Smt. Savitaben Hemantbhai Rathod, Surat v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1),, Surat

ITA 1896/AHD/2010 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189620514 RSA 2010
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1896/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Savitaben Hemantbhai Rathod, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 17-09-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 02-06-2010
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL A M 1. SAVITABEN H. RATHOD & 2. ABHAY DEVILAL RATHOD AVDHI BUNGALOW KHANDWALA ESTATE ATHWALINES SURAT. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1) SURAT. (APPELLANTS) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY :- SHRI R. N. VEPARI AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI BHUBNESH KULSHRESTHA DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE TWO APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 2. IN THE CASE OF SMT. SAVITABEN H. RATHOD PENALTY OF RS.57 459/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A); AND IN THE CASE O F SHRI ABHAY DEVILAL RATHOD PENALTY OF RS.73 440/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. SINCE THE FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL WE TAKE THEM UP TOGET HER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. SHRI ABHAY D. RATHOD 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.2 80 000/- FROM SMT. JASWANTIDEVI B. JAIN. THE A O DID NOT TREAT THE CLAIM OF GIFT AS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE A DDITION OF ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS :2000-01 & 2005-06 ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 2 RS.2 80 000/-. THIS ADDITION WAS FINALLY CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE PARA 10 FROM T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1391 & 1392/AHD/2008 FOR ASST. YEARS 1999-00 & 2005-06 PRONOUNCED ON 11.6.2010:- 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO REAS ON FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED T O DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF SUBMITTING COMPLETE DETAILS OF GIFTS BEFORE THE AO. SHE SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED (I) THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR; (II) CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR; (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION; (IV) O CCASION; (V) RELATIONSHIP OF THE DONOR AND DONEE; (VI) EVIDENCE OF NATURAL LO VE AND AFFECTIONS. MERELY BECAUSE MONEY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSF ERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT. THE HUMAN PROBABILITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TO WHY DO NOR IS PROMPTED TO GIVE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS QUESTION IS REQUIRE D TO BE ANSWERED BECAUSE AS CONTRARY TO LOAN IN THE CASE OF GIFT DONOR LOS ES HIS HARD EARNED CAPITAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DONEE FOR EVER WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF LOAN THE CREDITOR RETAINS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE MONEY FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE ONUS IS HEAVIER ON THE ASSESSEE IN A CAS E OF GIFT AS COMPARED TO THE CASE OF CREDIT. IN CASE OF CREDIT IF IDENTI TY OF THE CREDITOR IS KNOWN AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS ESTABLISHED THEN ONUS IS SHIFTED TO THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT CREDIT IS NOT GENUINE. BUT IN THE CASE OF GIFT ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS ARE NECESSARY TO BE ESTABLISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY BY GIVING EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF DONOR GENUINENESS CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE ESTABLISHED AUTOM ATICALLY. THEREFORE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY ASSUMES IMPORTANCE SO AS TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE REASONS WHICH PROMPTED THE DONOR TO FORGO HIS HARD EARNED CAPITAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DONEE. SUCH TEST TO ESTABLISH HUM AN PROBABILITY ARE OCCASIONS WHEN NOT ONLY THE DONOR BUT OTHERS ALSO C AME UP TO GIVE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE; THERE WERE CEREMONIES ORGANIZED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON WHICH HE HAS SPENT MONEY; HE/SHE HAD INVITED PEOPLE AND SOME OF THOSE WHO WERE INVITED HAD DEEP BONDED RELATIONS WHICH PROMPT ED THEM TO GIVE GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BONDAGE BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE SHOULD BE SHOWN BY FREQUENT VISITS OF EACH OTHER; INVOLVEMENT OF EACH OTHER INTO FAMILY AFFAIRS; STANDING FOR EACH OTHER IN THE HOUR OF NEED; DONEE ALSO GIVING GIFTS TO THE DONORS; OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS I N THE PAST OR ALSO IN FUTURE; THEY ARE SO CLOSELY RELATED THAT FOREGOING HARD EARNED MONEY IS UNLIKELY TO PINCH THE DONOR; DONOR IS STANDING ON H IGHER PEDASTRAL IN TERMS OF SOCIAL STATUS IN RELATION OR IN FINANCIA L WORTH OR IN ANY OTHER RATIONAL CRITERIA WHICH WOULD MAKE HIM FEEL TO PAS S ON HIS HARD EARNED ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 3 CAPITAL TO THE DONEE WHO STANDS ON LOWER PEDASTRAL IN ANY OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. IN THE PRESENT CASES THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO SHOW THAT EVEN AFTER GIVING GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE SMT. SUSHILABEN AND SMT. MANJULABEN HAD ENOUTH OF THEIR MONEY. ON THE OTHER HAND AS PE R COPY OF ACCOUNT FURNISHED SMT. SUSHILABEN IS LEFT WITH RS.919/- AN D SMT. MANJULABEN IS LEFT WITH RS.1698/-. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT DONORS WILL CHOSE TO PRACTICALLY BECOME POPER AFTER GIVING GIFTS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH COMPULSION WHICH WOULD PROMPT THEM TO BECOME POPER. AS A RESULT WE HOLD THAT FIRSTLY ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE AO ABOUT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND SECONDLY ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. A S A RESULT WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE THE DETAILS OF GIFT RE CEIVED WERE REFERRED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 14 OF THEIR ORDER AS UNDER :- 14. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1392/AHD/2008 FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.2 80 000/- FROM SMT. JASHWANTIDEVI . THE CLAIM WAS THAT SHE HA D WITHDRAWN THE MONEY FROM THE FIRM AND OBTAINED DRAFT FROM BANK OF MAHARASHTRA PUNE. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T AND BALANCE SHEET OF BOTH THE DONOR AND THE DONEE. THE GIFTS WERE RECEI VED ON DIFFERENT DATES AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY COPY OF GIFT DECLARATION BE FORE THE AO AND NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FILED. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E FILED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. JASHWANTIDEVI SHOWING TRANSF ER OF MONEY TO ASSESSEE. DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT (RS.) 08.12.2004 51157 1 00 000 14.12.2004 51302 1 00 000 20.12.2004 511351 80 000 TOTAL 2 80 000/- ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 4 4. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FO LLOWING REPLY :- PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER DATED 20.3.2009 ASKING ME TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS RESPECT MY SUBMISSIONS ARE AS UNDER :- THE AO ADDED TO THE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.504730/- ON ACCOUNT OF 1) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS.134400/- AND ON ACCOU NT OF 2) NON- GENUINE GIFT OF RS.280000 FROM MRS. JASHWANTIDEVI. IN FIRST APPEAL THE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEAL DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.120986/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y. A COPY OF THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE SO CALLED NON GENUINE OF GIFT OF RS.280000 FROM MRS. JASWANTI DEVI WAS NOT DELETED ONLY BECAUSE THE DRAFT CAME FROM PU NE. THE DRAFT CAME FROM PUNE AS HER HUSBAND AND HER BUSINESS IS AT PUN E AND THEY ARE LIVING AT PUNE. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS LIKE GIFT DECLARATION BANK STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FI LING THE RETURN OF INCOME ETC. ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THUS GENUINENES S OF GIFT AND SOURCE OF FUNDS WERE ESTABLISHED AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ABOVE I BRING TO YOU R KIND NOTICE THAT I HAVE PREFERRED THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. TR IBUNAL (ITAT AHMEDABAD). A COPY OF THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS ARE ENCL OSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I REQUEST AGAIN TO DROP THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. IN CASE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR VIEW I REQUEST YOU TO KEE P THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE TILL THE CASE IS FINALLY SE TTLED AND OBLIGE. HOPE YOU WILL FIND THE ABOVE IN ORDER. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE REPLY AND H ELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OF RS.2 80 000/- AND ACCORDING LY LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.73 440/-. ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 5 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AS ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM AND ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. H E FAILED TO FURNISH FULL AND ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD.CIT (A) REFERRED TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AS PER PARA 6.8 OF HIS ORDER. 6. AGAINST THIS LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INCORR ECT TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED HIS EXPLANATION AND EVID ENCE. IN FACT HE HAD FURNISHED FOLLOWING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLA IM OF THE GIFT: PAPERS RELATED TO GIFT DECLARATION MADE BY JASHWAN TI DEVI BHAGWATILAL JAIN: (I) GIFT DECLARATION DATED 27.12.2004 (II) BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD (III) BANK STATEMENT OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA (IV) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR 2004-05 & 2005-06 ASST. YEARS. (V) BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2004. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF BANK STATEMENT O F THE DONOR THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF I.T. RETURN BALANCE SHEET AN D STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME RELATING TO 2004-05 AND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT OF IT RETURN BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME RELATIN G TO ASST. YEAR 2005- 06 WAS ALSO FURNISHED IN ADDITION TO COPY OF GIFT D EED. THE CLAIM OF GIFT WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL HU MAN PROBABILITY FACTOR WOULD BE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. BUT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED HE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDEN CES WHICH HE COULD FURNISH. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOUND THESE EVIDENC ES AS BOGUS AND NO ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 6 SUCH FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN. THEREFORE THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 271(1)(C). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE EXPLANATION 1(B) AND FIND OUT INGREDIENTS THEREIN AND WHETHER THEY ARE SATISFIED OR NOT. IN INVOKING EXPLANATION 1(B) THE AO HAS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY AND CUMULATIVELY PROVE THAT - (1) ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY IT; (2) THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NO T BONA FIDE; (3) ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FAC TS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE EXPL ANATION AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE FOR INVOKING EXP LANATION 1(A). FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED HIS EXPLANATION BY SUBMI TTING COPY OF GIFT- DEED CONFIRMATION BANK STATEMENT OF DONOR ETC. AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHAT FURTHER N ECESSARY DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED. WITHOUT POINTING OUT AS TO WHAT MATERIAL ASSESSEE W AS DUTY BOUND TO FURNISH AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED THE AO CA NNOT INVOKE EXPLANATION 1B. IN OUR VIEW ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIA TED THE EXPLANATION AND NECESSARY MATERIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM AND NO CASE IS MADE OUT THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS NOT BONA FIDE. TH E CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IS MADE BY DISBELIEVING THE EVIDENCE FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF HUMAN PROBABILITY FACTOR BUT THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO INFERENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIAT ED THE EXPLANATION OR HAS NOT DISCLOSED MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT OR THAT EXPLANATION IS NOT BONA FIDE. WHEN ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS IN SUPPORT OF THE ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 7 CLAIM THEN IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO FIND OUT FAULT OR DEFECTS IN THOSE EXPLANATION AND POINT OUT WHAT IS STATED BEFORE TH EM OR THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TRUE AND TRUTH IS DIFFER ENT THAN WHAT IS SHOWN. THIS COULD BE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF DONOR SHO WING IGNORANCE ABOUT GIFT OR STATING THAT IT WAS THE MONEY OF THE DONEE OR DISPUTING SIGNATURES OVER VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OR IN FALSITY IN BANK STATEM ENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILAR SUCH OTHER THINGS WHICH CAN DI SPROVE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE . THOUGH MALA FIDE AS SUCH IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED BUT IT IS NECESSA RY TO DISPROVE THE BONA FIDE SO AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE MISCHIEF O F EXPLANATION 1(B). IN OTHER WORDS SOMETHING AGAINST THE EXPLANATION FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR INVOKING THE EXPLAN ATION 1(B). THUS WE HOLD THAT NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY A ND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY CANCELLED. SAVITABEN HEMANTBHAI RATHOD 9. IN THIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE REC EIPT OF GIFT AS UNDER:- THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY IN THIS CASE ALSO OF A SU M OF RS.57 459/- ON AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE T RIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY FOR SIMIL AR REASONS AS GIVEN BY HIM IN THE CASE OF SHRI ABHAY D. RATHOD. ASST. YEAR 2000-2001 MADHU R. JAIN RS.50 000/- SUSHILABEN R. JAIN RS.1 00 000/- MANJULABEN R. JAIN 1 00 000/- ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 8 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT IT HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GIF T:- (1) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT ENCLOSED (P 4-6 OF THE PAPER BOOK) (2) COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURN BALANCE SHE ET AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME RELATING TO 2004-05 ASSES SMENT YEAR ARE ENCLOSED (P9-11 OF THE PAPERBOOK). (3) COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURN BALANCE SHE ET AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME RELATING TO 2005-06 ASSES SMENT YEAR ARE ENCLOSED. BALANCE SHEET SHOWS CAPITAL ACCOUNT I N WHICH GIFT OF RS.2 80 000/- IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN (P 3 & 7-8 OF THE PAPERBOOK) (4) COPY OF GIFT DEED (1-2 OF THE PAPERBOOK). 11. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR AS THAT OF SHRI ABHAY D. RATHOD THEN FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSE D WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN THAT CASE WE HOLD HERE ALSO THAT EXPL ANATION 1(B) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE FOR THE REA SONS MENTIONED IN THAT CASE WE CANCEL THE PENALTY IN THIS CASE ALSO. ACCO RDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/9/10. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD DATED : 17/9/10. MAHATA/- ITA NOS.1896 & 1897/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 & 2005-06 9 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 27/8/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..