THE ACIT, Central CIR.-1(4), V. Shri Suresh C.Patel L/H of Late Chhaganbhai I.Patel,

ITSSA 394/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8565 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2003
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Charitable institution; Peak credit; Cost of acquisition; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

-1- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT(AZ) AND MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 19.04.2000 THE ACIT AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI SURESH CHHAGANBHAI PATEL A/1, NANDESWAR TENEMENT OPP.SUN-N-STEP CLUB SOLA ROAD AHMEDABAD PAN: AFU-PP-9382H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK JOHRI , DR ORDER PER MUKUL KR. SHRAWAAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMA- NATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.8.2000. SEVERAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO BE DECIDED SERIALLY HEREIN BELOW. -2- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL 2. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IS THAT AN ASSESS MENT WAS MADE U/S.158BC OF THE ACT DATED 30/04/2002 IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL . A SEARCH U/S.132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 19/ 04/2000 . IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE SAID SEARCH WAS CONDUC TED ON VISHWAS GROUP WHICH WAS HEADED BY THE ASSESSES, I.E. CHHAGA NBHAI PATEL. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A CASH OF RS.4,10,000/ - AND JEWELLERY OF RS.1,06,000/- WAS SEIZED. CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND IN CRIMINATING MATE- RIAL, STATED TO BE IN RESPECT OF LAND TRANSACTIONS, HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND. WITH THIS BRIEF BACKGROUND, WE SHALL NOW PROCEED WI TH THE GROUNDS OF THE CASE. 3. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS. 3.1. IN A CRYPTIC MANNER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT AS PER PAGES 64, 68 AND 70 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SALE OF PLOT DATED 28/01/1992. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WA S THAT THE TRANSAC- TION BELONGED TO ISHWARKRUPA CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY AND THE LAND TRANS- ACTION DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, T HE AO HAS HELD THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.10,000/- WAS TAXED AS UNACCOUNT ED PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND THERE- UPON HELD AS UNDER:- -3- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE A ND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF RELEVANT SEIZED DOCUMENT S. THE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THE VALUE OF PROPERTIES MENTION ED ARE ONLY FOR STAMP PURPOSES AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF PAYME NT OF ANY CONSIDERATION IN THESE DOCUMENTS. THESE ARE AGREEME NTS FOR BENAMI TRANSFER BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF LA ND AND A SO- CIETY OF WHICH APPELLANT WAS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. THERE IS NO MENTION OF PAYMENT OF ANY CONSIDERATION BY THE APPE LLANT IN THESE DOCUMENTS. ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- IS THEREFORE, D IRECTED TO BE DE- LETED. 3.3. ON HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES O NCE IT WAS AN AD- MITTED POSITION THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WERE DISCOV ERED AND THOSE AGREEMENTS HAVE NOT REFERRED ANY CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SIGNATORY ONLY IN THE CAPACITY OF A POWER OF AT TORNEY HOLDER, THERE- FORE, IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETE D THE ADDITION. THE VIEW TAKING BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE DIS- MISSED. 4. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS .5,10,049/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. 4.1. AS PER ANNEXURE A-3, SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH VIDE PAGES 7 TO 13, IT WAS NOTICED THAT A LAND MEASURING 4 ACRES 22GUNT HAS WAS SOLD TO NEW KAUSHIVIHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOU. IN THE F.Y. 1991- 92 FOR A SUM OF RS.4,60,325/-. AS PER AO, THAT LAND WAS CONTROLLE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS HELD AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME. THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SOCIETY BEING CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON, THEREFORE THE AMOUNT FOR THE ACQUISIT ION OF SAID LAND WAS -4- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE ACCOR DINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS.5,,49,000/- WAS MADE. 5. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS, LD. CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS SOLELY BASED ON THE FACT THAT CHHAGANBHAI PATEL WAS MAIN PARTNER OF M/S.ANKINI CORPORATION. AS FIRM IS A SEPARATE ENTITY, WHICH WAS ALSO AS- SESSED TO TAX AND THE LAND WAS BEING DEVELOPED FOR A SOCIETY, THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION IF TO TAKE ACTION U/S.158B D OF THE ACT EITHER AGAINST THE FIRM OR THE SOCIETY AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS. SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, MERELY BECAUSE H E WAS A PART- NER, THE LIABILITY CANNOT BE FASTENED ON HIM INSTEA D OF THE FIRM OR THE SOCIETY AS THE CASE MAY BE. ADDITION OF RS.5,1 0,049/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. IN THE LIGHT OF T HE EXPLANATION OF- FERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID SOCIETY, NAMELY M/S.ANKINI CORPORATION, WHICH HAD H APPENED TO BE A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER GUJARAT CO-OP.SOCIETIES AC T. THIS SOCIETY HAD MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT THE BAL- ANCE-SHEET DRAWN AS ON 31/06/1992 HAD DISCLOSED THE SAID LAND PUR- CHASED FOR A SUM OF RS.4,06,325/- PLUS CONVEYANCE E XPENSES OF RS.29,440/-. AN OBSERVATION WAS ALSO MADE THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAI D SOCIETY. DULY CERTI- FIED COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET WERE FURNISHED BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORI- TIES. ONCE IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THOSE ACCOUN TS THAT THE ASSETS HAD DULY BEEN DISCLOSED THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT NO ACTION WAS REQUIRED IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND, IN -5- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL CASE, IF ANY ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY THE REVENUE DEPART- MENT, THEN THE CORRECT RECOURSE WAS TO INITIATE THE ACTION U/S.158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE SAID SOCIETY. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT IN CLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A), HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDI- TION OF RS. 49,330/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE VEENABEN C PATEL. 7.1. THERE WAS A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEES DAUGHTER MS.VEENABEN C.PATEL OF VIZNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARIK BA NK LTD. AS PER AO, THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS RS.49,3 30/- AS ON 21/03/1995. IT WAS FOUND BY THE A.O.THAT MS. VEENA BEN IS NOT AS- SESSED TO TAX. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED TH AT HER DAUGHTER GOT MARRIED AND SETTLED IN AMERICA. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND THE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FY 1994-95. 7.2. BEFORE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS CONTESTED THAT ASSES SEE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS MARRIED DAUGHTER WHO HAS SETTLED IN USA. ON EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN FACTS AN D EVIDENCES, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER. I FIND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE TO BE COR- RECT. THIS ACCOUNT IS BEING MAINTAINED BY APPELLAN TS DAUGHTER FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD AND BALANCE OF MORE THAN RS.20,000/- WAS LY- ING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BLOCK PERIOD, HENCE, EVEN ON MERITS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ADDED. THERE IS NOT HING ON RECORD -6- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL TO SHOW THAT ANY SUM WAS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS AC- COUNT AND HENCE ONLY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER CAN BE MADE LIABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN A PPELLANTS HAND FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACCOUNT HOLDER STAYED IN AMERICA. ADDITION OF RS.49,330/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 7.3. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDE S, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDINGS ON FACTS OF LD.CIT(A). IT WAS FOUND T HAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY APPELLANTS DAUGHTER FOR A LONG PERIOD, WHO HAS SETTLED ABROAD AFTER MARRIAGE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A CONTROL OVER THE SAID ACCO UNT HENCE DEPOSITED HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY, THEREFORE WE HEREBY UPHELD T HE VIEW OF THE LD.CIT(A).THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS AS WELL DISMISSED. 8. GROUND 4 READS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.8,52,601/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED DEPOSITS TO RS.6,52,601/- 8.1. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT FOR TH IS VERY BLOCK PERIOD, I.E. 1.4.1990 TO 19.4.2000 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AU- THORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD GONE IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT D BE NCH AHMEDABAD AND VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.2006 BEARING AP PEAL NO.IT(SS)A NO.386/AHD/200 VIDE PARA -7, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. THE SIXTH GROUND IS PERTAINING TO RS.6,52,601/- BEING DIFFER- ENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ANNEXURE A-1/32 IS T HE FLOPPY SEIZED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF VISHWAS GROUP. TH IS CONTAINS THE BACKUP DATA OF ALL THE BUSINESS CONCERN RUN BY VISH WAS GROUP -7- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL VAIOBHAV CORPORATION, VISHWAS ASSOCIATES, VISHWAS C ORPORATION FORAM ASSOCIATES,ETC. VARIOUS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILE D ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOWS THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS IS RS.3 ,51,029/- (BAL- ANCE AMOUNT WITH HAPTAGON LTD. IS RS.1,46,647/-, RS .1,78,910/- WITH ANKINI CORPORATION AND RS.25,472/- WITH VAIBHA VI CORPORA- TION) WHILE THE TRIAL BALANCE TAKEN FROM THE SEIZED FLOPPY SHOWS THE AMOUNT AT RS.10,03,630/-. IN THIS YEAR AGRICU LTURAL INCOME SHOWN IS NIL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE IN THE T RIAL BALANCE IT IS RS.1,54,211/- IN THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE DEPOSITOR AC- COUNT OF RS.2,00,0000/- IS SHOWN AS DEPOSIT FROM VE ENABEN C.PATEL. SINCE THE DEPOSITOR IS NOT ASSESSED TO TA X, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED FOR FURNISH THE PARTICULARS FOR CREDIT WORTHI NESS. AFTER CON- SIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIUNG OFFICER TREATED DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED MONEY BROUGHT TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES INCOME UNDER THE HEA D AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT SHO WN IN THE RE- TURN OF INCOME, UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS THEREFORE TRE ATED AS PARKED UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FURNISH THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DETAILS EXCEPT SHOWING THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO SMALL AGRICULTURAL FROM WHOM ASSESSEE WAS USED TO GET SHARE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE AS- SESSEE DID NOT FOUND PROPER BY THE AO SO THE DIFFER ENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF RS.6,52,601/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSIT AMO UNT OF RS.2,00,000/- OF VEENABEN C.PATEL IS NOT CONSIDERE D GENUINE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,52,691 /- IN F.Y. 94-95. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF RS.6,52,601/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL A CCOUNT. 8.2 AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS AND THE BRIEF BACKGRO UND, THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH MADE A REFERENCE OF AN ANOTHER OR DER DATED 27/12/2004 OF APPEAL NO.IT(SS)A NO.424/A/2003 WHER EIN THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. RE-EXAMINA TION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THEN REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE CITED DECISION AND LATER ON CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 7.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PE- RUSED THE RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ITAT HAS SENT BA CK THIS MATTER TO -8- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO R E-EXAMINE THE WHOLE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT, FOLLOW ING THE ABOVE OR- DER OF ITAT, WE ARE ALSO SENDING BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IDENTICAL DIRECTION. 9. SINCE THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCHES HAVE CON SISTENTLY TAKEN A VIEW TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E AO TO EXAMINE AFRESH THE DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THEN TO DECID ED AS PER LAW, HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THAT VIEW WE HEREBY ALSO RES TORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AS PER THE SAID DIRECTIO NS. PARTIES APPEARING BEFORE US HAVE ALSO GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO FOLLOW T HE PAST HISTORY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE MAY B E TREATED AS AL- LOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO.5 READS AS UNDER: 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDI- TION 54,334/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME INTRODUCED BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 10.1. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT AS PER T HE FLOPPY SEIZED DUR- ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THERE WAS A TRIAL BALANCE IN WHICH THE AS- SESSEE HAD SHOWN A SUM OF RS. 54,334/-AS AGRICULTU RE INCOME. HOW- EVER, AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE WAS NO SU CH DISCLOSURE OF AGRI- CULTURE INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, T HE AO HAS TAXED THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN T HE HANDS OF THE AS- SESSEE. 11, THE CIT(A)HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS PER CTI(A), THE -9- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL AGRICULTURE INCOME COULD BE APPELLANTS HUF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE SAID AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOK OF AC COUNTS. IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE AGRICULTURE INCOME BELONGED TO THE HUF THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 12. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REV, LD.DR MR ALOK JOSHI H AS VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS HELD AS HUF PROPERTY. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVENUE DEPART MENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION THAT THERE WAS AN ANCESTR AL AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE DHANPURA WHICH WAS STATED TO BE LOOKED A FTER BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SHARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED AS SEPARATELY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS AGR ICULTURE INCOME. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURE LAND BELONGED TO HUF, BUT THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORT ED BY ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CORROBORATED THAT T HE SAID AGRICULTURE INCOME BELONGED TO THE HUF. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN T HE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS BUT WHY IT WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAX PURPOSES AS PER THE RETURN FILED. EVEN BEFORE US, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE IM PUGNED INCOME WAS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT INCOME OF THE H UF. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT()A) AND AF- FIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO.6 READS AS UNDER: -10- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI T IN THE NAME OF VEENABEN C PATEL AND JYOTSANABEN PATEL 13.1. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE AS- SESSEE TWO FDS WERE RECOVERED WHICH WERE FOUND T O BE PURCHASED IN THE NAMES OF JYOTSANABEN PATEL AND VEENABEN PATEL O F RS.20,000/- EACH. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TH E SAID FDS WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ONE MR.ISHWARBHAI PATEL. HOWEVER, AS PER AO THAT REPLY REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED HENCE TH E SAID SUM OF RS.40,000/- WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 13.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT ONCE IT W AS AN ADMITTED POSI- TION THAT THE DRAFTS WERE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT DRAFTS WERE IN THE NAMES OF JYOTSANABEN AND VEENBEN AND TH ERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE DRAFTS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE. HE HAD HELD THAT THE AD DITION WAS MADE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS AND THE SAME WAS DELETE D. 14. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD.DR HAS STRONGLY OBJECTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS WITHO UT ANY EVIDENCE AND IF AT ALL WITHOUT CONFRONTING TO THE REVENUE DEPAR TMENT. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, IT APPEARS THAT THE BANK OF SHRI IS HWARBAHI M. PATEL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE FIRST TIME, HOWEVER IT WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. KEE PING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES,1962, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT -11- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL NO PREJUDICE SHALL BE CAUSED TO EITHER SIDE IF WE H EREBY RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH THE BANK AC- COUNT OF SHIR ISHWARBHAI.M.PATEL ALLEGED TO HAVE BE EN USED FOR PREPAR- ING THE TWO DEMAND DRAFTS IN QUESTION AND IF ON EXA MINATION IT SHALL BE FOUND CORRECT, THEN CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR- POSES. 15. GROUND NO.7 READS AS UNDER:- 7.THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.70,080/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEP OS- ITS . 