The ITO,Sabarkantha Range,, v. Shri Chavada Vijaykumar Gurumukhdas,

ITA 2253/AHD/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 225320514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAQPC3587J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2253/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant The ITO,Sabarkantha Range,,
Respondent Shri Chavada Vijaykumar Gurumukhdas,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 02-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 02-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 11-06-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2252/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO WARD 1 HIMATNAGAR VS. KISHANCHAND TEKCHAND STATION ROAD KHEDBRAHMA DISTT. SABARKANTHA PAN: AAJM6941R I.T.A. NO. 2253 / AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO WARD 1 HIMATNAGAR VS. CHAVADA VIJAYKUMAR GURMUKHDAS C/O M/S. K T TRADING CO. SATION ROAD KHEDBRAHMA DISTT. SABARKANTHA PAN: AAQPC3587J I.T.A. NO. 2254 / AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO WARD 1 HIMATNAGAR VS. M/S. K T TRADING CO. STATION ROAD KHEDBRAHMA DISTT. SABARKANTHA PAN: AAJFM6942N I.T.A. NO. 2258 / AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO WARD 1 HIMATNAGAR VS. CHAVADA VINODKUMAR MULCHAND C/O M/S. K T TRADING CO. STATION ROAD KHEDBRAHMA DISTT. SABARKANTHA PAN:AAQPC3588H (APPELLANTS) .. (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K C THAKOR ADV. I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 2 DATE OF HEARING: 02.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.02.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA AM:- OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS ALL THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OUT OF WHICH TWO APPEALS ARE RELATING TO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS VIZ. M/S. KISANCHAND TEKCHAND AND M/S. K.T. TRADING CO. AND REMAINING TWO APPEALS ARE FILED FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS SHRI CHAVADA VIJAYKUMAR GURUMUKHDAS AND SHRI CHAVADA VIN ODKUMAR MULCHAND. THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE PARTNERS OF M/ S. K T TRADING COMPANY. HENCE ALL THESE APPEALS ARE CONNECTED AP PEALS AND WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY W AY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I .T.A.NO. 2252/AHD/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN TH E CASE OF M/S. KISANCHAND TEKCHAND A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EFFECT. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE N OTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APP ELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME RS.96 580/- FROM ITS WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN FOOT-WEAR. IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE PA RTNERS OF THE I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 3 FIRM HAVE BROUGHT IN CAPITAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE A.O. CALLED FOR THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER DISCUSSING THE SAME IN THE ORDER HE HAS MADE THE AD DITIONS WHICH ARE CONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWI NG VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS JUDGEMENTS AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.3 LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFFS IN INCOME TAX REFERENC E NO.241 OF 1993 AS PER THE JUDGEMENT DATED 06.07.2005 IS NOT APPLICABL E BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE PARTNERS AND CREDIT OF GIFT IS IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AND SECTION 68 IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF TH E FIRM. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PARTNERS ARE ALSO ASSESSED BY THE SA ME A.O. REGARDING MERIT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE DONORS ARE NOT RELATIVES OF THE PARTNER DONEES AND IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 1-3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS DELETED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM DIREC TION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO EXAMINE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS. 2.4 AS AGAINST THIS IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R . THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFFS (SUPRA). 2.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT ON ACCOUNT OF FRESH CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HA NDS OF THE FIRM AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS AS HAS BEEN STATED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. H ENCE THIS IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS. AS PER THE JUD GEMENT OF HON'BLE I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 4 GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ D YESTUFFS (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE PARTNERS HAVE OWNED THE MON EY DEPOSITED IN THEIR ACCOUNT AS THEIR OWN THE A.O. IS ENTITLED TO AND M AY PROCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AND ASSESS THE SAME IN THEIR HANDS IF THEI R EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. IN THE PRESENT CASE SUBSTANTI VE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS AND ONLY PROTECTI VE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. THIS PROTECTIVE ADDI TION IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THIS JUDGEMENT OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D. R. THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE PARTNERS HAVE NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WE FEEL THAT THIS ARGUMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE C ASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE NOT OWNED THE MONEY CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT THE PARTNERS ARE FICTITIOUS AND HENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PARTNERS A RE NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE WE ARE DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WE DO NOT M AKE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION I.E. REGARDING GENUINENESS OF DONATIONS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PART NERS. 2.6 IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 3. NOW WE TAKE UP THE SECOND APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2 254/AHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF M/S. K T TRADING CO. A PARTNERSHIP FIR M. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF RS.6 LACS ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND RS.35 45 000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 5 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EFFECT. 3.1 BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELL ANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7 3 840/- FORM ITS WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN FOOTWEAR. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE PARTNERS OF T HE FIRM HAVE BROUGHT IN CAPITAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. T HE A.O. CALLED FOR THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE AND AF TER DISCUSSING THE SAME IN THE ORDER HE MADE THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE C ONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 3.2 BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND NOW TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.3 BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S. KISHANCHAND TEKCHAND (SUPRA) AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON THE SAME LINES. IN THAT CASE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFFS (SUPRA). HENCE ON THE SAME LINES THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ALSO AND IT IS HELD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 3.4 IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL SO DISMISSED. 4. NOW WE TAKE UP THE 3 RD APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2253/AHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHAVADA VIJAYKUMAR GURMUKHDAS AN INDI VIDUAL. THE GROUNDS RAISE BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 6 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 16.15 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 7) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EFFECT. 4.1 THE BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE N OTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PAR TNER IN THE FIRM M/S. K.T. TRADING CO. HE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME RS.1 30 790/-. IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM M/S. K.T. TRADI NG CO. THE A.O. NOTICED CREDIT IN THE APPELLANT PARTNERS CAPITAL A CCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE A.O. CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS IN THIS CASE AND A FTER DISCUSSING THE SAME IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL HE HAS MADE THE ADD ITIONS WHICH ARE CONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 4.2 BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.3 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AFRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 I.E. IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR / LOAN CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 4.4 AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SOURCE IS EXPLAINED AND THE IDE NTITY IS CONFIRMED BY THE BANK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE IS ALSO EXPLAINED AND IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT THE DONOR HAD ALSO RECEIVED GIFT AND FROM THAT FUND GIFT WAS GIVEN BY THEM TO THE PRESE NT ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 7 THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL VS CIT 280 ITR 512 . HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. VS CIT (BBY.) AS REPORTED IN 30 ITR 181 AND ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRAGATI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. AS REPORTED I N 278 ITR 170. 4.5 IN THE REJOINDER LD. D.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P MOHAN KALA & ORS. AS REPORTED IN 291 ITR 278 HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER EXPLAINED ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONO R AND DONEE NOR POINTED OUT ANY OCCASION OF GIFT. 4.6 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THAT TH E ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) SIMPLY ON THIS BASIS THAT ONCE THE AS SESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CREDIT AND HAVE ALSO GONE F URTHER TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ONUS HAS BEEN DISCH ARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ONUS HAS NOW SHIFTED ON THE DEPARTMENT. WE FEEL THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 68 THREE INGREDIENTS HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUIN ENESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED ONE INGREDIENT I.E. IDENTITY BY SHOWING THAT THE BANKS HAVE PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF DONORS WITH ACCOUNT OPENING FORM PHOTO AND COMPLETE ADDRESS ETC. BUT THERE IS NO WHISPER REGA RDING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE DONORS IN THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A). BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THAT THE SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE DONORS IS EXPLAINED OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THOSE DONORS. BUT THERE ALSO WE FIND THAT ALL THESE DONORS HAVE DEPOSITED CASH ALSO IN T HEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND MOREOVER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONORS AND D ONEES AND OCCASSION OF GIFTS ETC HAS NEITHER BEEN EXPLAINED WITH REGARD TO GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR IN RESPECT OF SO CALLED DONORS. UNDER THESE FACTS WE FEEL I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 8 THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AND HE SHOULD GIVE A CL EAR FINDING REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AS WELL AS GENUINEN ESS OF GIFTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION. HE SHOULD PASS FRESH ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCU SSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SID ES. 4.7 IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. NOW WE TAKE UP THE 4 TH APPEAL I.E. I.T.A.NO. 2258/AHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHAVADA VINODKUMAR MULCHAND. THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE ARE AS UNDER: 1)THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19.30 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EFFECT. 5.1 BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THIS APPEAL CAN BE D ECIDED ON SIMILAR LINES AS PER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHAVA DA VIJAY KUMAR GURMUKHDAS BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. IN THAT CASE WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRE SH DECISION. HENCE IN THIS CASE ALSO WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER THE DI RECTION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHAVADA VIJAYKUMAR GURMUKHDAS. 5.2 IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL SO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE COMBINED RESULT REVENUES APPEALS IN I.T .A.NO. 2252 & 2254/AHD/2008 IN THE CASE OF PARTNERSHIP FIRMS ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS I.T.A.NO.2252 2253 2254 2258/AHD/2008 9 REMAINING TWO APPEALS IN I.T.A.NO. 2253 & 2258/AHD/ 2008 IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED 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 28/02 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28/02.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 29/02/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.29/2 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29/02/2012 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. .