IRM Limited, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-4,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2641/AHD/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 264120514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACI3678M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2641/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant IRM Limited, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-4,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 15-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 15-10-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 23-11-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BENCH AHMEDABAD .. ! ! ! ! ' #$ BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.2641/AHD/2012 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) IRM LTD. IRM HOUSE OFF. CG ROAD AHMEDABAD-9 / VS. DCIT CIRCLE-4 AHMEDABAD ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. :AAACI 3678 M ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR A.R. -(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 15/10/2013 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/10/2013 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII AHMEDA BAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 07/09/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RELIEF PRAYED FOR: 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW IN FACT IN NOT GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME AND CONF IRMING THE DISALLOWANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT. 2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 U/S.143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE 1 ST APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - LD.CIT(A) ARE BAD IN LAW ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO B E CANCELLED/MODIFIED. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF R S.1 36 853/- OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND THE LD.CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.57 441/- OUT OF THE SAID. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE SAME DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.14 57 239/- FOR PETROL & DIESEL. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED . 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.3 46 342 FOR HANDLING CHARGES AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.173 171/- OUT OF THE SAID . THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.9 63 022/- FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4 81 511/- OUT OF THE SAID. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE IN CONFIRMING THE SAME DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.7 3 4 688/- FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANC ELLED. 7. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.64 01 38 7/- BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KOTAK BROKER AGE LIMITED VS ACIT ITAT(MUMBAI) WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE SAME DI SALLOWANCE. RELIANCE IN THIS CASE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE HON.SC S DECISION IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE OF M/S.SMIFS SECURITIES LTD. T HE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED. 8. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.17 35 38 9 UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE IT ACT FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF GROWING AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ERRED ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HE HAS ADD IN NOT ALLOWING US THE DEDUCTION UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT; AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE SAME DI SALLOWANCE. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE CANCELLED. {RE: ON THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE AND ABOVE GROUND NO.1 ABOVE AND AS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE STA TEMENT OF THE FACTS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WISH TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED A BRIEF NOTE ON THE N ATURE OF THE ACTIVITY CARRIED BY THE COMPANY WHICH COVERED THE N OTE ON ROUSDONMULLAI TEA ESTATE VIDE POINT 10 AND THE SEGM ENTAL FINANCIALS FOR THE IRM LTD WHICH SEPARATELY COVERED THE FINANCIAL OF THE TEA ESTATE VIDE ANNEXURE 4 OF THE LETTER DTD 10 TH JUN 2010. THE DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AND ALSO REPLIED THE ALL QUERIES WHICH WERE ASKED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING.} 9. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE TAX COMPUT ATION AND THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST U/S.234B 234C 234D AND TH E LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 10. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HERE IS NO SCOPE FOR INITIATION OF ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTY U/S.271 AND SAME SHOULD BE DROPPED. YOUR APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD ALTER MO DIFY AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND/(S) EITHER BEFORE O R DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12/2010 THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO ) MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION PET ROL & DIESEL HANDLING CHARGES AND REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.2 9 03 456/- AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT OF RS.7 34 688 /-. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS.1 & 2(A) ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO.2(B) RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALL OWANCE OF RS.57 441/- BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO .150/AHD/2010 PERTAINING TO AY 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 05/04/201 3 IN THE CASE OF INDIAN RESEARCH MANIFESTATION LABS PVT.LTD. VS. ACI T HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% ONLY. HE HAS DRA WN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO.6/8 (PARAGRAPH NO.14/19) OF THE TRI BUNALS ORDER WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY THE SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HOWEVER HE DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THE D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% ONLY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05/04/2013 (IN ITA NO.150/AHD/2010) AT PAGE NO.8 IN PARAGRAPH NO.19 HA S RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS AT 25% OF THE EXPENSES AND WHICH HAS BEEN RES TRICTED TO 10% FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID FBT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING MATERI AL EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE TOT ALITY OF THE FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - OF THE CIT(A). IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% ONLY THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE SUGGESTING THAT THE RE IS CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS THIS GR OUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS.3 4 5 & 7 THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE SIMILAR ISSUES HAVE BEEN SET A SIDE BY THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 05/04/2013 IN ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2010(SUPRA) THEREFORE HE REQUESTED THAT THESE ISSUES SHOULD ALS O BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. THE LD.SR.DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.150/AHD/2010(SUPRA) THESE GROUNDS ARE ALSO REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT MADE IN ITA NO.150/AHD/2010(SUPRA). THUS THESE GR OUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.7 34 688/- U/S.14A OF THE ACT BY THE LD.CIT(A) . 7.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD. MUMBAI VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT 328 ITR 81(BOM). ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - 7.2. ON THE CONTRARY LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC SHOW-CAUSE AS TO THE CONTEMPL ATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 34 658/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE PAST ASSESSMENTS BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS OF RS.1.32 CRORES COMPRISE OF SHARES OF CASIL INDUSTRIES LTD. OF RS.1 .25 CRORES AND OF REST RS.6 LACS ARE REC BONDS AND NSC WHICH HAVE INTEREST INCOME BEING TAXABLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES OF CASIL INDUSTRIES LTD. ARE VESTED INTO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BY THE HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT SANCTIONED SCHEME OF RESTRUCTURE OF ERSTWHILE LISTE D COMPANY CASIL HEALTH PRODUCTS LTD. AND THERE IS NO BORROWING OR L OAN VESTED ALONGWITH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS AT ALL OF INTEREST COST AND THE SHARES HELD IN INVESTMENT. THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTI BANK LTD. REPOR TED AT (2013) 214 TAXMAN 124 (GUJ.) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD.M UMBAI VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT 328 ITR 81 (BOM.). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. REPORTED AT 313 ITR 340. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADVERTED TO THESE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OUT OF RS.1. 32 CROES RS.1.25 CRORES OF SHARES OF CASIL INDUSTRIES LTD. WERE VEST ED INTO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY BY WAY OF THE SANCTIONED SCHEME OF RESTRUCT URE AND ALSO IT IS SUBMITTED THAT REST OF RS.6 LACS ARE REC BONDS AND NSC WHICH HAVE INTEREST INCOME BEING TAXABLE. THESE SCHEMES OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED THEREFORE THIS ISSUE IS RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO D ECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIG HT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WOULD ALSO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM ON THESE ASPECT S. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO.8 RELATES TO ADDITIONAL CLAIM MADE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.17 35 38 9/- UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE IT RULES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT B BENCH IN ITA NO.3187/AHD/2010 DATED 15/03/2013 RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF DCIT(OSD) VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCE LTD. HOWEVER LD.SR.DR STR ONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO AND LD.CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZ E (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). WE ALSO F IND THAT THE HONBLE ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT(OSD) VS. CLAR IS LIFE SCIENCE LTD.(SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ONLY TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN A R EVISED RETURN AND DID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE A UTHORITIES. THEREFORE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUD ICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.90 97 554/- . FOR MAKING THIS SUBMISSION HE PLACED RELIANCE OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.97 OF 2010 DATED 29/11/2011. LD.D .R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. 8.1. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE AUTHORITIES AND PERUSI NG THE RECORD AND CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. (SUPRA) RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 10.1. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT(OSD) VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCE LTD.(SUPRA) THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.2641/AHD/2012 IRM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 11. GROUND NOS.9 & 10 PERTAIN TO CHARGING OF INTEREST & PENALTY AND THE SAME ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE THEREFORE REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE HENCE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/ 10 /2013 71.. .../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$ 4 / $8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. -(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-VIII AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; $ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER -8$ $ //TRUE COPY// S > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 22&23.10.13 (DICTATION-PAD 11-PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.10.13 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 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.25.10.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 25.10.13 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