15.1. AS PER AO, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTA IN BANK-SLIPS WERE FOUND FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES MARKED AS ANNEXURE A /2.3, PAGE-58. THERE WERE THREE PAY ORDERS, ONE OF RS.30,000/- DAT ED 21/02/1998 AND OTHER TWO PAY ORDERS OF RS.20,040/- EACH BOTH DATED 10/11/1997, AG- GREGATING RS.70,000/-. AS PER THE RECORDS, OUT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THOSE PAY-OR DERS WERE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION THE AO H AS HELD THAT THE UN- ACCOUNTED CASH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE BANK. WITH TH E RESULT THE SAID SUM OF RS.70,080/- WAS TAXED. THE MATTER WAS CARR IED BEFORE LD.CIT(A). 15.2. BEFORE LD.CIT(A), TWO FOLD CONTENTIONS WERE R AISED. FIRST ONE WAS IN RESPECT OF PAY ORDER OF THE RS.30,000/= DT. 21.2.19 98. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DEMAND DRAFT WAS IN FAVOUR O F APPELLANTS SONS -12- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL WIFE, MS. HARSHABEN S.PATEL, DAUGHTER OF SHRI NATHA BHAI BAPATEL A RE- TIRED SCHOOL TEACHER WHO HAD GIVEN THE SAID AMOUNT AS A GIFT TO HIS DAUGHTER. NEXT, IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO AMOUNTS , THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THOSE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BE EN CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING CREDIT FOUND IN THE NAME OF KAMLABE N PATEL AND BHARAT PATEL. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE SEC OND PLANK OF ARGUMENT WAS CONCERNED IT WAS THE DUPLICATION OF AN EARLIER DECISION, WHICH WAS ALREADY CONFIRMED UPTO RS.20,000/-. IN RESPECT O F THE OTHER ADDITION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES, IT WAS DELETED. 15.3. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDE S AND AFTER CONSIDER- ING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WE FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE FIND- INGS ON FACTS OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS DISMISSE D. 16. GROUND NO.8 READS AS UNDER;- 8.THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,79,050/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED GAINS RE- CEIVED ON THE SALE OF LAND. 16.1. AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS ANNEXU RE A-1 PAGES 3 TO 5, 19 TO 23, 25, AND UPTO PAGES 50, IT W AS NOTED THAT A LAND WAS SOLD TO ST.JOSEPH EDUCATION TRUST. UNDISPUTED LY, THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 13/08/1987 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 ,24,000/-. THE DE- TAILS OF PAYMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAID L AND HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO. THE LAND WAS STATED TO BE PURCHASED ALO NG WITH OTHER THREE CO-OWNERS, BUT, LATER ON, THEY HAVE RELINQUISHED TH EIR RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF -13- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT DATED 19/04/1 999 WITH ST.JOSEPH EDUCATION TRUST WHEREIN IT WAS AGREED UPO N TO TRANSACT THE LAND @ OF RS.2 LACS PER BIGHA. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NO TED BY THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.3 LACS WAS HANDED OVER VIDE CHEQUE OF DEN A BANK DATED 11.01.1999. THE FINAL SALE TOOK PLACE ON 01/11/199 9 ON SALE CONSIDERA- TION OF RS.33,10,700/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS DI SCUSSED THAT IN THE PAST THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. IT WAS FOUND THAT A LIABILITY WAS SHO WN AGAINST THE SAID SCHOOL AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET FOR F.Y. 1998-99 . THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT EVEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE LAND WAS NOT DISCLOSED. THEN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF SOME LOOSE-PAGES THROUGH WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AREA OF LAND W AS 16.55 BIGHA AND THE RATE PER BIGHA WAS RS.2,25,000/-. THAT LOOSE P APER WAS STATED TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE PAGES RELATED TO THE TRUST. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT, QUOTE, IT COULD BE BELIEVED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSID ERATION OF THE LAND WAS RS.37,23,750/- INSTEAD OF RS.33,10,000/- AS MEN TIONED IN THE DEED UNQUOTE. AS PER AO, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.4,13,750/- WAS TH E UN- ACCOUNTED MONEY TRANSFERRED. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS DULY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SCHOOL BEING A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST THERE WA S NO POSSIBILITY OF UN- ACCOUNTED TRANSACTION. THE SAID NOTING WAS NOTHING BUT ROUGH NOTING. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE INITIAL OFFER WAS REDUC ED BECAUSE THERE WAS ONGC PIPE-LINE WAS PASSING UNDERNEATH OF THE LAND. IT WAS ALSO EX- PLAINED THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WHATEVER WAS THE GAIN, IT WAS EXEMPT U/S.54B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- -14- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL 5.4. THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT ASSESSE E WAS SELL- ING THIS LAND TO THE PERSON WHO IS NOT GOING TO USE THE LAND FOR THE AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THE BANAKHAT WAS CLEARLY STAT ING THAT IF THE PERMISSION FROM THE COLLECTORATE IS NOT OBTAINED TH EN FURTHER SALE DEALING WILL NOT GO THROUGH. THIS IS WHY THE FINA L SALE DEED IS BASED ON THE ORDER OF MEHSANA COLLECTORATE DATED 28 /07/1999 WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A PERMISSION TO SELL THE LAND FOR NON AGRICUL- TURE PUREPOSE. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE SOLD LAND IS AGRICULTURE LAND SO IF THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THAT IT CAN AVAI L THE BENEFIT U/S.54B OF THE IT ACT THEN IT IS REASONABLY CORRECT . REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS SH OWN IN THE REGULAR RETURN, IT IS STATED THAT THE DEALING REGAR DING THIS LAND TRANSACTIONS CAME INTO PICTURE ONLY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS DISCUSSED ABOVE . SECONDLY, CHHAGANBHAI HAS NOT SHOWN THIS LAND IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR AY 97-98. THER EFORE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WOULD BE PART OF BLOCK ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING. REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDERATION @ 2,25,000 PER BIG HA, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUMENT REGARDING EARLIER NEGO- TIATION RATE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSES SEE IS NOT AC- CEPTABLE. THE CAPITAL GAIN IS THEREFORE IS CALCULATE AS FOLLO WS: TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION = RS.37,23,750 LESS ORIGINAL COST OF THE LAND = RS.3 ,58,073 INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION =RS.3,58,0 73*389/150 = RS. 9,28,603 ========= = RS.27,95,147 ========= THE DALALI EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EFFECTING THE SALE HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AS THERE WAS NOT EVIDENCE IN THE BALANCE S HEET OF -15- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL CHHAGANBHAI WHICH COULD PROVE THAT HE HAD PAID THE DALALI EX- PENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS .23,16,097 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 SAME WILL BE TAXED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED ABOVE OF RS.2 3,16,097 WOULD BE TREATED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL GAIN IN THE BLOCK PE RIOD. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT U/S.54B IS ALLOWED AS THE SALE CONSIDER ATION IS PUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, THUS THE DIFFERENC E IN CAPITAL GAIN SO WORKED OUT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS RS.27,95,147- RS.23,16,097 = R S.4,79,050. [ ADDITION OF RS.4,79,050 IN FY 1999-00] 16.2. BEFORE CIT(A), IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED T HAT THERE WAS SPECIFIC EVIDENCE TO HOLD THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION AS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS THE TRUE AND CORRECT AMOUNT OF CONSID- ERATION. THE BANAKHAT DATED 19/4/1999 HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THE DE- TAILS OF MODE OF PAYMENT. THAT BANAKHAT WAS A REGIS TERED DOCUMENT THROUGH WHICH THE RATE OF LAND WAS FIXED AT RS.2 LA CS PER BIGHA. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT A PERMISSION WAS OBTAINED FROM T HE COLLECTORATE. THE COLLECTOR HAD GRANTED PERMISSION ON 28/7/1999 W ITH CERTAIN CONDI- TIONS, PARTICULARLY ONE OF THE CONDITION WAS THAT THE LAND MUST BE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES . IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTESTED THAT THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 19/4/2000 BUT THE RETURN FOR AY 2000- 01 WAS DUE ON 31/08/2000 AND THE RETURN WAS FILED ON THAT DATE . AS PER THE REGULAR RETURN, FULL DETAILS ABOUT THE SALE TRANSACTIONS OF THE LAND WAS DULY DIS- CLOSED. THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED UNDER CAPITAL GAI N ACCOUNT SCHEME FOR THE INVESTMENT LAND TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL AGRICU LS LANDS TO CLAIM EXEMPT U/.S.54B OF THE ACT. A CONFI RMATION LETTER FROM THE TRUST WAS FURNISHED CONFIRMING THE SALE PRICE AT TH E RATE OF RS.2 LACS PER -16- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL BIGHA. IT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT THE SALE PRI CE AS NOTED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. AFTER APPRECIATING THE EVIDE NCES AND THE ARGUMENTS CIT()A HAS DELETED THEE ADDITION AS PER THE FOLLOWI NG OBSERVATIONS:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE CAREFULLY AND FIND THA T THE ADDITION IS BASED ON MERE NOTINGS OF CERTAIN CALCULATION. THE DOCUMENT IS UNDATED AND IT IS APPARENT FROM THE BANAKHAT THAT T HE CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE AT THE RATE OF RS.2,00,000/- PER BIGHA. THIS FACT IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE TRUST WHICH PURCHASED THIS LAND. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT OVER AND A BOVE THE AP- PARENT CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED DO CUMENT WAS PAID TO THE APPELLANT. THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDE RATION WAS HIGHER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ADDITION OF RS.4,79, 050/- IS DELETED. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HA VE ALSO EXAMINED THE CONTENTS OF COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US CONTAINING BHANAKHAT, DECLARATION OF ST.JOSEPH EDUCATION TRUST, SALE DEED, ETC. AS FAR AS THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS UNDISPUTEDLY IN THE YEAR 1987 (13 TH AUGUST-1987), PRIOR TO THE BLOCK PERIOD I.E. 1.4.1 990 TO 19.04.2000. THEREFORE THE OBJECTION RAISED FROM TH E SIDE OF THE REVE- NUE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBITS OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. NEXT IS THE QUESTION ABOU T THE CORRECTNESS OF -17- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN SUPPORT OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE THE REGISTERED BHANAKHAT DATED 19/04/1999. IT IS E VIDENT FROM THIS AGREEMENT, AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION PLACED ON PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS FIXED AT THE RATE OF RS.2 LACS PER BIGHA. THERE WAS A DESCRIPTION OF EARNEST MONEY AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE CONTENTS OF THE SALE DEED, E XECUTED FOR A CON- SIDERATION OF RS.33,10,700/- WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 1/11/1999. UNDIS- PUTEDLY THAT WAS ALSO A REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. A D ECLARATION FROM THE MANAGING TRUSTEE DATED 26.9.20002 HAS ALSO BEEN PLA CED ON PAGE 18 ON THE COMPILATION THROUGH WHICH IT WAS AFFIRMED TH AT THE PRICE FIXED WAS AT RS.2 LACS PER BIGHA AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.33,10,700/- WHICH WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COMPILATION A LSO CONSISTED THE APPROVAL OF THE COLLECTOR MEHSANA, THROUGH WHICH TH E PERMISSION WAS GRANTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LAND IS TO BE U SED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. THE LOOSE PAPER WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE T IME OF SEARCH WAS THE ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS MADE THE BASIS OF THE I MPUGNED ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE SAID LOOSE PAPER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT FOR FIXATION OF SALES CONSIDERATION. EVE N THE AO HAS USED SUCH LANGUAGE GIVING AN IMPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY, QUOTE, SINCE THIS PAPER WAS ATTACHED WITH THE PAGES RELATABLE TO TRUS T IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IN THIS LAND AT THE TIME O F SALE WAS RS.37,23,750/ UNQUOTE . THERE WAS NO CERTAINTY TH AT, IN FACT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.37,23,750/- INSTEAD OF RS.33,1 0,700/-. THE EXPLANATION OF THE SAID NOTING WAS THAT THERE WAS A BARGAIN FOR RS.2,50,000 PER BIGHA BUT THE PRICE WAS REDUCED WH EN IT WAS FOUND THAT UNDERNEATH THE LAND ONGC LINE WAS PASSING THROUH. IN OUR OPINION, THIS PIECE OF PAPER HAD NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, -18- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL THERE ARE NUMBER OF COGENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE CONSIDERA- TION AS RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE-DEED. THE REFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE DI SCUSSION MADE HEREIN- ABOVE AS ALSO ON APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES PLAC ED ON RECORD, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). THIS GR OUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. REST OF THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO LEGAL ADJUDICATION. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2011 / SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGRAWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31 / 03 / 2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : -19- IT(SS)A NO.394/AHD/2003 THE DCIT VS. SHRI SURESH C.PATEL 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE OF DICTATION..21/03/2011 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21/03/2011 OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 31/3/2011 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31/3/2011 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER