M/s. Sabhaya Corporation ,, Surat v. The Dy.CIT, Circle-6,, Surat

ITA 706/AHD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 70620514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ABJFS0005M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 706/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Sabhaya Corporation ,, Surat
Respondent The Dy.CIT, Circle-6,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 05-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 30-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 10-03-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JM & SHRI MANISH BORA D AM. ITA NO.706/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 M/S SABHAYA CORPORATION 30-31 PRIYANK ROW HOUSE SATELLITE ROAD MOTA VARACHHA SURAT. VS. DCIT CIRCLE-6 SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ABJFS0005M APPELLANT BY SHRI RASHESH SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/9/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 5/10/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) I SURAT DATED 14. 02.2014 VIDE APPEAL NO.CAS-I/TFR-6.80/219/2012-13 PASSED AGAINST ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 23.12 .2011 BY DCIT CIRCLE-6 SURAT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT F ROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERS HIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS. SURVEY ACTIO N U/S 133A OF THE ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2 ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE O 15.9.2008. PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ADMITTED TO HAVE EARNED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.1 11 00 100/- OVER AND ABO VE THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE FIRM AND OFFERED TO DISCLOSE THE SA ME DURING ASST. YEAR 1009-10. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 24.09.2 009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 00 17 890/-. THE CASE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT FOLLOWI NG BY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSU ED AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PROD UCED ALONG WITH AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT GP RATE HAS DRASTICALLY DECREASED TO 3.82% IN THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL AS AGAINST GP RATE OF 24.67% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR . AS PER ASSESSEE THE REASONS FOR THIS DRASTIC DECREASE OCCU RRED DUE TO REASON THAT IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2008 WAS OVERSTATED BY RS.10 10 213/- DUE TO W RONG ESTIMATES. THIS OVERSTATED CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS A S ON 31.3.2008 WAS TAKEN UP AS OPENING STOCK IN THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL AND THEREFORE GP WAS REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 10 213/-. HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THIS REPLY AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED FOR BOTH THE FINANCIAL YEARS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS OF THE F IRM. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N TAKEN WITH THE INTENTION TO LOWER DOWN THE TAX LIABILITY IN THIS Y EAR BECAUSE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE INCOME WAS VERY LOW WHEREAS IN TH IS YEAR DUE TO SURRENDER IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY SURRENDERED AMOUN T HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED IN THE REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY L D. ASSESSING ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 3 OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED THE FALL IN GP AT RS.14 59 833/- AND ADDE D THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.8 70 238/- AN D AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.23 30 071/- INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT R S.1 23 47 961/-. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(A) SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF LD. A SSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE AC T DUE TO ANOMALLY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 10 213/- ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN GP AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF R S.8 70 236/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJEC TING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND MAKI NG ADDITION OF RS. 10 10 213/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P RATIO. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE A NY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 4 5. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE INTER RELATED AND SO THEY ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL. 6. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FALL IN GP RATE FROM 2 4.63% TO 3.82% WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE IN ESTIMATES WHICH HAS RES ULTED INTO HIGHER GP IN EARLIER YEARS AND REDUCTION ON PROFITS IN THE CURRENT YEAR BECAUSE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS IN EARLIER YEAR WA S MISTAKENLY TAKEN EXCESS BY RS.10 10 213/-. APART FROM THAT TH ERE WAS NO MISTAKE OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE W AS NO CASE OF ANY SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OR DEFECT IN THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING. FALL IN GP IS MARGINAL AND IS FULLY EXPLAINED AND LOOKING T O THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES I.E. CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS THER E ARE ABSOLUTE CHANCES OF ERROR OF JUDGMENT OR DIFFERENCE OF OPINI ON OR ELEMENT OF ESTIMATION IN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF WORK IN PROG RESS. LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE GP RATE MIGHT BE A SYMPTOM OF MA LICE WITH WHICH ASSESSEES ACCOUNT WOULD BE SUFFERING. HOWEVER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PIN POINT THE MALICE AND BRING IT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MARSHELLING THE FACTS ENCOMPASS ING THE SAME. IN THE CASE OF LOW GP THERE COULD BE INFLATED PURCH ASES OR UNRECORDED SALES. THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE NO ADDITION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED TOWARDS GP RATE. LD. AR REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR B. MODI VS. ADDL.CIT IN ITA NO. 1060/AHD/2008 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND OTHER VIDE ORDER DATED 2 0.4.2012. ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER ADDED THAT THE OVERSTATED C LOSING STOCK IN PREVIOUS YEAR COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ASSE SSEE BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN AND FURTHER ASSESSMENTS ARE MADE FOR EACH YEAR AND TRUE INCOME OF THE PARTICULAR YEAR NEEDS TO BE ASSE SSED AND THEREFORE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS BEE N RIGHTLY CALCULATED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE DECISION REFERRED BY THE LD. AR. IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE GROUND NO1. & 2 ARE INTER C ONNECTED RELATING TO THE ISSUE FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT DULY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) AND ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) AT RS.10 10 213/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP RATIO. WE OBSER VE THAT ASSESSEE FIRM COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS FROM 1.6.2007 I.E. DURING ASST. YEAR 2008-09. GP RATE FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 WAS SHOWN AT RS.24 .67% WHEREAS IN ASST. YEAR 2009-10 I.E. THE Y EAR UNDER APPEAL GP HAS LOWERED DOWN TO 2.82% WHICH WAS THE BEGINNIN G OF THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. AO TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT. BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES ASSESSEE HAS REPEATEDLY MENTIONED THAT THIS REDUCTI ON IN GP HAS ARISEN DUE TO THE MISTAKE COMMITTED IN THE PRECEDIN G F.Y. I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 WHEREIN CLOSING WORKING IN PROGRESS HAS BEE N OVER STATED BY RS.10 10 213/- WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO THE OVERSTAT ED OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL LOWERING THE GP RATE TO 3 .82%. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT APART FROM THIS PARTICULAR OBSERVATION NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVENUE AND OTHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED A ND IN ALL ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6 ACCEPTED THE ISSUE RELATING TO GP REST OF BOOKS RES ULT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SU STAINED THIS ADDITION TOWARDS LOWER GP RATE AT RS.10 10 213/- BY OBSERVING AS BELOW :- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE BASIS OF ADDITION AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. THE REASON GIVEN BY APPEL LANT FOR REDUCING THE INCOME DURING THE YEAR THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR INC OME WAS SHOWN AT HIGHER AMOUNT AS THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WAS OVERSTATED BY RS. 10 10 213/- THEREFORE TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE INCOME WAS REDUCE D BY THAT AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT SEEM CONVINCING. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSES SEE WERE DULY AUDITED BY AUDITORS AND CLOSING STOCK VALUATION HAS BEEN CE RTIFIED BY THE PARTNERS THEN HOW CAN ASSESSEE CLAIM THAT HE HAS WRONGLY TAK EN THE FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK IN A.Y. 2008-09. IN THIS WAY ASSESSE E ITSELF IS CONTRADICTING HIS OWN AUDIT REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY HI M FOR THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. IN MY OPINION IF IT WAS A MISTAKE O N THE PART OF APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEAR BY OVERSTATING THE VALUE OF CLOSIN G STOCK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY HIM BY FILING REVISED COMPUTATION ALONGWITH REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS HE WAS HAVING ENOUGH TIME OF ON E YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO DO SO. BUT IT H AS NOT BEEN DONE. NOW WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS COME TO KNOW THAT THERE IS H UGE RISE IN THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO REDUCE TH E PROFIT HE HAS TAKEN THIS PLEA THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE EA RLIER YEAR WAS OVERSTATED WHICH REQUIRES TO BE CORRECTED THIS YEAR BY REDUCIN G THE PROFIT TO THAT EXTENT. THIS CHANGE OF STAND BY APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OR REDUCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION FOR THE MISTAKES COMMITTED IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS TO S UIT ITS CONVENIENCE SO AS TO DEPRIVE THE REVENUE OF LEGITIMATE TAX. THE CHANG E IN METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS NOT BONAFIDE ON THE PART OF APP ELLANT FOR THE REASON THAT PROFIT IS BEING UNDER ESTIMATED BY THAT ME THOD OF ACCOUNTING. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOS ING STOCK IS VERY CRUCIAL ASPECT TO DETERMINE THE TRUE PICTURE OF ANY CONCERN AND IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IT HAS CONTRADICTED ITS OWN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK THEREFORE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY APPELLANT ARE NO T AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY AO IS ALSO SUPPOR TED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 320 ITR 430 WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ACCOUNTING METHOD CANNOT BE CHANGED TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCE ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 7 OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO DEPRIVE THE REVENUE OF LEG ITIMATE TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS I SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY AO OF REJEC TING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING THE PROFIT. HOWEVER WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AO HAS OBSERV ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN LESS G.P. OF 3.82% IN COMPARISON TO G.P. OF 24.67% OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. HE THEREFORE ESTIMATED THE G.P. @ 24.67% OF EARLIER YEAR AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14 59 833 /-. IN MY OPINION ONCE THE AO HAS COME TO KNOW THAT THERE IS UNDER ESTIMAT ION OF PROFIT BY RS. 10 10 213/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HE SHO ULD HAVE MADE THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT ONLY BY ESTIMATING THE GROS S PROFIT. HAD THE AO NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF EXACT FIGURE OF UNDER ESTIMATIO N OF PROFIT HE COULD HAVE WORKED OUT THE PROFIT ON ESTIMATION BASIS ON T HE BASIS OF EARLIER YEARS G.P. RATE. BUT HERE HE IS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT THEREFORE HE SHOULD HAVE MADE THE ADDITION OF THAT SPECIFIC AMOUNT EVEN IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE R EJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE EVEN IF BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF APPELLANT ARE NOT REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT THE ADDITION O F RS. 10 10 213/- IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO HAS FOUN D OUT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS WRONGLY REDUCED THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION TAKING THE BASIS OF MISTAKE COMMITTED IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHIC H IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER LAW. ANY MISTAKE OF EARLIER YEAR HAS TO BE RECTIFIE D OR REVISED IN THAT YEAR ONLY AND IT CANNOT BE CARRIED FORWARD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO BE RECTIFIED OR REVISED. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX AC T TO CARRY FORWARD THE MISTAKE OF EARLIER YEAR AND RECTIFY IT IN SUBSEQUEN T YEAR. MOREOVER THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK AT LOWER VALUE IN PLACE OF ACTUAL VALUE* JUST TO REDUCE HIS PROFIT AS PER HIS CONVENIENCE. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN THIS WAY ALSO ADDITION OF RS. 10 10 213/- IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION I HOLD THAT ADDITION O F RS.10 10 213/- IS JUSTIFIED IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IN PLACE OF ADDI TION MADE BY AO AT RS. 14 59 833/-. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 10 10 213/- ONLY. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS PART REL IEF. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. FURTHER WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMA R B. MODI (SUPRA) ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 8 AND FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT TO THOS E OF THE ASSESSEE AND SO IT WILL NOT BE RELEVANT TO BE CONSIDERED HERE IN THIS APPEAL. 10. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FINDING OF LD. CI T(A) AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE UNDIS PUTED FACT IS THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR LOWER GP BY RS.10 10 213/- WAS DUE TO OVERSTATED CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS IN FY 2007-08 I.E. ASST. YEAR 2008-09 DUE TO WRONG ESTIMATE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE . WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IS TO ASSESS THE CO RRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. IF THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. ONE CANNOT TAKE A PLEA TO TAKE A SET OFF OF EXCESS INCOME SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AG AINST THE INCOME IN THE CURRENT YEAR. FURTHER IF WE CALCULATE GP FOR THIS YEAR BY CORRECTLY TAKING WORKING IN PROGRESS AS REDUCED BY RS.10 10 213/- THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO REACH TO THE CORRECT GP AND THE RESULTANT FIGURE IS WHAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED. 11. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10 10 213/- AS THE ASSE SSEE WAS HAVING ALL POSSIBLE WAYS TO RECTIFY ITS MISTAKE IN THE PRE CEDING FY BY REVISING THE RETURN CORRECTING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND GETTING IT DULY CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS. WE THEREFORE FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.3 & 4 ARE OF GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 706/AHD/2016 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 9 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 05/10/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 01/10/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 03/10/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 6/10/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: