Smt. Nandavatiben Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat V. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Surat

ITSSA 82/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8335 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Keywords: Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M SMT. NANDAVATIBEN MAHENDRABHAI SHAH, B-602, YOGI COMPLEX, NEW RANDER ROAD, SURAT. SV. ASSTT. CIT, CIR.3(1), SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND DY. CIT, CIR.391), SURAT SV. SMT. NANDAVTIBEN MAHENDRABHAI SHAH, B- 602, YOGI COMPLEX, NEW RANDER ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI D. K. PARIKH, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI H. K. LAL, DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE TWO APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 23/02 /2007. IT(SS)A NO.82/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT ASST. YEAR 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29.10.1999 IT(SS)A NO.83/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT ASST. YEAR 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29.10.1999 IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 2 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 158BC WAS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS I SSUED IN THIS CASE MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 158 BC IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCH. THE RELEVANT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HE HAS TAKEN ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158 B D IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. (2) THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158BD IS B AD IN LAW IN ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION NOTE OF AO OF THE SEARCH PA RTY. (3) THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158 BD IS BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S 158BE IN ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION NOT E BEING NOT RECORDED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 158 BE BY THE AO OF PERSON SEARCHED EITHER IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 158BC OR IN THE NOTE HANDING OVER SEIZED MATERIAL T O THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THAT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 158BE, NO PROCEEDINGS U/S 159BD CAN BE INITIATED. (4) THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158 BD MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE. 3. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE SAME AS UNDER. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CARR IED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF M/S OM DEVELOPERS AND M/S OM ORGANIZERS ON 29.10.1999. BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PARTIES SEARCHED WA S COMPLETED ON 31.11.2001. IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS O F SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 3 FOUND IN THE CASE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF TWO PARTIES THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY TO M/S OM DEVELOPERS AND M/S OM ORGAN IZERS FOR PURCHASE OF A FLAT. ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THE AO OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAD INITIATED PROCEEDING S U/S 158BD AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.6.2006. THE LD. CIT( A) HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF AND THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED S UCH RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE ON 28.6.2004 WHICH IS ALMOST AFTER 3 YEARS OF THE DAT E OF COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE PARTIES SEARCHE D. 5. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HE LD THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD AS INVALID IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHNUBHAI R. BAROT VS. ACIT IN IT(SS) NO.104/AHD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 31. 10.2000 PRONOUNCED ON 18.12.2009 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOW ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 2. THE LD.AR AT THE OUTSET EMPHASIZED TO DISPOSE O F GROUND NO.2. ACCORDING TO HER THE ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 158BD IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC WAS ISS UED ON 29-03-2006 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 20-04-2006. ON THE OTHER HAND SEARCH IN THE CASE OF OM DEVELOPERS WAS CARRIED OUT ON 29-11- 1999 AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC WAS PASSED IN THAT CASE ON 30-1 1-2001. SHE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN MANOJ AGARWALS CASE 113 ITD 377, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 158BD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED. THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 158BD IS BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE THE RETO IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. SHE ALSO REFERRED TO A DECISION OF ITAT, AHMED ABAD BENCH IN ITA NO. 209/A/2007 IN KUINTESH BHUPATHRAI DESAI VS. ACI T PRONOUNCED ON 26-03-2009 AND ALSO ARISING FROM THE SAME SEARCH ON OM DEVELOPERS, IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 4 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 158BD ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER THAT SECTION AFTER PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE SHE REFERRED TO PARA NO.6 F ROM THAT ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VI EW, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAI NST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CAS E OF MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA). IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF I.T.A.T. SPECI AL BENCH, DELHI (SUPRA), THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON O R BEFORE 31.10.2001. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 158BD ISSUED ON 19.4.2004 TO THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS BAD, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VO ID AB INITIO. IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL (SUPRA), I.T.A.T. SPECIAL BENCH H ELD THAT THE TIME LIMIT SET OUT IN SEC. 158BE AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES F OR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. RELEVANT OBSER VATIONS OF I.T.A.T. DELHI SPECIAL BENCH (SUPRA) ARE AS UNDER: '116. A VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT WHEREVER A TIME-LIMI T IS INTENDED, THE PARLIAMENT HAS PROVIDED FOR THE SAME AND IN THE ABS ENCE OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION MADE IN THIS RESPECT FT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NO TIME-LIMIT INTENDED IN LAW. IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE M ATTER RELATES TO FIXING HUGE FINANCIAL AND OTHER CIVIL LIABILITY ON THE PERSON A FFECTED AND IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THERE MUST BE A FINALITY TO AN Y PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND THAT A CONCLUDED PROCEEDING CANNOT BE REOPENED AT THE WHIM AND FANCY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LA W. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF FISCAL, STATUTES IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND AS THE PROVISIONS FOR SEARCH ARE DRACONIAN IN NATURES SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE NECESSARI LY TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REMEMBERED THAT SECTION 158BD PR OVIDES FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION ENABLING THE AS SESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSING THE OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASS ESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED GIVES A FINDING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTH ED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE SAID PERSON AND ONCE SUCH A FINDING IS GIVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD COME INTO OPERATION. THIS, THEREFORE, INVOLVES ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A PROCEDURA L MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING IN THIS BEHALF, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 5 AT ALL TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER. AS THE TIM E-LIMIT SET IN SECTION 158BE APPLIES TO SUCH FINDING, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL THAT TH E SAID TIME LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158B D AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO SP ECIFY A SEPARATE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE SAME AS THE ENACTMENT ITSELF SHOWS BOTH SEC TIONS 158BC AND 158BD ARE INTER-LINKED, INTERLACED AND INTERTWINED AND BO TH FORM PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME CHAPTER,' FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT SET IN SEC. 158BE AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT FOR THIS REASON, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO SPECIFY TH E SEPARATE TIME LIMIT FOR THE SAME, AS THE ENACTMENT ITSELF SHOWS THAT BOTH S ECTION 158BC AND 158BD ARE INTER-LINKED, INTER-LACED, INTERWINED AND BOTH FORM PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME CHAPTER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. SPECIAL BENCH (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE NO TICE DATED 19.4.2004 ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IS TIME BARRED AND, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 27.2.2006 U/S 158BD READ WITH SEC. 158BC OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO. ACCORDINGL Y, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.2.2006 FRAMED U/S 158BD R EAD WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE T HE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR AND LD. DR. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE A CHOICE IN FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MANISH MAHESHWARIS CASE [ 2007] 289 ITR 0341 AND MANOJ AGARWALS CASE WHEN HE FINDS WHILE E XAMINING THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED THAT CERTAIN INCOME ARISING FROM THE CEASED MATERIAL WOULD BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEAR CHED, THEN HE HAS TO RECORD A SATISFACTION BEFORE PASSING ORDER UNDER SE CTION 158BC IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED AND TRANSFER THE MATERIAL T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. BUT WHERE MATERIAL FOUND IN S EARCH IS GLARINGLY APPARENT THAT IT BELONGS TO A THIRD PERSON OTHER TH EN THE PERSON SEARCHED, THEN NO SPECIFIC SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE REC ORDED AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD B EFORE THE CLOSURE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. THE LD. DR H AS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. A. IN BOTH THE CASES CITED THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT FOR INVOKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD HAS BEEN HELD TO B E THE DRAWING OF IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 6 SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE AC T. B. THE HANDLING OVER OF RELEVANT SEIZED MATERIAL TH OUGH PRESCRIBED U/S 158BD IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL FACT FOR THIS RELIANCE IS P LACED ON THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RUSHIL INDUSTRIES LTD. V. HARSH PRAKASH [(2001) 251 ITR 608]. C. IT IS PERTINENT TO REITERATE HERE THAT THE JURIS DICTIONAL FACT IS THE DRAWING OF SATISFACTION AND NOT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THOUGH THE AR HAS HARPED ON THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE U/S 1 58BD WAS ISSUED AFTER THE TIME LIMIT U/S 158BE THE ISSUE TO BE REALLY EXAMINE D IS THE DATE WHEN THE SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON WAS REACHED THAT EVIDENCES RELATABLE TO SEARCH INDICATE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THIS SATISFACTION IN THE CASE IS HAND IS DRAWN WITH IN THE TIME LIMIT U/S 158BE THEN IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DELAY IN THE ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S 158BD THE WHOLE OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ANNULLED AS BEING TIME BARRED. D. IN BOTH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AR FOR THE AS SESSEE I.E.MANISH MAHESHWARI VS ACIT (SC) 289 ITR 341 AND SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL & OTHERS VS DCIT (SB) 113 ITD 377 DELHI THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HO N'BLE COURTS WAS RELATING TO THE CASES WHERE A FINDING THAT UNDISCLO SED INCOME DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON BUT IT BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON WAS NECESSITATED. THAT IS THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER TO ASSESS THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED OR IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER PE RSON. AS AGAINST THIS THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE ACSE AT HAND I S F SUCH NATURE THAT PERFORCE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME EVIDENCED THEREIN HAS TO BE ASSESSED BOTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND ALSO IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER PERSON. E. IN THIS CASE THE DIARY B-2 CONTAINED NOTINGS REG ARDING PURCHASE OF FLATS/UNITS AT CHANDAN PARK BY VARIOUS PERSONS. DUE PARTICULARS OF THE SPECIFIC FLATS, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR IT BY CHEQUE WITH ET AILS OF CHEQUE NO. AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH ARE NOTED IN THE SAID DIARY . STATEMENTS OF THE BUILDER RECORDED DURING SEARCH ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNTS OF CASH RECEIVED NOTED IN THE DIARY REFLECTED THE UNACCOUNTED ON-MONEY COMP ONENT RECEIVED IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. THE SPEAKING EVIDENCE FOUND THUS ESTABLISHED BOTH THE IDENTITY OF THE BUY ER AS WELL AS THE QUANTUM OF UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM TO THE PERSON SEAR CHED. F. THE NATURE OF THE SEIZED EVIDENCES IN THIS CASE THUS MANDATED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE RECIPIENT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH I.E. THE PERSON SEARCHED AS WELL A S THE PAYER OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH I.E. THE ASSESSEE. G. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE THE VERY ORDER U /S 158BC PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE RECIPIENT, WHEREIN ONE LIMB OF THE NATURAL I NFERENCE FLOWING FROM THE SEIZED EVIDENCE WAS REACHED, IN ITSELF CONSTITUTES THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED THAT THE OTHER LIMB OF THE UNAC COUNTED TRANSACTION NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE PAYER S WHOSE FULL IDENTITY IS IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 7 ESTABLISHED BY THE SEIZED EVIDENCE ITSELF. THUS THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT OF THE RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION IN THIS CASE IS SEEDE D IN THE VERY ORDER U/S 158BC PASSED IN THE CASE OF OHM DEVELOPERS WHICH HAS BEEN DONE WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT U/S 158BE AND THUS THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.4.2008 MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS NOT TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. WE, HOWEVER, DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE SUPERFICIAL DISTINCTIONS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE WHILE EXAMINING THE CEASED MATERIAL THAT IT BELONGS TO THE PERSON SEARCHED OR TO A THIRD PER SON. WHETHER SUCH DISTINCTION IS GLARING OR NOT IS NOT MATERIAL AS LE GAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CANNOT BE DONE AWAY WITH. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE TWO CA SES I.E. MANISH MAHESHWARIS CASE AND MANOJ AGARWALS CASE WOULD HA VE TO BE FOLLOWED. ALL THE POINTS RAISED BY THE LD. DR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN MANOJ AGARWALS CASE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON IN MANOJ AGARWALS CASE AS WELL AS KUNTESH BHUPATRAI DESAIS CASE, WE CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE SAME, FOLLOW ING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE HOLD THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSE SSEE U/S 158BD AS INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IS HELD INVALID THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL DO NOT SURVIVE. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/6/11. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30/6/11. IT(SS)A NOS 82 & 83/AHD/2007. BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & UPTO 29/10/99 8 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 27/6/11. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 27/6/11. /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..