The ACIT, Circle-2, Surat V. Smt. Gopalidevi chandandas Nandwani, Surat

ITSSA 67/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8570 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI; ASSTT C I T CIRCLE SURAT VS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 15

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, SURAT. VS. SMT. GOPALIDEVI CHANDANDAS NANDWANI, L/H MOHINDERKUMAR CHANANDAS NANDWANI, Q-2252, STM, RING ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI R. N. VEPARI, AR AND ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, SURAT. VS. SHRI ATMAPRAKASH P. NANDWANI, PROP.JAY GURU SILK MILLS, M-1221, STM, RING ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY:- NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . IT(SS)A NO.67/AHD/2008 ALONG WITH CO NO.320/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2006 IT(SS)A NO.68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 2 THESE ARE TWO APPEALS TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE PERTAIN TO TWO ASSESSEES OF THE SAME FAMILY AND THE CO FILED B Y ONE ASSESSEE, INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES AND HENCE THEY ARE TAKEN UP T OGETHER FOR THE SAME OF CONVENIENCE.:- IT(SS)A NO.67/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/90 TO 27/4/ 2000 RELATING TO SMT. GOPALIDEVI CHANDANDAS NANDWANI (REVENUES APPE AL): 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL :- (L) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PART OF ON MONEY WHICH ATTRIBUTABLE SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI SON OF THE ASS ESSEE, WILL HAVE TO BE DELETED FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.13,04.130/- AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE SEIZE D MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SHRI RAMESH K NANDWANI HAD MADE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY BUT HAS IGNORED THE MATERIAL FA CT THAT 'ALLOTMENT LATTER' WAS ISSUED BY SACHIN UDYOG SAHAK ARI MANDLI LTD. IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HERSELF AND NAME OF SH RI RAMESH K. NANDWANI IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER, WHICH ITSELF PROVE THAT INITIAL ON MONEY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF ONLY. (2) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LEARNED CFT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PART OF ON MONEY WHICH ATTRIBUTABLE SHRI RAMESH K NANDWANI SOU OF THE ASSE SSEE WILL HAVE TO BE .DELETED FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.L3,04,130/- AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE SEIZE D MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SHRI RAMESH K NANDWANI HAD UNACCOUNTED PA YMENT OF ON MONEY BUT HAS IGNORED THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE RE IS NO NAME OF SHRI RAMEAH K NANDWANI IN THE SEIZED DIARY - PAGE NO. 16 THAT ITSELF SUGGESTS THAT THE FULL ON MONEY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF BOOKING OF PLOT. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE PREMISES OF S HRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 ON 27.4.2 000. SHRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA OPERATED AS A BROKER OF RE AL ESTATE. DURING THE IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 3 COURSE OF SEARCH A DIARY WAS SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PLOTS AT SACHIN UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. (SUSML IN SHORT). DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHRI TAMAKUWALA SEEMS TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BROKERED THE TRANSACTI ON NOTED IN THE DIARY. THIS DIARY CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF CONSIDERATION P AID BY CHEQUE AS WELL AS CASH AS ON MONEY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. ON EXAMINATION OF THE DIARY THE AO CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALSO INVE STED IN THE PURCHASE OF PLOT THROUGH THAT BROKER. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE A SSESSEE HAD PURCHASED B-TYPE OF PLOTS NO.A/2, 8 & 9 IN SUSML. THE TOTAL A MOUNT OF CHEQUE PAYMENT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.7,12,878/- WHEREAS CAS H PORTION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.13,04,130/-. THE AO CARRIED OUT EN QUIRY WITH SUSML, WHICH VIDE ITS LETTER NO.253/07-08 DATED 22.11.2007 CONFIRMED THE OWNERSHIP OF PLOT NO.A-2/14 TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILA RLY IT SEEMS THAT IT HAS CONFIRMED THAT PLOT NO.B-4-5 HAS BEEN SOLD TO SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI SON OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED W ITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION IT SEEMS THAT NO PROPER EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY THE AO TREATED THE SUM OF RS.13,04 ,130/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HE APP RISED THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND NOTED THAT NEC ESSARY INSPECTION OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND OF SEIZED MATERIAL WAS PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI TAMAKUWALA. TH E SEARCH AT TAMAKUWALAS PREMISES WAS CONDUCTED ON 27.4.2000 AN D POSSESSION OF THE PLOTS WAS GIVEN ON 17.7.2002 AND 10.5.2002 TO T HE TWO PARTIES. HOWEVER, HE NOTED THAT SUSML HAS NOT CONFIRMED RECE IPT OF ON MONEY. FURTHER THE AO FAILED TO SUMMON SHRI RAMESH K. NAND WANI AND RECORD HIS STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PLOT OR ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED TO RE- IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 4 EXAMINE THE ISSUE SINCE AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT O F SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI WITH SUSML TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WA S RECORDED AND WORKED OUT THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE AND PROPORTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI BUT HE DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE ON MONEY PORTION AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE SEIZE D MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI HAS MADE ANY UNACCOUNTE D PAYMENT, AS NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY SUSML. THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ON MONEY PORTION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ARGUMENT OF LD. DR IS THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI SHASHIKANT TAMAKUWALA RECORDED U/S 132(4) CONFIRMED THE RECEI PT OF ON MONEY. THE DIARY SEIZED FROM HIM SHOWED PAYMENT OF ON MON EY INSPECTION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT. ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVI DED TO THE ADDITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE LD. AR IS THAT OPPO RTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION OF SHRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA IS NO T PROVIDED EVEN THOUGH REQUESTED. NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTION OF THE AO AGAINST THE SEARCH OF PARTY. NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN CASE OF SOCIETY FOR ALLEGED RECEIPT OF ON MONEY. FURTH ER THERE WAS CLEAR MISTAKE IN IDENTIFYING THE PLOT ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED BY SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI. THE AO SAYS THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED P LOT NO.A-2/14 IN HER NAME AND FURTHER SAYS THAT PLOT NO.B-4/5 WAS AC QUIRED BY HER SON SHRI RAMESH K. NANDWANI. THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CL EAR AS TO WHICH PLOT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY HER SON. THUS AP PARENTLY IT IS A CASE OF PURCHASE OF TWO PLOTS, BUT ASSESSEE HAS DENIED TO H AVE PURCHASED SUCH PLOT EITHER BY HER OR BY HER SON. THE COPY OF THE D IARY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, EVEN SUSML SAYS THAT ASSESSEE HAS IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 5 PURCHASED ONLY ONE PLOT AND NOT TWO. THUS THERE IS APPARENT CONTRADICTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE PLOT AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE SEARCH, TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HIS NAME APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DIARY. IN ANY CASE THE DIARY HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY A ND THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF ON MONEY. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION OF ON MONEY CAN BE MADE AS THERE IS APPA RENT LACK OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PLOT AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE SEARCH HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED. THERE IS APPARENT DIFFERENCE IN THE I DENTIFICATION OF THE PLOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SAYS IT IS A-2/14 WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE DIARY IT IS A-2, 8 & 9. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE C ARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES AND CLEARLY SORTED OUT THE DIFFERENCE AND IDENTIFIC ATION WITH EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED. THERE MUST BE DOCU MENTS EXECUTED FOR PURCHASE OF THE PLOT A COPY OF WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD FOR CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLOT PURCHASED BY T HE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION IN THE HANDS OF SUSML F OR ALLEGEDLY RECEIVING EXCESS MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE RECORDED PRICE. NO ACTION HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE BROKER ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED ON MONEY OR BROKERAGE THEREON. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SHRI SHA SHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY BY THE ASSE SSEE OR RECEIVED THEREOF BY SUSML. IN FACT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON LY ON THE EVIDENCE OF A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT SUPPORTING IT WITH FURTHER STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE FROM SUSML AND PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLOT PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE ADDITION IS MADE HALF HEARTED LY THEREFORE, IT CANNOT IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 6 BE SUSTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. C.O. NO.320/AHD/2008 IN IT(SS)A NO.67/AHD/2008 (ASS ESSEES C.O.) 7. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THIS C.O.:- (I) INVALID ASSESSMENT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 15 8BD OF THE ACT BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE - (A) THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GRANTED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SHRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA (THOUGH REQUESTED) ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT ADDITION IS MADE. (B) NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACT ION OF THE AO ASSESSING SEARCHED PARTY AND THEREFORE, ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. (C) ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD WERE INITIATED LON G AFTER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN CASE OF SHRI SHASHIK ANT V. TAMAKUWALLA FROM WHOSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, U/S 158BD IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT HAD EMANATED. (II) ADDITION OF RS.13,04,130/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.13,04,130/- BEING ALLEGED ON MONEY PAID ON PURCHASE OF PLOTS A/2, 8/9 FROM SACHIN UDYOG SAH AKARI MANDALI LTD. WHEN ASSESSEE HAD NOT PURCHASED ABOVE PLOTS AS CONFIRMEDBY THE ABOVE SOCIETY. 8. THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESS THE C.O. AND HENCE THE SAM E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AS A RESULT, THE C.O. OF ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 7 IT(SS)A NO.68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27. 4.2000 PERTAINING TO SHRI ATMAPRAKASH P. NANDWANI (REVENUE S APPEAL): 9. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- (1) ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT BEFORE T AKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY, THE AO HAD NOT EST ABLISHED OWNERSHIP OF THE PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE B UT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSES HAD MADE THE ON MONEY PAYMENT WHILE BOOKING OF PLOT BEFORE THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OU T IN THE EASE OF SHRI S.V. TAMAKUWALA, WHICH WAS LATER ON CANCELLED BY THE ASSESSEE. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPU GNED DIARY WHICH WAS THE PRIME EVIDENCE CONTAINING THE DETAILS BOTH OF CHEQUES AND CASH' PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE B UYER OF PLOT, HOWEVER, NO CHEQUE OR CASH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS OVERLOOKED THE FOLLOWING NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS RECORDED ON PAGE NO. 20 OF SEIZED DELUXE DIARY FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI S.V. TAMAKUWALA. |1] RS. 21,000 BY TWO DRAFTS - 30/11/9 5 [2] RS.79,000 CHEQUE AND CASH - 14/12/95 [3] RS. 100,000 CHEQUE + CASH - 26/12/95 RA.200,000 THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TH E FACT THAT IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUEST BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C1T(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NOTING O N PAGE NO.20 OF THE DIARY OF SHRI SHASHIKANT V TAMAKUWALA WHICH CON TAINED THE NAME OF ATMAPRAKASH DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS RULED OUT THAT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MAY SHOW THAT THE NOTING ON PAGE NO. 20 OF SEIZED DIARY RELATES TO NOT OF HIMSELF BUT OF ANY OTHER AT MAPRAKASH. IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 8 (4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, 9URAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.632,710/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS IS SUE. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE ARE THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOPALIDEVI CH. NANDWANI. IN THIS CASE IT WAS ALLEGE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT NO.B TYPE OF PLOTS. IN ADDITION TO CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS.3,49,764/- ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY OF RS.6,3 2,710/-. ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA AND T HE DIARY SEIZED FROM HIS PREMISES THE AO MADE ADDITION OF ON MONEY PORTI ON. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT P ROVED THAT NOTINGS ON PAGE 20 OF THE DIARY BS-2 PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE , SECONDLY IT IS NOT PROVED THAT IT IS THIS ASSESSEE WHO HAS PURCHASED T HE PLOT IN SACHIN UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. 11. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES WERE THE SAME AS I N THE CASE OF SMT. GOPALIDEVI C. NANDWANI. 12. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED BY US IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOPALIDEVI C. NANDWANI, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IN AD DITION WE MAY MENTION THAT THERE IS NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IDENTIFICATION OF THE NAME RECORD ED IN THE DIARY WITH THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE WAS LACKING THE L D. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.67 & CO 320 & IT(SS)A 68/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 27.4.2000 9 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/3/11. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 25/3/11. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 17/3/2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 22/3/ 2011 MEMBER.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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 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..