Shri Yogesh M.Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 605/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJASR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 32; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T.(SS)A. NO. 605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-1986 TO 20-10-1997) SHRI YOGESH M. SHAH 8 PANCHSHEEL SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD-380 013 (APPELLANT) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, NEAR PANJARA POLE, AHMEDABAD-15 (RESPONDENT) PAN: AGDPS3640P APPELLANT BY : MR. S.N. DIVATIA RESPONDENT BY : MR.O.P. BHATEJA,SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 18-7 - 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7- 9 -2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)- XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25-10-2011. 2. IN THIS CASE SEARCH U/S. 131 OF THE ACT WAS CARR IED OUT AT THE OFFICE CUM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI PINAKIN SHAH ON 6- 10-1997. DURING THE SEARCH ASSESSEE WAS SEEN PRESENT AT THE SEARCHED PR EMISES. CERTAIN PROMISSORY NOTES, CHEQUE BOOKS ETC., WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 2 ASSESSEES POSSESSION. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ORDER U/S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC WAS PASSED ON 29-10-1999 AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.9,30,000 ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FROM ASSESSEES POSSESSION. MEANWHILE ON11-11-1997 ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE UNDER VDIS 1997. SINCE THE DECLARATION U NDER VDIS 1997 WAS MADE ON 11-11-1997 AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS AND PROMISSORY NOTES WERE FOUND ON 6-10-1997, OUT OF TH E TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.9,30,000/-, THE A.O. TAXED RS.4,50,000/- AS ASSE SSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE BALANCE RS.4,80,000./- BELONGING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROV IDED ANY BREAK UP OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF FAMILY MEMBERS. THE A.O. ALSO DID NOT ALLOW THE CREDIT OF TAX PAID UNDER VDIS FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEES DISCLOSURE OF RS.4,50,000/- WAS COVERED UNDER RESTR ICTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 64(2)(II) OF FINANCE ACT, 1997 AND THEREFOR E, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 64(1). 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BUT HOWEVER DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF TAX PAID UNDER VDIS,199 7. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. HONBLE ITAT REJECTED APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE ADDITION OF RS.4,80,000/- THAT WAS CONFIR MED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE (REPRESENTING ADVANCE MADE TO FAMILY M EMBERS) A.O. WAS OF IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 3 THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY DISCLOSING THE FULL FACTS OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,80,000/- BOTH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL AND HE THEREFORE, VIDE ORDER DATED 26-2-2009 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.3,23,000/- U/S. 158BFA(2). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER OF A.O., THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25-10-201 1 CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH VARIOUS CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY HIM. THE BASIC CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A DISCLOSU RE OF INCOME RELATED TO THE DOCUMENTS UNDER VDIS 1997.THE DISCLO SURE WAS MADE BY HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIOUS CLARIFICATION S ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DECLARATION WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPEL LANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORI TY WHO ACCEPTED THE DECLARATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF T HE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE ITA T HAS HELD THAT THE DECLARATION WAS NOT A VALID DECLARATION. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE AMOU NT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT THAT TAX APPEAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT AND THE ISSUE, THEREFORE, IS DEBATABLE AND NO PENALTY SHOUL D BE IMPOSED, IT IS NOTED THAT THE DECISION OF RUPAM MERCANTILE LTD., S UPRA MENTIONED BY HIM RELATES TO THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . THE BASIS OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF PENALTY U/S.158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. WHILE IMP OSING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE WHETHER THE AD DITION MADE WAS DEBATABLE OR THERE WERE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE ABOUT TH E ADDITION IS RELEVANT, WHEREAS IT IS NOT RELEVANT FOR IMPOSING T HE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE ITAT WHICH IS THE LAST FACT FINDING IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 4 AUTHORITY HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE VDIS DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LEGAL AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT CANNOT TAKE THE SHELTER OF THE FACT THAT IT HAD MADE A VDIS DECLARATION. THE