Shri Lalchand B. Vasvani, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT., Circle-12, Ahmedabad

MA 136/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0144 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHVIN C SHAH
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Business expenditure; Question of law
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.135 & 136/AHD/2012 IN I.T.A. NO.1490 & 1922 / AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) LALCHAND BHAGCHAND VASVANI, PROP. GOPAL EMPORIUM, 107-108, GOAL TOWER, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 12, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAMPV7549 R (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHVIN C SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T SANKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 05.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.05.2013 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT CERTAIN ALLEGED MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUN AL ORDER PASSED IN RESPECT OF CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE VENUE. THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTICAL AND AR E REPRODUCED BELOW: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.135/AHD/2013: I AM IN RECEIPT OF ITAT ORDER DATED 23-03-2012 FO R A.Y. 2003- 2004. THERE ARE APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE SAID ORDER , WHICH ARE AS UNDER. GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEE' S APPEAL: THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL STATED IN PARA NO. 7 OF THE OR DER AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE CONSIDERED. ....................... WE FIN D THAT ON PAGES 9 & 10 OF THE PAPER M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 2 BOOK ARE THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. OUT OF THIS, FOR MANY CREDITORS, EVEN PA NUMBERS ARE NOT MENTIONED. IN ADDITION TO THE CONFIRMATIONS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE IDEN TITY OF CREDITORS OR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ON US OF ESTABLISHING THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT I.E. IDE NTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PART ADDITION.' WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL NOTICED ON PAGE NO. 9 & 10 OF PAPER BOOK THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS DO NOT HAVE EVEN PAN. HO WEVER, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THERE ARE MANY CREDI TORS WHOSE PAN WERE FURNISHED AND THAT THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PAN AND CONFIRMATIONS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS AS STATED ON PAGE NO. 14 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER AS UNDER: 'HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH THE ADDRESSES AND PAN WERE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE MAJOR CREDITOR S AS PER THE STATEMENT FURNISHED ON 13-03-2006. IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, IT I S HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CR EDITS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WHERE CONFIRMATIONS WITH FULL ADD RESSES INCLUDING PAN WERE FURNISHED.' PLEASE REFER PAGE NO. 14 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER FOR LI ST OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 9,14,918. THE ADDITION OF WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,17,000 ON THE GROUN D THAT THE PAN WERE NOT FURNISHED AND THAT THE SOURCES WERE NOT EX PLAINED AND THEREFORE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENES S WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THE AR SUBMITTED FOUR PAN AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN A SEPARATE PAPER WERE THE PAN ARE GIVEN UNDER THE HEADING GROUND NO. L OF APPEAL BY ASSESSEE. THEY ARE REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: SR. NO. NAME ADDRESS P.A.NO. AMOUNT RS. REMARKS 15 MAULIK B. AMARSEDA 256, GHEE KANTA ROAD, OPP. CBI, AHMEDABAD AFIPA7963H 1,00,000 BY CHEQUE OUT OF BUSINESS OF READYMADE GARMENTS 26 MEENA LALCHAND A/12, NIRNANKAR SOCIETY, BHAIRAVNATH ROAD, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD AJFPV1553M 40,000 RECEIVED FRO M MUTUAL FUND M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 3 28 BACHUBHAI H. CHAUHAN CHADHRANI POLE, 1033, LUNAWADA, DARIAPUR, AHMEDABAD AFGPC6052E 1,50,000 ADVANCE GIVEN & 1,20,000 RECEIVED BACK WHOLESALE READYMADE GARMENTS 34 SILVER TRADING CO. B- 63, NAGARSADHU VANDA, GHEE KANTA ROAD, AHMEDABAD ADLPL0427M 55,000 BUSINESS INCOME 2.3 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED FACTUAL MISTAKE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION AND PAN STATED ON PAGE NO. 9 & 10 OF PAPER BOOK. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT CONSI DER THE ORAL SUBMISSION THAT THE INITIAL BURDEN IS DISCHARGED AN D DISTINGUISHED THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 360 ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2.4 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS AND THEREBY REVERSED THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE GU JARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA M. LUTHRA V/S . ACIT 257 ITR 460 (GUJ). THE CATCH-NOTE IS AS UNDER: 'APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER ALL FACTS AND GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION - TRIBUNAL GIVING FIN DING CONTRARY TO DECISION OF CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING REASONS - MATTER REMANDED - I.T. ACT - SECTION 254'. THE KIND ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE GUJARAT HIG H COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S.J. & S.P. FAMILY TRUST V/S. DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ). THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUN AL SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER IS AN APPELABLE ORDER, MUST BE ONE W HICH REFLECTS NOT ONLY ITS CONCLUSION, BUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALS O. REASONS, HOWEVER, BRIEF ARE THE SOUL AND BACKBONE OF AN ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REASONS, WHICH MUST BE REFLECTED ON A READING OF TH E ORDER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS AW ARE AS TO WHAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS BEFORE IT AND WHAT WERE THE FACTORS PRO AND CON IN RELATION TO THE SAID ISSUE AND THE REASONS WHICH UL TIMATELY WEIGHED WITH THE TRIBUNAL FOR ARRIVING AT A DECISION.' IF THERE IS A FACTUAL MISTAKE, THE ORDER CAN BE REC TIFIED [CHAMPALAL CHOPRA V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 257 ITR 74 (RAJ)]. 2.5 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DISTINGUI SHED THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ROHINI BUILD ERS 256 ITR 360 ON FACTS. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS RATIO AND NOT THE FACT S. THE KIND ATTENTION IS M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 4 DRAWN DELHI HIGH COURT FULL BENCH DECISION IN THE C ASE OF LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. V/S. ACIT 330 ITR 243 . THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'A JUDGMENT HAS TO BE READ IN CONTEXT, AND DISCERNI NG OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREIN. IT IS OBLIGATORY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRU E PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION AND IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO EXPAND THE PRINCIPLE TO INCLUDE WHAT HAS NOT BEEN STATED THEREIN. A DECISION IS ONLY AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IS ACTUALL Y DECIDES AND IT IS THE DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE REAL CONCRETE OR RATIO DECIDE NDI WHICH HAS BINDING EFFECT. MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF A DECISION TREATI NG AS A PRECEDENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IS NO T ALLOWABLE. ' IT WAS HELD BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT WHEN PAN IS FURNISHED, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS ESTABLISHED AND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF SOURCE. 2.6 AND WHEREAS NON-CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IS APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD [CIT V/S. MITHALAL 158 ITR 755 (M P). NON- CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD [ACIT V/S. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHA NGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)] AFFIRM BY SC 305 ITR 227. WHEN THE PREJU DICES CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD. 3. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE : THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED IN PARA NO.12 ON PAGE NO.7 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 'IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NEITHER ANY RELATION SHIP BETWEEN DONOR AND DONEE NOR ANY OCCASION OF GIFT AND DONOR HAS NOT AP PEARED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, AS PER THE THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE O F PROBABILITIES, GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE BECAUSE NO PERSON WIL L GIFT 50% OF HIS CAPITAL TO A PERSON WITH WHOM HE HAS NO RELATIONSHI P WHETHER BLOOD RELATION OR FRIENDSHIP AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REA SON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDIN GLY, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS REJECTED.' 3.1 WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE FACTS AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RATIO LAID BY THE CASES RE LIED UPON BY THE AR. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE I NITIAL BURDEN BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL V/S. CIT 280 ITR 512 AND CIT V/ S. ASHA HAMPANNAVAR [SLP CIVIL NO. 16370 OF 2009] 319 ITR 5 (STAT) BUT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTIONS R AISED. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING AS TO WHETHER TH E DONOR HAS TAKEN BACK THE MONEY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. THIS CONTENTION I S ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 5 THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE GIFT AS NOT GENUINE ON PRESUMPTION, CONJUNCTURE AND SURMISES. 3.2 NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTION RAISED IS T HE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION S CITED IN PARA NO.2. THE KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) V/S. SHIA DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT 344 IT R 653. THE CATCH- NOTE IS AS UNDER: 'APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - DUTY OF TRIBUNAL - TRIBUNAL SHOULD GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION - MERE MENTION OF SC OR HI GH COURT CASES WITHOUT SPECIFYING HOW THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE - NOT SUFFICIENT - I.T. ACT, 1961.' NON-CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECI SION IS ALSO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ACIT V/S. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STO CK EXCHANGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)] AFFIRM BY SC 305 ITR 227 AND HON DA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V/S. CIT 295 ITR 466 SC. 4. IF THE PREJUDICE IS CAUSED, THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED [LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. V/S. ACIT 330 ITR 243 (DELHI) FULL BENCH]. 4.1 IT IS NECESSARY THAT EVERY FACT FOR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITH DUE CARE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT MUS T HAVE GIVEN THE FINDINGS IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE W HAT WERE THE QUESTIONS WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMINATION, WHAT WAS T HE EVIDENCE PRO AND CONTRA IN REGARD TO EACH ONE OF THEM AND WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS WHICH ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE IT - RAMESHCHANDRA M. LUTHRA V/S. ACIT 257 ITR 460 (GUJ). 4.2 THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL SH OULD NOT BE COLORED BY ANY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS OR MATTERS OF PREJUDI CE AND IF THERE ARE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF DOING SO . ON NO ACCOUNT WHATEVER SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL BASE ITS FINDINGS ON S USPICIOUS, CONJUNCTURES OR SURMISES NOR SHOULD IT ACT ON NO EV IDENCE AT ALL OR IMPROPER REJECTIONS OF MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDEN CE OR PARTLY ON EVIDENCE AND PARTLY ON SUSPICIOUS, CONJUNCTURES OR SURMISES- OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIT V/S. CIT 37 ITR 151-170 (SC). 4.3 THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER IS AN APPELABLE ORDER, MUST B E ONE WHICH REFLECTS NOT ONLY ITS CONCLUSION, BUT THE DECISION MAKING PR OCESS ALSO. REASONS, HOWEVER BRIEF ARE THE SOUL AND BACKBONE OF AN ORDER -S.J. & S.P. FAMILY TRUST V/S. DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ). 4.4 EVERY JUDICIAL / QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY / AU THORITY MUST PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT THE APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 6 CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES / POINTS RAISED B EFORE IT. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS IN AN IMPORTANT SA FEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARIT Y, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERAT IONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS - CIT V/S. PALWAL CO.OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. 284 ITR 153 (P&H). MERE REFERENCE TO DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH WITHOUT MENTIONING THE FACTS OF THAT CASE IS NOT PROPER [CIT V/S. MATRIX INTEL P. LTD. 294 ITR 257 (MAD)]. WHEN PREJUDICE RESULT FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, THEN IT IS DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO S ET IT RIGHT [HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V/S. CIT 295 ITR 466 SC]. NON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IS APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD [CIT V/S. MITHALAL 158 ITR 755 (MP) AND ACIT V/S. S AURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)]. YOUR HONOURS ARE THEREFORE PRAYED TO MODIFY / RECAL L THE ORDER. PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE: 16-07-2012 APPELLANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.136/AHD.2013: 1. I AM IN RECEIPT OF ITAT ORDER DATED 23-0 3-2012 FOR A.Y. 2003- 2004. THERE ARE APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE SAID ORDER , WHICH ARE AS UNDER. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL BY REVENUE: THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL STATED IN PARA NO. 7 OF THE OR DER AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE CONSIDERED. ....................... WE FIN D THAT ON PAGES 9 & 1 0 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS UNSECURED LOA NS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. OUT OF THIS, FOR MANY CREDITORS, EVEN PA NUMBERS ARE NOT MENTIONED. IN ADDITION TO THE CONFI RMATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DOCUMENT IN SU PPORT OF THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS OR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHA RGED HIS ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT I.E. IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PART ADDITION.' 2.1 WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL NOTICED ON P AGE NO. 9 & 10 OF PAPER BOOK THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS DO NOT HAVE E VEN PAN. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THERE AR E MANY CREDITORS WHOSE PAN WERE FURNISHED AND THAT THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PAN AND M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 7 CONFIRMATIONS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS AS STATED ON PAGE NO. 14 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER AS UNDER: 'HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH THE ADDRESSES AND PAN WERE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE MAJOR CREDITOR S AS PER THE STATEMENT FURNISHED ON 13-03-2006. IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, IT I S HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CR EDITS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WHERE CONFIRMATIONS WITH FULL ADD RESSES INCLUDING PAN WERE FURNISHED.' PLEASE REFER PAGE NO. 14 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER FOR LI ST OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 9,14,918. THE ADDITION OF WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,17,000 ON THE GROUN D THAT THE PAN WERE NOT FURNISHED AND THAT THE SOURCES WERE NOT EXPLAIN ED AND THEREFORE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THE AR SUBMITTED FOUR PAN AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN A SEPARATE PAPER WERE THE PAN ARE GIVEN UNDER THE HEADING GROUND NO. L OF APPEAL BY ASSESSEE. THEY ARE REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: SR. NO. NAME ADDRESS P.A.NO. AMOUNT RS. REMARKS 15 MAULIK B. AMARSEDA 256, GHEE KANTA ROAD, OPP. CBI, AHMEDABAD AFIPA7963H 1,00,000 BY CHEQUE OUT OF BUSINESS OF READYMADE GARMENTS 26 MEENA LALCHAND A/12, NIRNANKAR SOCIETY, BHAIRAVNATH ROAD, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD AJFPV1553M 40,000 RECEIVED FROM MUTUAL FUND 28 BACHUBHAI H. CHAUHAN CHADHRANI POLE, 1033, LUNAWADA, DARIAPUR, AHMEDABAD AFGPC6052E 1,50,000 ADVANCE GIVEN & 1,20,000 RECEIVED BACK WHOLESALE READYMADE GARMENTS 34 SILVER TRADING CO. B- 63, NAGARSADHU VANDA, GHEE KANTA ROAD, AHMEDABAD ADLPL0427M 55,000 BUSINESS INCOME 2.3 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL COMMITTE D FACTUAL MISTAKE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION AND PAN STATED ON PAGE NO. 9 & 10 OF PAPER BOOK. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT CONSI DER THE ORAL SUBMISSION THAT THE INITIAL BURDEN IS DISCHARGED AN D DISTINGUISHED THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 360 ON FACTS OF THE CASE. M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 8 2.4 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS AND THEREBY REVERSED THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE GU JARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA M. LUTHRA V/S . ACIT 257 ITR 460 (GUJ). THE CATCH-NOTE IS AS UNDER: 'APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER ALL FACTS AND GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION - TRIBUNAL GIVING FIN DING CONTRARY TO DECISION OF CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING REASONS - MATTER REMANDED - I.T. ACT - SECTION 254'. THE KIND ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE GUJARAT HIG H COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S.J. & S.P. FAMILY TRUST V/S. DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ). THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUN AL SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER IS AN APPELABLE ORDER, MUST BE ONE W HICH REFLECTS NOT ONLY ITS CONCLUSION, BUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALS O. REASONS, HOWEVER, BRIEF ARE THE SOUL AND BACKBONE OF AN ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REASONS, WHICH MUST BE REFLECTED ON A READING OF TH E ORDER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS AW ARE AS TO WHAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS BEFORE IT AND WHAT WERE THE FACTORS PRO AND CON IN RELATION TO THE SAID ISSUE AND THE REASONS WHICH UL TIMATELY WEIGHED WITH THE TRIBUNAL FOR ARRIVING AT A DECISION.' IF THERE IS A FACTUAL MISTAKE, THE ORDER CAN BE REC TIFIED [CHAMPALAL CHOPRA V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 257 ITR 74 (RAJ)]. 2.5 AND WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DISTINGUI SHED THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ROHINI BUILD ERS 256 ITR 360 ON FACTS. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS RATIO AND NOT THE FACT S. THE KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN DELHI HIGH COURT FULL BENCH DECISION IN THE C ASE OF LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. V/S. ACIT 330 ITR 243 . THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'A JUDGMENT HAS TO BE READ IN CONTEXT, AND DISCERNI NG OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREIN. IT IS OBLIGATORY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRU E PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION AND IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO EXPAND THE PRINCIPLE TO INCLUDE WHAT HAS NOT BEEN STATED THEREIN. A DECISION IS ONLY AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IS ACTUALL Y DECIDES AND IT IS THE DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE REAL CONCRETE OR RATIO DECIDE NDI WHICH HAS BINDING EFFECT. MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF A DECISION TREATI NG AS A PRECEDENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IS NO T ALLOWABLE. ' IT WAS HELD BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT WHEN PAN IS FURNISHED, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS ESTABLISHED AND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF SOURCE. M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 9 2.6 AND WHEREAS NON-CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IS APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD [CIT V/S. MITHALAL 158 ITR 755 (M P). NON- CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD [ACIT V/S. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHA NGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)] AFFIRM BY SC 305 ITR 227. WHEN THE PREJU DICES CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD. 3. IF THE PREJUDICE IS CAUSED, THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED [LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. V/S. ACIT 330 ITR 243 (DELHI) FULL BENCH]. 3.1 IT IS NECESSARY THAT EVERY FACT FOR AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITH DUE CARE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND I T MUST HAVE GIVEN THE FINDINGS IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE W HAT WERE THE QUESTIONS WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMINATION, WHAT WAS T HE EVIDENCE PRO AND CONTRA IN REGARD TO EACH ONE OF THEM AND WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS WHICH ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE IT - RAMESHCHANDRA M. LUTHRA V/S. ACIT 257 ITR 460 (GUJ). 3.2 THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHO ULD NOT BE COLORED BY ANY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS OR MATTERS OF PREJUDI CE AND IF THERE ARE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF DOING SO . ON NO ACCOUNT WHATEVER SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL BASE ITS FINDINGS ON S USPICIOUS, CONJUNCTURES OR SURMISES NOR SHOULD IT ACT ON NO EV IDENCE AT ALL OR IMPROPER REJECTIONS OF MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDEN CE OR PARTLY ON EVIDENCE AND PARTLY ON SUSPICIOUS, CONJUNCTURES OR SURMISES- OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIT V/S. CIT 37 ITR 151-170 (SC). THE PROC EDURE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER IS AN APPELABLE ORDER, MUST BE ONE WHICH REFLECTS NOT ONLY ITS CONC LUSION, BUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALSO. REASONS, HOWEVER BRIEF ARE THE SOUL AND BACKBONE OF AN ORDER -S.J. & S.P. FAMILY TRUST V/S. DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ). EVERY JUDICIAL / QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY / AUTHORITY MU ST PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT THE APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES / POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS IN AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSU RE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTR ODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINE SS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS - CIT V/S. PALWAL CO.OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. 284 ITR 153 (P&H). MERE REFERENCE TO DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH WITHOUT MENTIONING THE FACTS OF THAT CASE IS NOT PROPER [CIT V/S. MATRIX INTEL P . LTD. 294 ITR 257 (MAD)]. M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 10 WHEN PREJUDICE RESULT FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, THEN IT IS DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO S ET IT RIGHT [HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V/S. CIT 295 ITR 466 SC]. NON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IS APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD [CIT V/S. MITHALAL 158 ITR 755 (MP) AND ACIT V/S. S AURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)]. 