The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad V. Makson Foods Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar

ITSSA 82/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2465 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Deemed dividend
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , !' BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO(S) IT(SS)A NO(S) / CO NOS. ASSESS- MENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S)/CO(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. IT(SS)A NO. 78/AHD/2014 2005-06 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3) AHMEDABAD MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. 195, MAKSON COMPOUND RAJKOT HIGHWAY, KHERALI SURENDRANAGR-363 020 PAN: AABCM 2806 L 2. 79/AHD/2014 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 3. 80/AHD/2014 2008-09 -DO- -DO- 4. 81/AHD/2014 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 5. 82/AHD/2014 2006-07 -DO- MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. (ADDRESS AS ABOVE) PAN: AABCM3791L 6. 83/AHD/2014 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 7. 84/AHD/2014 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 8. 85/AHD/2014 2011-12 -DO- -DO- 9. CO 143/AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.78/A/14) 2005-06 MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. SURENDRANAGAR PAN: THE CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) AHMEDABAD 10. CO 144/AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.79/A/14) 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 11. CO 145/AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.80/A/14) 2008-09 -DO- -DO- IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 2 - 12. CO 146/AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.81/A/14) 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 13. CO 147 /AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.82/A/14) 2006-07 MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD., SURENDRANAGAR -DO- 14. CO 14 8 /AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.8 3 /A/14) 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 15. CO 149 /AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.84/A/14) 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 16. CO 150 /AHD/2014 (IN IT(SS)A NO.85/A/14) 2011-12 -DO- -DO- REVENUE BY : MS. VIBHA BHALLA, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : MR. VARTIK CHOKSHI, AR #$ / DATE OF HEARING 21/09/2016 %&'$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/11/2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSM ENT YEARS(AYS) AGITATING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CONCERNING TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE TWO ASSESSEE CAP TIONED ABOVE HAVE ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I AHMEDABAD [C IT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 28/11/2013 CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT BOTH ON LACK OF JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ON MERITS. IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 3 - SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THES E YEARS IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS, WE SHALL, FOR CONVENIENCE, TAKE UP IT(SS)A NO.78/AHD/2014 RELEVANT TO AY 2005-06 AND CROSS-OBJECTION NO.143/ AHD/2014 FOR AY 2005-06 THEREON AS A LEAD CASE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.78/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2 005-06 AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.143/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2 005-06:- 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER:- 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING ADDITION OF RS.82,34,000/- MADE UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 3. LIKEWISE, THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE( S) IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL(S) IS BASED ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTION MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.15 3A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ORDER PASSED THEREUPON. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MAD E CANNOT IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 4 - BE HELD ILLEGAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE SURFACED IN THE COURSE OF SEA RCH. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT WHEN IT WAS ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE SOLE ADDITION OF RS.82,34,000/- M ADE BY THE AO UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL THE LD.AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S.153A FOR MAKING SUCH ADDIT ION. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTI ON AND BAD IN LAW AND MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 4. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, GERMANE TO THE ISSUES INVOL VED ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JOB- WORK OF VARIOUS BRANDED CONFECTIONERIES AND PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS ETC. A SEARCH ACTION UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 09/03/2011. IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, PROCEEDINGS UN DER S.153A WERE INITIATED ON THE ASSESSEE-CONCERNED. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR IN PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A O F THE ACT, THE AO INTER-ALIA NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED CERTAIN AMO UNT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES FROM SOME GROUP COMPANI ES AND IN ALL SUCH LENDING COMPANIES SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF VOTING POWER IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ALSO HAS SUBST ANTIAL INTEREST (20% OR MORE) IN SUCH CLOSELY HELD LENDER COMPANIES. IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL, IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 5 - SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS STATED TO BE ONE MR.KALPESH D. MAKASANA. SHRI KALPESH D.MAKASANA WAS FOUND TO HOLD 10% OR MORE OF THE VOTING POWERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AFORESAID SHARE HOLDER ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN LEND ER ENTITY NAMELY MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION S.2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HELD THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS OF LOANS OR ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SUCH GROUP-COMPA NIES ARE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED LOAN FR OM CLOSELY HELD GROUP-COMPANY; NAMELY MAKSON FOODS PVT. LTD. HAVI NG ACCUMULATED BOOK PROFIT OF RS.5.07 CRORES AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THUS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE LEN DER-COMPANY EXCEEDS THE LOANS OR ADVANCE ADVANCED TO THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE YEAR. IN CONSEQUENCE, THE AO HELD THAT LOAN OR ADVANCE SO RECEIVED FROM THE LENDER-COMPANY DURING THE YEAR IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO TA X UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE THRUST OF THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N TREATING THE FUNDS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE LENDER EN TITIES AS DEEMED IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 6 - DIVIDEND SINCE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY PER SE WAS NEITHER A REGISTERED NOR A BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER IN ANY OF THE LENDER ENTITIE S. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE LENDER-COMPANY, NO OCCASION TO APPLY S.2(22)(E) ARISES. THE CIT(A) DIS CUSSED THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRA CTED HEREUNDER:- 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E SUBMISSION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING AN ADDITION OF RS.82,34,000/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HAND OF TH E APPELLANT. 6.1. IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEN D U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE IT ACT 1961 THE PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE ANALYSED IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS O F ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY GIVI NG THE LOAN OR ADVANCE. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE CA SE OF NAVNITLAL C.JHAVERI VS. K.K.SEN, APPELLATE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 56 ITR 198 (SC) A FIVE MEMBER BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THREE KINDS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SHARE HOLDERS OF A COMPANY ARE TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. (I) PAYMENTS MADE BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE (II) PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (III) PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF THE SHA REHOLDER. THE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FOL LOWING 5 CONDITIONS NEED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE ANY AMOUNT P AID CAN BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND: IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 7 - 1. THE COMPANY IN QUESTION MUST BE ONE IN WHICH PUBLI C ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE BORROWER MUST BE A SHAREHOLDER ON THE DATE WHEN LOAN IS ADVANCED 3. THE LOAN ADVANCED TO A SHAREHOLDER BY SUCH A COMPAN Y CAN BE DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH I T IS SHOWN THAT THE COMPANY POSSESSED ACCUMULATED PROFITS AT THE DATE O F THE LOAN. 4. THE LOAN MUST NOT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY IN ITS ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. 5. THE LOAN MUST HAVE REMAINED OUTSTANDING AT THE COMM ENCEMENT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS PREVIOUS YEAR IN RELATION TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR. 6.2. IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESHWARLAL SANWARMAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 122 ITR 1 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOUND THA T THE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO THE HUF WHICH WAS THE BENEFIC IAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, IT WAS THE KARTA OF THE HUF, WHO WAS THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDERS IN THE BOOKS OF THE COM PANY. IN THAT CASE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE LOAN TO THE HUF WHEN THE KARTA IS THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER IS NOT TAXABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 6.3. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.K. MITTAL REPORTED IN 219 ITR 420 (ALL.), THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE COMPANY WAS NOT TAXABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 6.4. IN THE CASE OF SEAMIST PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), MUMBAI IN ITA NO.997/M/2001 FOR AY 1997- 98, REPORTED IN 1 SOT 142(MUMBAI) THE HONBLE G BENCH OF THE MEMBER TRIBUNAL HAS HELD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2004 THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SHAREHOLDER THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E). 6.5. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BHAUMIK COLOR (P) LTD. REPORTED IN (2001) 118 ITD 1 THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT MUMB AI HELD THAT DEEDED DIVIDEND COULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON WHO WAS A IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 8 - SHAREHOLDER OF THE LENDER COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HA NDS OF A PERSON OTHER THAN A SHAREHOLDER. 6.6. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUKUNDRAY K.SHAH REPORT ED IN 290 ITR 433(SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE C ONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.99 CRORES ADVANC ED BY MKTPL A PVT.LTD. CO. TO TWO FIRMS MKI AND MKF WHERE MUKUNDR AY K.SHAH WAS A PARTNER WAS ASSESSABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF MUKUNDRAY K.SHAH WHO WAS THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER IN MKTPL. THIS DECISION WAS RENDERED OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKUNDRAY K.SHAH VS. CIT REPOR TED IN 277 ITR 128 (CAL.). 