HONBLE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE IS SUE HAS DISCUSSED THE REASONS OF NOT ACCEPTING THE VALIDITY OF VDIS I N PARA 8.6 AND 8.7 OF THE ORDER. THE A.O. WAS THEREFORE RIGHT IN HOLDI NG THAT VIDS DECLARATION MADE BY APPELLANT WAS INCORRECT. NOW, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ANY PENALTY CAN BE IMPOS ED ON THE BASIS OF THIS ADDITION U/S.158BFA (2) OF THE ACT. T HE CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION 158 BFA(2) SHOW THAT THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XIVB MAY DI RECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY ON THE TAX LEVIA BLE ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE A.O. U/S. 158B C (C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTION AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO IS APPENDED TO THE EFFECT THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF A PERSON, IF SUCH PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETURN U/S .158BC(C ) AND TAXES HAVE BEEN DULY PAID AND EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED AND THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IS NOT CHALLENGED IN AN AP PEAL OR NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF THA T PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER, IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE SECTION, AGAIN A PROVISO HAS BEEN ADDED, I.E. SECOND PROVISO, ACCORDING TO WHICH, WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE A.O. IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME S HOWN IN THE RETURN, THEN THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT P ORTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION158BFA (2) IS APPLICABLE T O CASES WHERE THE FIRST PROVISO TO THE SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY. T HE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE SECOND PROVISO OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 158BFA OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF NIL I NCOME AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.4,80,000 /-. THE PENALTY U/S. 158BFA (2) IS, THEREFORE, EXIGIBLE ON THE APPE LLANT AND THE SAME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, T HE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL OF ASS ESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 5 7. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE ON 6-10-1997 HAD VISITED THE RESIDENCE OF ONE SHRI PINAKIN SHAH WHER E A SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS BEING CARRIED OUT. SINCE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT AT TH AT PLACE, THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN TO HIS RESIDENCE AND UNDATED AND UNNAMED BLANK CHEQUES AND BLANK PROMISSORY NOTES WERE SEIZED BY THE SEARCH PA RTY AND RECORDED IN THE PANCHNAMA OF SHRI PINAKIN SHAH. THE LD. A.R, SU BMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE NOR THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED DURING THE ENTIR E OPERATION THOUGH HE WAS PRESENT THERE. ON 6-11-1997 AN IMPORTANT CLARIF ICATION WAS PUBLISHED IN TIMES OF INDIA WHEREIN IT WAS CLARIFIED BY MR. A .K. BATABAYAL (MEMBER, CBDT) THAT PERSONS IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH IS NOT INI TIATED OR IN WHOSE CASE STATEMENTS ARE NOT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH OR ASSETS NOT SEIZED CAN AVAIL OF VDIS 1997. THE LD. A.R. PLACED ON RECORD THE LETTER OF MEMBER CBDT DATED 17-10-1997, COPY OF THE PRESS REP ORT IN TIMES OF INDIA DATED 6-11-1997. RELYING ON THE AFORESAID CLA RIFICATION ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AND HIS SON ON 11-11-1997 FILED DECLARATION UN DER VDIS, 1997 DISCLOSING THE AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.9.30 LACS FOR WH ICH EVEN A CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY CBDT ON 13-11-2007. 8. THE A.O. DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT THE DECLARATION MADE UNDER VDIS WAS ILLEGAL AND THEREFO RE ASSESSED THE INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ON THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME THE PENALTY OF RS.3,23,000/- U/S.158BFA (2) WAS LEVIED. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DECLARATION UNDER VDIS RELYING ON THE BASIS OF VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE MEMBER CBDT AND THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED IN THE PRESS. IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 6 THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CBDT ON 13- 11-1997 HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED BY CBDT. THE LD. A.R . SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS BONAFID E AND GENUINE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF T HE LAW RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF VDIS SCHEME. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CBDT ON 13-11-1997 HAS NOT BE EN CANCELLED BY CBDT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLARATION M ADE UNDER VDIS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF RAJIV EN TERPRISE VS. ACIT IN IT (SS) A.NO.33/A/01 VIDE ORDER DATED 7-7-2006 THOUGH IT WAS SAME SEARCH AND UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LD. A.R. SU BMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BFA (2) ARE DISCRETIONARY. THE LD. A. R. ALSO RELIED ON DECISIONS OF HARSHVARDAN CHEMICALS & MINERALS LTD. (230 ITR 212), UMA CORPORATION (284 ITR 67) AND OTHER DECISIONS. HE TH EREFORE URGED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY A.O. BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF A.O. AND CIT (A). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANDOI BHOGILAL MULCHAND VS. DCIT (2012) 34 1 ITR 271 (GUJ.). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT SEARCH U/S. 1 32 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE OFFICE CUM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI PINAKIN SHA H ON 6-10-1997. DURING THE SEARCH, ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT AT THE SEARCHED PR EMISES AND CERTAIN PROMISSORY NOTES, CHEQUE BOOKS ETC WERE FOUND AND S EIZED FROM ASSESSEES POSSESSION. ON 11-11-1997 ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE UNDER IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 7 VDIS 1997. ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND ORDER U/S.158BD R.W.S. 158 BC WAS PASSED ON 29-10-1999 AF TER MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.9,30,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL FO UND FROM ASSESSEES POSSESSION. SINCE THE DECLARATION UNDER VDIS 1997 W AS MADE ON 11-11- 1997 AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS AND PRO MISSORY NOTES WERE FOUND ON 6-10-1997, OUT OF THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.9,30,000/-, THE A.O. TAXED THE SUM OF RS.4,50,000/- AS ASSESSEES UNDISC LOSED INCOME AND THE BALANCE OF RS.4,80,000/- BELONGING TO THE FAMILY ME MBERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROT ECTIVE BASIS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY BREAK UP OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF FAMILY MEMBERS. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE, BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES BUT THE APPEAL W AS DISMISSED. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. ON THE ADDITION OF RS.4,80,000/- IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE (REPRESENTING ADVANCE MADE TO FAMILY MEMBERS) THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY HONBLE ITAT,A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY DISCLOSING THE FULL FACTS OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THEREFORE THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL BY THE A.O. AND ACCORDINGLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 26-2-2009 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.3,23,000 /- U/S. 158BFA(2) AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT (A). 12. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLARATION MAD E UNDER VDIS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF RAJIV EN TERPRISE VS. ACIT IN IT(SS) A.NO.33/AHD/01 VIDE ORDER DATED 7-7-2006 THO UGH IT WAS SAME IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 8 SEARCH AND ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS FACT HA S NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE CASE OF GANDHI SERVICE STATION V/S. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (AHD) 1143 THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS, MAIN CLAUSE AND IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE DEPARTMENT HAS TO P ROVE FACTUM OF CONCEALMENT. QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE D ISTINCT AND SEPARATE AND WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF PENALTY, FACTS CAN BE RECONSIDERED. 14. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARKARAN DAS VED PAL (20 11) 336 ITR 8 (DEL) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A BONAFIDE SURRENDER AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS COMPUTED MERELY ON T HE BASIS OF SUCH SURRENDER, NO PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSABLE U/S. 158BF A (2). THIS WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE A.O. UNDER CL. (C) OF SEC. 158BC WHICH IS THE REQUIREMEN T FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 15. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DIS CLOSURE UNDER VDIS, 1997 RELYING ON THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN NEWSPAPER REPORT AND THE LETTER OF CBDT, THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-11-1997 ISSUED BY CBDT BEING STILL VALID AND HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE MALAFIDE. THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE. FURTHER, THE DECLARATION MADE UNDER VD IS IN THE CASE OF RAJIV ENTERPRISES WHERE IT WAS SAME SEARCH AND ON IDENTIC AL CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS BEEN UPHELD BY ITAT. THE DECISION RELIED BY REVENUE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 9 FACTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND RELYING ON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CITED HEREIN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 16. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 7 - 9- 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) XIV, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD IT(SS) A . NO.605/AHD/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD 3-11-86 TO 20-10- 97 . 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 27 - 8 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 28,29,4,6 / 8-9 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER