Shri Manohar Mohanlal Hariyani, Bharuch V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 721/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8695 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUNT BANI
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NOS.706, 707/ AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 207-08) MAHESH PURSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI, 9, HARIHAR BUNGLOWS, TULSIDHAM CHOKDI, FURRJA ROAD, BHARUCH. VS. ACIT, CC-2, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPP3381G I.T.(SS)A.NO. 710/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) RAMESH MAGANLAL HARIYANI, VS. ACIT, CC-2, C/O RAJA GOPICHAND SUGAR BHANDAR, BARODA FURJA ROAD, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO.AAKPH2402H I.T.(SS)A.NOS. 711-716/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2006-07) PURSHOTTAMDSAS MGANLAL HARIYANI, VS. ACIT, CC-2, C/O BHARUCH SINDHI VEPARI SYNDICATE, BARODA FURJA ROAD, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO.AALPH1062N I.T.(SS)A.NOS. 721, 722/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05) MANOHAR MOHANLAL HARIYANI, VS. ACIT, CC-2, C/O BHARUCH SINDHI VEPARI SYNDICATE, BARODA FURJA ROAD, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO.AALPH1064L I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 2 I.T.(SS)A.NOS. 725 & 726/AHD/201 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07) MURLIDHAR MOHANLAL HARIYANI, VS. ACIT, CC-2, BARO DA C/O SHIVAM DEVELOPERS, MODI COMPOUND, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO.AANPH4551J I.T(SS).A.NOS. 733-737/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07) KISHORE MOHANLAL HARIYANI, VS. ACIT, CC-2, 25-26, SINDHUNAGAR, BARODA OPP. S T WORKSHOP, BHOLAV, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO.AQLPH2483H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MUKUNT BANI AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T SANKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 22.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.2013 O R D E R PER BENCH:- ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E BECAUSE BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE CASES. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. A.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THA T THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISI ON RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KIRIT D. PATEL AS REPORTED IN 121 ITD 159 (AHD.) . HIS 2 ND SUBMISSION WAS THIS THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PEM ARORA VS DCIT IN I.T.A.NO. 4702/DEL.2010 D ATED 09.03.2012, I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 3 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 15-51 OF THE PAPER BOOK HAS CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENT OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF KIRIT D PATEL (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD THAT THIS TRI BUNAL DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THE CASES OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT BE FORE 01.06.2007, PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSABLE U/S 271(1)(C) OR U/S 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SINCE, IN THE PRESENT CASES, SEARCH WAS CA RRIED OUT PRIOR TO 01.06.2007, AS PER THIS DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ON E MORE CONTENTION RAISED BY HIM WAS THIS THAT NO CLEAR CUT ALLEGATION IS MADE BY THE A.O. AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALING THE INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR THIS REASO N ALSO, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE J UDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NEW SORA THIA ENGINEERING CO. VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 282 ITR 642 (GUJ.) AT THIS J UNCTURE, A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER IN THE CASE OF SH RI PREM ARORA (SUPRA), THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REGARDING ADDITION ON THE BA SIS OF ENTRY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN THAT CASE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF ENTRY FOUND IN THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOT DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THE BENCH ALSO WANED TO KNOW ABO UT THE NATURE OF ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASES AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN THE PRESENT CASES, NO ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT IN FACT, ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S153A OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THOSE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED WAS ON AC COUNT OF EXTRA I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 4 DRAWING ETC. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF A M SHAH & CO. V S CIT AS REPORTED IN 238 ITR 415 (GUJ.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MAY AT TIME OVERLAPS. HE AL SO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASES, IT IS STATED BY THE A.O. IN THE PENA LTY ORDER THAT PENALTY IS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HENCE, THE TEC HNICAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. A.R. IS NOT VALID IN THE PRESENT CASES I N VIEW OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD. A.R. HAVING BEEN RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. 3. REGARDING THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R., IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SANGMESHWARA ASSOCIATES AS REPORTED IN 34 5 ITR 396, IT WAS HELD THAT NO PREMIUM CAN BE PLACED ON THE CONDUCT O F THE ASSESSEE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THRO UGHOUT CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME EARLIER AND THEREFORE A SITUA TION AROSE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND ALSO JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY. HE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ALSO HELD BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TH AT CASE THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT A RETURN HAD BEEN FILED EARLIER DID NOT DISCLOSE A TRUE AND FULL INCOME, DOES NOT WARRANT PROOF OF BUR DEN ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THINGS AS IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT ANY PROOF OR MANNER OF PROOF ARE NOT REQUIRED WHEN THERE IS AN ADMISSION. BUT IN A SITUATION I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 5 WHERE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADMISSION, PRO DUCTION OF PROOF IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR WARRANTED IN LAW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. FIRST, WE DEAL WITH THE TECHNICAL OBJECTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT NO DEFINITE ALLEGATI ON WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE PENALTY ORDER BUT WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS C ONTENTION. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS IN ALL THESE CASES ARE IDENTICAL AND HENC E, WE EXAMINE THE PENALTY ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, IN PARA 8, IT IS STATED BY THE A.O. THAT PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) IS REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASES, THE ALLEGATION IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED BOTH THE DEFAULTS. AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF A M SHAH & CO. (SUPRA), BOTH THESE DEFAULTS MAY AT TIMES MAY OVERLAP AND HENCE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE A.O. AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT C ASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE A.O. HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILT Y OF BOTH THE DEFAULTS OR ANY ONE DEFAULT. IN THAT CASE, THE A.O. STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALING THE INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME AND, UNDER THOSE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. IS NOT SPECIFIC. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF A M SHAH & CO. (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE AND NOT THE JUDGEM ENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NEW SORA THIA (SUPRA). I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 6 5. REGARDING THE ARGUMENT OF LD. A.R. THAT AS PER T HE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PREM ARORA (S UPRA), PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESPECT OF SEARCH BEFORE 01.06.2007, W E FIND THAT THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO NOT VALID. IN THE CASE OF PREM ARORA (SUPRA), THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF ENTRY I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. AND FOR SUCH ADDITION, EXPLANATION (5) TO SECT ION 271(1) WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND EXPLANATION (5) TO THE SAME SECTION WAS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 01.06.2007. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PREM ARORA (SUPRA) THAT PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE SEARCH WAS PRIOR TO 01.06.2007 AND ADDITION WAS MAD E IN RESPECT OF ENTRY MADE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOT DECLARED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME BUT WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED U/S 153A. IN THE PRESENT CASES, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT APPLIC ABLE BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASES, NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOK OF ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER DO CUMENTS. IN FACT, IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED AD DITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 AS COMPARED TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGI NAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. A.R. THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ETC. BUT THIS IS ADMITTED BY HIM THAT THIS IS NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT AND, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1) IS APPLICABLE AND HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PREM ARORA (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PR ESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISI ON RENDERED IN THE CASE I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 7 OF KIRIT DAYA (SUPRA) AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH IS TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ALL T HESE CASES. 6. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT AS PER THE JU DGEMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SANGMESHWARA ASSOCIATES, 345 ITR 396 ALSO, PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED HIMSELF THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT A TRU E AND CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER EVIDENCE OR PROOF IS REQUIRED AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1) IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASES AND, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS JUSTIF IED. 7. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE FACTS OF ALL OTHER CASES ARE IDENTICAL BUT IN ONE CASE I.E. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH A PRAJAPATI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 IT(SS)A NO.7070/AHD/2010, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON THE BA SIS OF ADDITION IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S143(3) AND NOT FOR ANY ADDITI ON IN ANY ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE ALSO DRAW N OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4 OF THE PENALTY ORDER WHERE THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT LESSER INCOME WAS DEC LARED BECAUSE OF INADVERTENT OMISSION BY THE ASSESSEES C.A. TO SHOW THE INCOME OF RS.2.96 LACS BEING 8% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.37 LACS AND, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THIS INADVERTENT OMISSION BY THE C.A. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT EVEN FOR THIS ASSESSEE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PEN ALTY IS JUSTIFIED AS PER I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 8 THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CITED BY HIM HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SANGMASHWARA ASSOCIATE S (SUPRA). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT IT I S NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE RUN AND MAIN TAIN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF A PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SACHIN DEVELOPERS BUT NO INCOME FOR THE SAID CONCERN HAS BEEN DECLARED AN D THEN THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT DURING THIS YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TOTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT OF RS.37 LACS FROM SACHIN DEVELOPERS IN THIS YEAR AND THEN THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED @ 8% OF SUCH RECEI PT AND ADDITION WAS MADE. REGARDING THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT SUCH OMISSION WA S BECAUSE OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEES C.A., WE FIND THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW OR BEFORE US. IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING THE COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME OF THE PRESENT YEAR OR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO SUCH OMISSION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE PRESE NT YEAR WHICH COULD NOT BE DETECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SIGN ING THE SAME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THIS HA S RESULTED BECAUSE OF ANY INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEES C.A. HAD THE ASSESSEE SHOWN THAT NO INCOME WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN RESPECT OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SACH IN DEVELOPERS, THEN IT CAN BE ACCEPTED TO SOME EXTENT THAT NON DECLARATION OF ANY INCOME OF THIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN IN THE PRESENT YEAR MIGHT NOT B EEN NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE PRESENT I.T.A.NO.706,707,710,711-716,721, I.T.A.NO.722,725,726,733-737 /AHD/2010 9 YEAR. BUT IF SUCH INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE COMPU TATION OF INCOME FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THERE IS NO SUCH INCOME DECL ARED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE PRESENT YEAR, IT WILL COME TO THE NOTICE OF ANY REASONABLE PERSON WHO IS SIGNING THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENT ION AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED F OR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR THIS ASSESSEE ALSO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE 18 APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. 10. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 22.03.2013. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 22/03/2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22.03/1.4.2013.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 22/03/2013 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.1/4 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 01/ 4/2013 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. .