4. YOUR HONOURS ARE THEREFORE PRAYED TO MODI FY / RECALL THE ORDER. PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE: 16-07-2012 APPELLANT 2. IN THE COURSE OF BEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT ON PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND OUT OF THE TOTAL, FOR SOME CREDITORS, EVEN PAN ARE NOT NOTED. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THESE TWO PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT IN RESP ECT OF MOST OF THE LOAN CREDITORS, PAN ARE DULY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND IN THE REMARKS COLUMN, IT IS ALSO STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THESE LOAN CREDITORS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THOSE CREDITORS FOR WHICH PAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL H AS COMMITTED AN APPARENT MISTAKE BY DECIDING THE ENTIRE ISSUE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THIS FACT THAT RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE L D. A.R. ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ROHINI BUILDERS AS REPORTED IN 256 ITR 360. HE ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT FOLLOWED T HIS JUDGEMENT ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN FACTS. HE ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE FACTS OF TWO CASES CANNOT BE SIMILAR AND, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN FACTS, A BINDING DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT CANNOT BE M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 11 DISTINGUISHED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SINCE, THIS HAS B EEN DONE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS AN APPARENT M ISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 3. REGARDING THE 2 ND ALLEGED MISTAKE OF THE TRIBUNAL, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING T HE RECEIPT OF GIFTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT AS PER THE THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THE GIFTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS G ENUINE BECAUSE NO PERSON WILL GIFT 50% OF HIS CAPITAL TO A PERSON WIT H WHOM HE HAS NO RELATIONSHIP BEING BLOOD RELATION OR FRIENDSHIP. H E SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED T O APPRECIATE THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R. THE LD. A.R. HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF BOTH TH ESE ISSUES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED INITIAL BURDEN BY PLACING R ELIANCE ON TWO JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA) IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ABOUT LOAN AND ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 280 ITR 512 IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ABOUT RECEIPT OF GIFT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDIN G, AS TO WHETHER THE DONOR HAS TAKEN BACK THE MONEY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AND THIS CONTENTION IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TREATED THE GIFT AS NOT GENUINE ON PRESUMPTIONS, CO NJECTURES AND SURMISES. VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE REITERATED AND SINCE THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ITSELF HAVE BEEN REPRODU CED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT NOTING DOWN THE SAME AGAIN. REGARDING REVENUES AP PEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS NOT STATED HOW LD. CIT( A) IS WRONG IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF RELIEF ALLOWED BY HIM AND, THEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CONTAINS APPARENT M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 12 MISTAKE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) DCIT VS ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 360 (GUJ.) II) RAMESHCHANDRA M LUTHRA VS ACIT 257 ITR 460 (GUJ .) III) S J AND S P FAMILY TRUSTS VS DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ. ) IV) CHAMPALAL CHOPRA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 257 ITR 74 V) HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS CIT 295 ITR 466 ( SC) VI) DIT (EXEMPTION) VS SHIA DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT 344 ITR 653 VII) CIT VS RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA 21 TAXMAN.COM 159 (GUJ.) 4. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R . THAT BOTH THESE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ASKING FOR REVIEW WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) CIT VS KAMAL BHAI ISMILJI, 288 ITR 297 (ALLD.) II) CIT VS RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (BO M.) III) GUJARAT FERTILIZERS VS CIT 293 ITR 70 (GUJ.) IV) HOMI MEHTA & SONS P. LTD. VS DCIT 63 ITD 15 V) CIT VS PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS 330 ITR 164 VI) SMT. RUHINA AHMED 54 SOT 123 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENTS CITED B Y BOTH THE SIDES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS PROPOSITION THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE TRI BUNAL SHOULD RECTIFY ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. HENCE, IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGN ED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION BY US. THE FIRST ALL EGED MISTAKE IS THIS THAT IN SPITE OF GIVING PAN OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND IN SPITE OF GIVING NOTE IN M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 13 THE REMARKS COLUMN ABOUT SOURCE OF INCOME OF ALL TH E LOAN CREDITORS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT ALTHOUGH PART ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF TH OSE CREDITORS FOR WHICH PAN WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW, WE R EPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AS PER WHICH THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RELEVANT PARA IS PARA 7 O F THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ON PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE PAP ER BOOK ARE THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. OUT OF THIS, FOR MANY CREDITORS, EVEN PA NUMBERS ARE NOT MENTIONED. IN ADDITION TO THE CONFIRMATIONS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS OR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. UNDER