6.7. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND IS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF A REGIS TERED SHAREHOLDER OF A COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ANY OTHER PERSON. 6.8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT MAKSON PHARMACEUTICLAS (I) PVT.LTD. IS NOT A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER IN MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, N O AMOUNT COULD BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO IS DELETED. 5.2. IN TERMS OF THE FINDINGS NOTED ABOVE, THE ACTI ON OF THE AO WAS REVERSED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING TH E ISSUE ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE LEG AL CONTENTION PUTFORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY T O CONFINE SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR TH E MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERIES, DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR VALUAB LE ARTICLE OR THING, ETC. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSME NT MADE UNDER IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 9 - S.153A PURSUANT TO SEARCH INITIATED UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRI MINATING MATERIAL SURFACED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH IN RELATION TO THE I MPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON MERITS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION TO IMPUGN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DEC IDING THE LEGAL GROUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF ITS APP EAL CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGOR ICAL FINDING ON FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MONEY IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCE FROM THE GROUP-COMPANIES WHERE ONE OF THE SHAREHOLD ERS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE NOMINAL VALUE OF ITS SHARE CAPITAL ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN T HE LENDER COMPANY, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS JUSTIFIED. THE SHAREHOLDER IN I NSTANT CASE, NAMELY SHRI KALPESH D. MAKASANA IS THE REGISTERED AS WELL AS BE NEFICIAL OWNER OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND HOLDS MORE THAN 10% OF ITS VOTING POWER AND ALSO HOLDS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AS A SHAR EHOLDER IN THE LENDER COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED. THE AFORESAID SHAREHOLDER IS BENEFICIA LLY ENTITLED TO 20% OR IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 10 - MORE OF THE INCOME OF THE LENDER COMPANY AND THUS H OLDS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE LENDER-COMPANY AS DEFINED UNDER S.2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CL EARLY FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR FURTHE R ADDED THAT THE LENDER COMPANY POSSESSED SUFFICIENT ACCUMULATED PRO FITS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER THE AO WAS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A). ON THE LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ASSERTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DE TERMINING THE TRUE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN APPEALS IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SHRI VARTIK CH OKSHI, ON THE OTHER HAND, VOCIFEROUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER IN THE LENDER COMPANY AT ALL AND THEREF ORE AT THE THRESHOLD, SECTION 2(22)(E) HAS NO APPLICABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD.AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. RAM SHIPPING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.253 OF 2015, O RDER DATED 16/04/2015 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) AND ALSO BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IMPACT CON TAINERS (P.) LTD., REPORTED IN (2014) 48 TAXMANN.COM 294 (BOMBAY), DAT ED 04/07/2014. THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDI NATE BENCH (ITAT INDORE BENCH) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MAKS ON NUTRITION FOOD INDIA PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.572/IND/2010 FOR AY 2006-0 7, ORDER DATED 21/11/2011. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED IN CONCLUSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS DIRECTLY GOVERNING TH E ISSUE, NO ERROR CAN BE ENVISAGED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THA T SECTION 2(22)(E) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 9. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER ADVERTED T O ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS AND POINTED OUT THAT IMPUGNED QUESTION O F TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO ANY I NCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS URGED BY THE LD. AR THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL DISCOVERED AS RESULT OF SEARCH, NEITHER THE NOTICE UNDER S.153A COULD BE ISSUED NOR IS THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE-LAWS CITED ACROSS TH E BAR. IN SHORT, IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE(S) HEREIN HAS OBTA INED AMOUNT TOWARDS LOANS / ADVANCES FROM MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. AND/OR MAKSON IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 12 - PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD., AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND SINCE THERE IS COMMON SHAREHOLDER HOLDING SPECIFIED INTEREST IN BOTH THE COMPANIES, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE TRIGGERED. CONSE QUENTLY, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITIONS UNDER S.2(22)(E) IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT-ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER PER SE IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEAL S ARE ONLY ONE, I.E. WHETHER IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, LOANS AND ADVANCES CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IS CHARGEABL E TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER O F THE COMPANY GIVING THE LOANS OR ADVANCES. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED IS SUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPACT CONTAINERS (P.) LT D.(SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE CERTAIN C OMPANIES ADVANCED MONEY TO ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN WHICH ONE OF THE DIREC TORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% EQUITY S HARES AND SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE LE NDER-COMPANY BUT SINCE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ITSELF WAS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF TH OSE LENDING COMPANY, ADDITIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IS N OT SUSTAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. SIMILAR VIEW HAS B EEN SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAM SHIPPING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT HAS IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 13 - ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY MUST BE A SHARE HOLDER OF THE COMPANY FROM WHOM THE LOANS OR ADVANCES HAVE BEEN T AKEN AND SHOULD BE HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. 11. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERE NCE: [3.0] WE HAVE HEARD SHRI MANISH BHATT, LEARNED COU NSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT LENGTH. WE HAVE ALSO CO NSIDERED AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY T HE LEARNED TRIBUNAL; THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,14,71,94 6/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN PARAS 24 TO 27, THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANKITECH PV T. LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER; 24. THE INTENTION BEHIND ENACTING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 2(22)(E) IS THAT CLOSELY-HELD COMPANIES (I.E. COMPANIES IN WHIC H PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED), WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY A GROUP OF MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY HAS ACCUMULATED PROFITS WOU LD NOT DISTRIBUTE SUCH PROFIT AS DIVIDEND BECAUSE IF SO DISTRIBUTED T HE DIVIDEND INCOME WOULD BECOME TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDE RS. INSTEAD OF DISTRIBUTING ACCUMULATED PROFITS AS DIVIDEND, COMPA NIES DISTRIBUTE THEM AS LOAN OR ADVANCES TO SHAREHOLDERS OR TO CONCERN I N WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OR MAKE ANY PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF SUCH SHAREHOLDE R. IN SUCH AN EVENT, BY THE DEEMING PROVISIONS, SUCH PAYMENT BY THE COMPANY IS TREATED AS DIVIDEND. THE INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS TO TAX DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDERS . THE DEEMING PROVISIONS AS IT APPLIES TO THE CASE OF LOANS OR AD VANCES BY A COMPANY TO A CONCERN IN WHICH ITS SHAREHOLDER HAS SUBSTANTI AL INTEREST, IS BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LOANS OR ADVANCES WOULD ULTIMATELY BE IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 14 - MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY G IVING THE LOAN OR ADVANCE. 25. FURTHER, IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE THAT UNDER THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH A LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE SHAREHOLDERS O R TO A CONCERN, WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS DIVIDEND. IT HAS BEEN MADE SO BY A LEGAL FICTION CREATED UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS LEGAL PROVISION RELATES TO DIVIDEND. THUS, B Y A DEEMING PROVISION, IT IS THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND WHICH I S ENLARGED. LEGAL FICTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO SHAREHOLDER. WHEN WE KEEP IN M IND THIS ASPECT, THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE OBVIOUS, VIZ, LOAN OR ADVAN CE GIVEN UNDER THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND. THE FICTION HAS TO STOP HERE A ND IS NOT TO BE EXTENDED FURTHER FOR BROADENING THE CONCEPT OF SHAR EHOLDERS BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION. IT IS A COMMON CASE THAT ANY COMPANY IS SUPPOSED TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROFITS IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND TO I TS SHAREHOLDERS/MEMBERS AND SUCH DIVIDEND CANNOT BE GI VEN TO NON- MEMBERS. THE SECOND CATEGORY SPECIFIED UNDER SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, VIZ, A CONCERN (LIKE THE ASSESSEE HEREIN), WHI CH IS GIVEN THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS ADMITTEDLY NOT A SHAREHOLDER/MEMBER OF T HE PAYER COMPANY. THEREFORE, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, IT COULD BE TREAT ED AS SHAREHOLDER/MEMBER RECEIVING DIVIDEND. IF THE INTEN TION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO TAX SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE AS DEEM ED DIVIDEND AT THE HANDS OF DEEMING SHAREHOLDER, THEN THE LEGISLATUR E WOULD HAVE INSERTED A DEEMING PROVISION IN RESPECT OF SHAREHOL DER AS WELL, THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WOULD STAND ANSWERED, ONCE WE LOOK INTO T HE MATTER FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE. 26. IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THE RECIPIENT WOULD BE A S HAREHOLDER BY WAY OF DEEMING PROVISION. IT IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO ARGUE THAT IF THIS POSITION IS TAKEN, THEN THE INCOME IS NOT TAXED AT THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. SUCH AN ARGUMENT BASED ON THE SC HEME OF THE ACT AS PROJECTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 8, 14 AND 56 OF THE ACT WOULD BE OF NO AVAIL. SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT SUCH LOAN OR ADVANC E, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 15 - IS NOT AN INCOME. SUCH A LOAN OR ADVANCE HAS TO BE RETURNED BY THE RECIPIENT TO THE COMPANY, WHICH HAS GIVEN THE LOAN OR ADVANCE. 