-68 105800 105800 1968-69 103450 103450 1969-70 177100 177100 1970-71 169750 169750 1971-72 207300 207300 1972-73 212950 212950 1973-74 215800 -* 215800 1974-75 224750 224750 1975-76 164150 164150 1976-77 192700 192700 1977-78 185900 185900 1978-79 325600 325600 1979-80 353750 353750 1980-81 353850 353850 1981-82 198751 198751 1982-83 235241 168571 0 80566 484378 1983-84 273657 205714 0 85564 564935 1984-85 304657 237857 155168 90168 787850 1985-86 341957 264857 170125 95125 872064 1986-87 398343 299457 186615 99755 39000 24000 27000 1074170 8 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 1987-88 371604 322142 198650 105675 41454 26454 28500 1094479 1988-89 384275 325714 210785 109850 55542 40542 42560 1169268 1989-90 345482 334286 223565 114731 50467 35467 38520 1142518 1990-91 316844 293143 248648 117854 53972 38972 45600 1115033 1991-92 340714 265714 260800 122650 57196 42196 42196 1131466 1992-93 29200 248571 275847 127548 58015 43015 48500 830696 1993-94 38500 36942 300850 35890 58125 48125 48125 566557 1994-95 31180 29000 35465 37875 64897 54897 54897 308211 1995-96 35500 40000 40000 40675 67897 57987 57897 339956 1996-97 44300 41650 42650 42253 72154 62154 62154 367315 1997-98 43830 44460 20000 47655 75164 65164 65164 361437 1998-99 45800 44400 44500 52565 77654 67654 67654 400227 1999-00 40850 44600 40600 54785 66258 61258 69850 378201 2000-01 45200 46450 0 58620 150270 2001-02 47300 46000 45950 62152 201402 2002-03 43700 48750 44350 64544 201344 2003-04 45100 43500 44700 68753 202053 2004-05 43950 43600 43850 0 131400 2005-06 43250 43100 45150 0 131500 2006-07 44200 41800 42500 0 128500 2007-08 43200 43400 43700 0 64950 195250 2008-09 42650 44300 43100 0 55200 185250 2009-10 43250 48900 0 0 65120 157270 TOTAL 7468135 3745528 2857518 1715253 1091595 667885 698617 18030251 10. It was further pointed out that this evidence was filed during the assessment proceedings itself, but both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) had chosen to ignore the same. 11. Thereafter, it was pointed out that even cash book of all the members of the family was filed as evidence of sufficient cash in hand available for making investment in the property. It was pointed out that the veracity of the cash book was established since it reflected the same agricultural income as shown in the returns of income along with details of various crops from which it was earned. Our attention was drawn to these details reproduced at page nos. 35 to 41 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order, demonstrating the fact that the cash books of all the family members reflected the same agricultural income as returned for tax in their returns of income. 9 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 12. It was also pointed out that the cash in hand available with the different family members over the years from 2006-07 to 2010-11, as reflected in their cash books over the years, was reflected in the Wealth Tax Returns of the family members for the said years which was accepted by the Department also. 13. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that all these glaring evidences explaining entire source of investment in the property at 17, Kalhaar Exotica were totally ignored by the ld. CIT(A). He further pointed out from paragraph no. 4.11 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) that he had made no comments vis-à-vis the evidence of agricultural income reflected in the income-tax returns of all the family members of the assessee. He further pointed out that the cash balance reflected in the cash book of the different family members and the wealth tax returns filed by different family members, the ld. CIT(A) had agreed with the learned Counsel for the assessee that these evidences supported the assessee’s explanation, but having said so, he accepted the explanation only to the extent of Rs.99,90,000/- giving no benefit for the balance without assigning any reason. Our attention was also drawn to paragraph no. 4.11 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard and the relevant portion of paragraph no. 4.11 of order are as under:- “... Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and figures as discussed above, the agricultural income calculated by the AO of Rs.4,66,771/- can be worked out at Rs.99,90,000/-. Other contention has been raised by the appellant that books of accounts has been maintained by each of the family members and agricultural income has been shown in the return of income. As well as the agricultural income is supported by evidences, all are considered in above working. The mistakes in working the amount of agricultural income have already been discussed. The other issues such as Opening Cash on Hand as at; 1/4/2003 as well as at 1/4/2007 has been accepted by tine AO and Wealth Tax has been paid by the various family members. It is also seen from the Assessment Order that in para. No. 2.2 of the Assessment Order, the A.O. on the basis of personal balance sheet submitted to the A.O. has worked out cash 10 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 on hand in the personal balance sheet of the various family members as on 1/4/2003 of Rs. 1,41,20,707/-. This cash on hand inter alia includes cash balance of Rs. 16,15,027/- in the name of the applicant. During the course of appeal, the appellant has drawn my attention to the submission dated 12/12/2011 filed before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings on 14/12/2011 wherein the personal cash book of the various family members for the period 1/4/1988 to 31/3/2010 in the case of Naynaben Dalwadi; 1/4/1983 to 31/3/2010 in the case of Dipakbhai Dalwadi; 1/4/1982 to 31/3/2010 in t e case of Govindbhai Dalwadi; 1/4/1981 to 31/3/2010 in the case of Atvindbhai Dalwadi and 1/4/1981 to 31/3/2010 in the case of Shantaben Dalwadi was submttte. The confirmation of the various family members in support of the fact that they have contributed towards the said house was also submitted and all the family members are separately assessed to Income Tax. This fact has also been accepted by the A.O. m the assessment order and no adverse comment has been given. Moreover, the appellant and the family members have also paid Wealth Tax on the cash on hand in support of which evidence were also submitted during the course of appeal hearing. Therefore, when the issue relating to utilization of the said cash on hand comes, the AO cannot take different stand as having accepted in toe cash on tend initially and thereafter denying the application of such cash in hate in making investment in land as mentioned above. A.O. has already given the benefit by working the agricultural income for the years 1981 to 2008 and therefore, does not require separate adjudication. Thus out of the investment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for 17, Kalhar Exotica, source to toe extent of Rs 99 90,000/- is found to be reasonable as against amount worked out by the A.O. of Rs 4,66,771/-. Thus the appellant will get the relief of Rs. 95,23,229/- from the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 1,45,33,229/- and balance Rs. 50,10,000/- is confirmed, and these ground of appeal are disposed accordingly.” 14. The ld. DR, however, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 15. Having heard both the parties and having gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) was totally unjustified in accepting the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of investment in property of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the tune of only Rs.99,90,000/-. As is evidenced from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s explanation of the source of investment being from agricultural income earned by the family members of the assessee 11 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 over the years from 1981 was accepted by the ld. CIT(A), but estimated by him to have been earned to the tune of Rs.99,90,000/- on the basis of his calculation of crops grown by the assessee and his family members on the lands held by them over the period. But, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the assessee’s explanation for the source of investment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was evidenced not only by the documents revealing the land holding by the assessee and his family members but also by the returns of income filed by different family members over this period and the availability of cash was evidenced by that reflected in the Wealth Tax Returns of these persons, and confirmations of the family members all of which have been accepted by the Department. We have noted, as pointed out from the order of the ld. CIT(A), that even the ld. CIT(A) accepts the fact of adequate cash balance reflected in the Wealth Tax Returns of the assessee and his family members and we have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has not commented on the returns of income filed by the different family members over the years evidencing agricultural income earned over the years sufficient to source the investment in property at Kalhaar Exotica of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. In the light of the facts as noted above by us, we see no justification in the ld. CIT(A)’s estimating agricultural income earned by the assessee and his family members to the tune of Rs.99,90,000/- only ,ignoring the other evidences filed by the assessee reflecting incomes of the family members sufficient to financing investment in such property which stood accepted by the Department itself. In view of the same, we hold that the entire source of investment in the Kalhaar Exotica to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- stood adequately explained by the assessee and we, therefore, direct deletion of the amount of investment held by the ld. CIT(A) to have remained unexplained to the tune of Rs.50,10,000/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 12 IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd2014 & ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 Shri Dipakbhai Govindbhai Dalwadi Vs. ITO AY :2008-09 16. Accordingly, the appeal bearing IT(SS)A No. 244/Ahd/2014 is allowed. 17. Since we have deleted the quantum addition, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand; therefore, the penalty is also deleted. Accordingly, the appeal bearing ITA No. 1748/Ahd/2017 is also allowed. 18. In effect, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/07/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/07/2023 **bt आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश क琉 क琉क琉 क琉 灹ितिलिप 灹ितिलिप灹ितिलिप 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत अ灡ेिषतअ灡ेिषत अ灡ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸 / The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸 灹瀄यथ牸灹瀄यथ牸 灹瀄यथ牸 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत संबंिधतसंबंिधत संबंिधत आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर आयु猴 आयु猴आयु猴 आयु猴 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर आयु猴 आयु猴आयु猴 आयु猴)अपील अपीलअपील अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय िवभागीयिवभागीय िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध 灹ितिनिध灹ितिनिध 灹ितिनिध ,आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीयअपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण,/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड榁 गाड榁गाड榁 गाड榁 फाईल फाईलफाईल फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक सहायकसहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकारपंजीकार पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीयअपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ......07.07.2023........ 1. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member :..... 07.07.2023...... 2. Other Member...10.07.2023... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......10.07.2023............. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement...11.07.2023... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S......11.07.2023............. 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk......11.07.2023.......... 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk....... 8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signatureon the order............ 9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................