THESE FA CTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHA RGED HIS ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT I.E. IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AN D GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PART ADDITION. THE JUDGMENT O F THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDE RS-(SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT OF HELP TO THE ASSESS EE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF SIX CREDITORS OUT OF TOTAL 21 CREDITORS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSES ALONG WITH GIR / PA NUMBERS AS W ELL AS CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT O RDERS PASSED IN THE CASES OF SOME CREDITORS AND IN THE REMAINING CA SES, WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE, THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPIES OF RETURNS FILED BY THE CREDIT ORS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THAT DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BY HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA S MERELY FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS AND IN SOME OF THE CONFIRMA TIONS, NO PA NUMBERS ARE MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISH ED THE COPIES M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 14 OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF CREDITORS OR INCOME-TAX RET URNS FILED BY THEM WITH THEIR STATEMENT OF INCOME / BALANCE SHEET S. HENCE THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT O F HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 IS JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE G ROUND NO.L OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS REJECTED WHEREAS GROUND NO.2 O F THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS FACT IS VERY MUCH NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT A S PER THE DETAILS GIVEN ON PAGES 9-10 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR MANY CREDITORS, EV EN PAN ARE NOT MENTIONED. THIS MEANS THAT THIS SUBMISSION IS VERY MUCH TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT OUT OF VARIOUS LOAN CR EDITORS, PAN ARE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SOME OF THE LOAN CREDITORS BUT FOR REMAINING SOME, NO PAN HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE T RIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. MOREOVER , THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS THIS THAT IN ADDITION T O THE CONFIRMATION AND PAN, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DOCUM ENT IN SUPPORT OF IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINES S. THIS IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IN RESPECT OF SECTION 68, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FULFILL THEE INGREDIENTS I.E. IDENTITY AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. REGARDING REV ERSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THIS REASONING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN ADDITION TO THE CONFIRMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE IDENTITY AND CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND AS PER SECTION 68, THE ASSESSEE HAS T O ESTABLISH THREE INGREDIENTS AND HENCE, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PART ADDITION. THIS SHOWS THAT THE REASONING IS VERY MU CH GIVEN BY THE M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 15 TRIBUNAL FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON THIS ACCO UNT. 7. REGARDING THE JUDGEMENT OF GUJARAT HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAME IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A SSESSEE HAS MERELY FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND IN MOST OF THE CONFIRMAT IONS, NO PAN WAS MENTIONED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CO PIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE CREDITORS OR COPY OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY THEM ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF INCOME/BALANCE SHEET. THIS IS ALSO BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT ANY JUDGEMENT IS IN RE SPECT OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE AND, THEREFORE, IF THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT, TH EN THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT FACTS, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A BINDING PRECEDENT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN A DIFFERENT CASE HAVING DIFFE RENT SET OF FACTS. WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT I N THAT CASE, THIS IS NOTED THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE 21 CREDITORS, THE ASSESS ES HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE ADDRESSES ALONG WITH THEIR GIR/PAN AS WELL AS CONFI RMATION ALONG WITH COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF C REDITORS IN RESPECT OF 11 CREDITORS AND IN THE REMAINING CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED C OPIES OF THEIR RETURNS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH THEIR STATEMEN T OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES ALONG WITH INTEREST AND ALTHOUGH THE A.O. H AD TREATED THE CASH CREDIT AS NONE GENUINE, HE HAS NOT MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED/PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME CASH CRED IT WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND HAS BEEN ALLOWE D BY THE A.O. THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CAS E HAS TO BE M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 16 CONSIDERED AS PRECEDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER NOR COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE LOAN CREDITORS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE STATEME NT OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET OF THOSE LOAN CREDITORS. THIS IS ALS O NOT A FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE REPAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A/C PAYEE CHEQUES ALONG WITH INTEREST AND THE A.O. HAS NOT MA DE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN THE LIGHT OF SO MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE FATS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY APPARENT M ISTAKE IN HOLDING THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE OF THE DIF FERENCES IN FACTS. 8. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE SECOND JUDGEMENT CITED BY T HE LD. A.R. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATIONS. THIS JUDGEMENT IS ALSO OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA LUTHRA (SUPRA). AS PER THIS JUDGEMEN T, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT IT IS A DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER ALL FACTS AND GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION. WE HAVE A LREADY SEEN THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE P RESENT CASE AS PER WHICH IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY FILED CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS AND FOR MANY OF THEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FURNISHED PAN AND APART FROM THIS, ASSESSEE HA S BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. THIS FACT IS SPECIFICALLY NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THA T ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS OR COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE LOAN CREDITORS ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET ETC. HENCE, THIS CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS. M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 17 9. REGARDING GIVING REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, WE HA VE ALREADY SEEN THAT FOR REVERSAL OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THOSE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE B ASIS OF AVAILABILITY OF PAN, CLEAR REASONING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT MERELY FURNISHING OF PAN DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ES TABLISHING AND SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND ON THIS BASIS, IT WAS HELD T HAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PART ADDITION. HENCE, IT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITHOUT REASON ING. THEREFORE, THIS JUDGEMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CAS E. 10. THE 3 RD DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SJ AND S P FAMILY TRUST (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IS THIS THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD GIVE REASONING FOR ITS DECISION WHICH MAY BE BRIEF ALSO. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT SUFFICIENT REASONING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND, THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALS O NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. THE NEXT DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CHAMPALAL CHOPRA (SUPRA). THIS JUDGEMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE WAS THIS AS TO WHETHER WHILE EXERCISING THE POWERS U/S 254(2) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECTIFY THE APPAR ENT MISTAKE IN A TRIBUNAL ORDER OR WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECALL I TS OWN ORDER. IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT WHERE THE FACTUAL MISTAKE IS SO APPARENT THAT IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN ONLY CORRECTING THE SAID MISTAKE BY WAY OF RECTIFIC ATION BUT IF THE JUDGEMENT HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF WRONG FACT, IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 18 IN RECALLING SUCH ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE H AVE SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL MISTAKE AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGEMENT IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 12. THE NEXT DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HONDA SI EL POWER PRODUCTS (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN PREJU DICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL MISTAKE, ERROR O R OMISSION, THEN IT IS A DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THIS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THERE IS ANY MISTA KE, ERROR OR OMISSION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. THE NEXT JUDGEMENT CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHIA DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT (SUPRA). THIS JUDGEMENT IS LAYING DOWN THIS RATIO THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD GIVE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION AND MERE MENTI ON OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OR OF HONBLE HIGH COURT CASE S WITHOUT SPECIFYING HOW THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE SEEN THAT WHATEVER DECISION IS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR NOT FOLLOWED BY THE TRI BUNAL, IS AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT REASONS BY STATING THAT THIS JUDGEMENT I S APPLICABLE AND / OR HOW THE JUDGEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND EVEN IF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT ON THE BASIS OF FAC TS, THOSE FACTS WERE ALSO DISCUSSED WHICH WERE DIFFERENT IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE CASE CITED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, AS PER THIS JUDGEMENT ALSO, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 14. THE NEXT JUDGEMENT CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS ALS O THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RANCHHOD JIVABHAI M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 19 NAKHAVA (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF LOAN CREDITORS ALONG WITH P HOTOCOPY OF PAN. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CA SE IN PARA 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. NOT ONLY CONF IRMATION WITH THE LENDER WHO ARE ASSESSED TO TAX BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THEIR PASS BOOKS AND IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM THE ABOVE ENTERPRISES AND THE SOURCE OF MONEY DEPOSITED BY TH EM IS THE LOAN FROM M/S. VAIBHAV ENTERPRISES. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING CONFIRMATION AND PAN, THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS BY PROVIDING THE BANK PASS BOOK OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN CREDITORS BY STATING THAT LOAN CREDITORS HAVE RECEIVED LOAN FROM VAIBHAV ENTERPRISES. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED BOTH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS IN THAT CASE, WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE LOAN CREDITORS TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AN D REGARDING IDENTITY ALSO, FOR SOME OF THE LOAN CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PAN BUT FOR SOME OTHERS, EVEN PAN IS NOT FURNISHED. THEREF ORE, THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 15. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CON SIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT REASONING FOR ITS DECISIO N. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT WHEREVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISIO N CITED BEFORE IT, THE FACTS WERE DULY DISCUSSED AND THOSE JUDGEMENTS WERE DISTINGUISHED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS. IN THE CASE OF SHIA DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT MERE CITING OF JUDGEMENT OF M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 20 HONBLE APEX COURT OR OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT IS NO T SUFFICIENT WITHOUT SPECIFYING HOW THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR DISTINGUISHING ANY JUDGEMENT CITED BEFORE IT ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENC E IN FACTS, STANDS APPROVED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS PER THIS DECISION AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R . THAT THE DECISION CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE FOLLOWED ON THE BASIS OF RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION WITHOUT EXAMINING AND COMPARING THE FA CTS OF THE CITED CASE AND THE CASE IN HAND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT ON PAGE 3 OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 135/AHD/2012, THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO CITED A JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (FULL BENCH) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LAXMANDAS BHATIA AS REPORTED IN 330 ITR 243 AND AS PER THE PORTION REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS PAGE OF THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THAT CAS E, THAT A JUDGEMENT HAS TO BE READ IN CONTEXT AND DISCERNING OF FACTUAL BAC KGROUND IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THERE IN. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT AS PER THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT ALSO, FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT HAS TO BE EXAMINED TO DECIDE AND UNDERSTAND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THAT DECISION AND THE TRIBUNAL I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DONE THE SAME BY EXAMINING THE FACTS OF CITED C ASES AND THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. IS WITHOUT MERIT THAT CITED CASES CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS. 16. REGARDING THE 2 ND ASPECT I.E. REGARDING GIFT ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING A LL THE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE IS ON THE BA SIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS ANY RELATIONSHIP OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE DONOR AND THERE IS ANY OCCASION FOR THE GIFT. THE MAIN BASIS OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 21 ON THIS ISSUE IS THIS THAT AS PER THE THEORY OF PRE PONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, GIFT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AS GEN UINE BECAUSE NO PERSON WILL GIFT 50% OF HIS CAPITAL TO A PERSON WITH WHOM HE HAS NO RELATIONSHIP, BLOOD RELATION OR FRIENDSHIP. IN THIS REGARD WE FI ND THAT LD. D.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF ABHAI DEVILAL RATHOD VS DCIT 40 SOT 354 (AHD.) WHEREIN IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT IT WAS HELD BY HE TRIBUNAL IN THIS JUDGEMENT THAT IN R ESPECT OF GIFT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE THIS ONUS OF SUB MITTING COMPLETE DETAILS OF GIFT BEFORE THE A.O. SUCH AS (I) IDENTITY OF THE DONOR (II) CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR (III) GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION (IV) OCCASION (V) RELATIONSHIP OF THE DONOR AND DONEE (V I) EVIDENCE OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND MERELY BECAUSE MONEY IS CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, IT CANNOT BE I NFERRED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. IT I S ALSO HELD THAT THE HUMAN PROBABILITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TO WHY DO NOR IS PROMPTED TO GIVE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT TH IS QUESTION IS REQUIRED TO BE ANSWERED BECAUSE AS CONTRARY TO LOAN, IN THE CAS E OF GIFT, DONOR LOOSES HIS HARD EARNED CAPITAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DONEE FOR EVER WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF LOAN, THE LENDER HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER T HE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ONUS IS HEAVIER ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF GIFT AS COMPARED TO THE CASE OF CREDIT. THE PRESEN T DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE OF GIFT IS IN LINE WITH THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION AND NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE OF ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES AS PER WHICH THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MIS TAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. M.A.NOS.135 & 136 /AHD/2012 22 17. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT T HERE IS NO MERIT IN BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE BEING DIS MISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 19. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (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 08.04.2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 09/29.04.2013.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 03/05/2013 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.3/5 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 03/05/2013 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. .