27. PRECISELY, FOR THIS VERY REASON, THE COURTS HAV E HELD IF THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED ARE FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, SUCH PAYMENT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEEMING DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT. [4.0] SHRI BHATT, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE HAS AS SUCH TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION OF THE DE LHI COURT IN THE CASE OF ANKITECH PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND HAS VEHEMENTLY SUBMI TTED THAT THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE THIRD CATEGORY I. E. SHAREHOLDER IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE V OTING POWER IN THE COMPANY FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS TAKEN. HOW EVER, ON CONSIDERING SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH THE AFORESAID. IF THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IN THAT CASE, IT WILL BE CREATING THE THIRD CATEGORY / CLASS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. WHAT IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E ) OF THE ACT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY MUST BE A SHAREHOLDER IN THE COMPANY FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR ADVANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND SH OULD BE HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT ANY SHAREHOLDER IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO HAD TAKEN A NY LOAN OR ADVANCE FROM ANOTHER COMPANY IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOL DER IS ALSO A SHAREHOLDER HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, SECTION 2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT MAY BE APPLICABLE. [5.0] NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE LEARNED TR IBUNAL IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS SUB STANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT TAX APPEAL. UNDER THE CIR CUMSTANCES, THE PRESENT TAX APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 16 - 12. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID BINDING PRECEDENTS DIR ECTLY TOUCHING THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED, WE FIND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE CIT(A) IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LEGAL POSITION PREVAILING IN TH IS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO.78 /AHD/2014 FOR AY 2005-06 IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 13. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN OTHER CAPTIONED APPEALS O F REVENUE BEING COMMON AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, THE FINDING IN IT(S S)A NO.78/AHD/2014 WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ALL THE REMAINING REVENUE APPEALS. FOR THE PARITY OF REASONS, ALL OTHER APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE ALSO LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO ASSESSEES FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DI SMISSED. 15. NOW, WE SHALL DEAL WITH ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECT ION NOS.143/AHD/2014 (AY 2005-06), 144/AHD/2014 (AY 200 7-08), 145/AHD/2014 (AY 2008-09), 146/AHD/2014 (AY 2009-10 ), 147/AHD/2014 (AY 2006-07), 148/AHD/2014 (AY 2007-08 ), 149/AHD/2014 (AY 2010-11) AND CO 150/AHD/2014 (AY 2 011-12). IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 17 - 15.1. IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE CAPT IONED ASSESSEE(S) HAVE ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS, IN WHICH SOME LEG AL GROUNDS WERE RAISED TO IMPEACH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AS WELL AS ADDITIONS MADE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE(S) HAVE N OT SUPPORTED THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION(S) BY ANY COG ENT EVIDENCE AND/ OR JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE SUBJECT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. IT IS ALSO NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM RECORD WHETHER ANY ASSESS MENT OR REASSESSMENT IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH OR NOT, HAVING REGARD TO 2 ND PROVISO TO S.153A(1) OF THE ACT. THIS FACT IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF VITAL FACTS TO SUPPORT THE GROUNDS RAISED COUPLED WITH ABSENCE OF ARGUMENTS CANVASSED THEREON , WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AT TH IS STAGE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND NO SUBSISTING GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON QUAN TUM ADDITIONS PERSISTS AGAINST THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE CROSS OB JECTIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED B Y THE TWO ASSESSEES FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NOS.78 TO 85/AHD/2014 AND CO NOS.143 TO 150/AHD/14 (TWO ASSESSEES) ACIT VS. MAKSON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. & ACIT VS. MAKSON FOODS PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 - 18 - 17. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS WELL AS ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES STAND DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 /1 1 /2016 SD/- SD/- ( ..) ( ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) (PR ADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 11 /2016 ,..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -./ / THE APPELLANT 2. 0./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( - ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 56723 , --23' , -1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79# / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 05 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION . 25.10.16/01.11.16 (DICTATION-P AD 18+12 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL- FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.10.16/1.11.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.07.11.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 08.11.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER