Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आदेश / O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-6/17/14-15 dated 29.01.2016 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 24.03.2014 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 2 - 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of in disallowing commission expenditure of Rs. 10,10,000/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in adding Rs. 90,000/- on account of capital introduction. 3. Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, Learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO ought to grant benefit of telescoping. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs. 2,05,290/- u/s.32 after holding that the appellant has claimed excess depreciation. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs. 52,342/- u/s.37 of the Act being 20% of telephone and administrative expenditures on account of personal usage. 6. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s.234A/B/C/D of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs. 10,10,000/-.
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Steel re-rolling mills. The assessee in the year under consideration has paid commission to various parties ( 11 in Nos.)
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 3 - amounting to Rs. 15,34,944/-. The assessee in respect of 9 parties out of 11 parties to whom the commission was paid has furnished the necessary details. But, the assessee in respect of two parties, namely, Shri Nayan Gulabrai Shah and Shri Ankit P. Goyal to whom the commission of Rs. 5,20,000/- and Rs. 4,90,000/- respectively was paid, has furnished only computerized generated bills and confirmations. As per the details, the commission was paid to both the parties against the huge quantity of sale of 5200 Metric Ton ( for short M.T.) and 4900 M.T. But there was no detail such as date-wise/bill-wise for the goods sold to the parties with reference to the commission agents, furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer (for short AO) to the assesse.
4.1. In compliance to it, the assessee claimed to have made payment after deducting the TDS. The assessee also filed the copies of the revised bills issued by the respective commission agents which were containing the requisite information.
4.2. However, the AO observed certain discrepancies in the submission of the assessee. The details of the same stand as under:
(1) In the first commission bill, the rate of commission was mentioned Rs. 100/- per M.T. whereas in the second bill, the rate of commission is mentioned Rs. 200/- M.T.
(2) There was also a change in the quantity of the goods sold by the respective commission agents. As per the revised bills, Shri
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 4 - Nayan Gulabrai Shah has sold 2630.11 MT, whereas Shri Ankit P. Goyal has sold the quantity of 2443.95 MT while in the original bills the quantities sold by these commission agents were 5200 M.T. and 4900 M.T. respectively.
(3) In the first bills, the commission was paid only against the sale of goods, whereas in the revised bill, the commission was paid against the purchase and sale of goods. In respect of remaining nine commission agents, the commission was paid regarding the sale of goods only.
(4) In the ledger copy of Shri Nayan Gulabrai Shah an amount of Rs. 622/- was written off as an adjustment. (5) In the original bills, the assessee had paid commission to all the agents against the sale of the quantity 12184.48 M.T., whereas the total sale is declared of 7615.82 MT only.
4.3. In view of the above, the AO was of the view that the adjustment in the commission paid to these parties has been made either to manipulate the weight or the amount of commission. Accordingly, the AO was of the opinion that the commission paid to these two parties is fabricated and non-genuine. Thus, he disallowed the commission expenses of Rs. 10,10,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that there was some typographical error in the details of commission submitted first time during the hearing before the AO which was rectified from revised bills filed by the commission agents.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 5 -
5.1. The assessee has paid commission to these parties @ Rs. 200/- per M.T., whereas in the case of remaining parties he has paid commission @ Rs. 200/- per M.T.
5.2. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that there is a decline in the Net Profit of the assessee in comparison to the earlier year. Thus, the discrepancies observed by the AO in the amount of commission and other details are representing the non-genuine commission to the parties. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the Ld. AR filed paper-book running from pages 1 to 59 and submitted that he had paid the commission against the revised bills raised by the commission agents. The commission was paid after the deduction of TDS. The confirmation from the parties has been filed during the assessment proceedings. All the details of the parties on whose behalf the commission was paid to these agents were furnished.
8.1. The Ld. AR in support of his claim drew our attention on page Nos. 30 to 39 where the necessary details for the commission were placed.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 6 - 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the discrepancies were there in the details submitted by the assessee which cannot be brushed aside.
9.1. There was no detail furnished by the assessee demonstrating that the commission was paid as per the prevailing interest rate. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before us to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh after conducting the necessary inquiries. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO in the instant case noted certain discrepancies regarding the commission expenses paid to the following parties. 1. Shree Nayan Gulab Rai Shah 2. Shree Ankit P. Goyal 10.1 The discrepancies noted by the AO have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. Thus the AO made the disallowances of the commission expenses. The learned CIT-A subsequently confirmed the view taken by the AO. From the preceding discussion we note certain undisputed facts as under: i. The commission was paid through banking channel. ii. The commission was paid to the parties after the deduction of TDS under the relevant provisions of the Act.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 7 - iii. The confirmation of accounts was filed by the assessee from both the parties. iv. There was no doubt about the identity of both the parties to whom the commission was paid. v. The addresses of both the commission agents were available before the AO during the assessment proceedings.
10.2. However, the AO without finding out any defect in the details as discussed above has treated the commission expenses as if it was not incurred in connection with the business. As per the AO, the commission expenses was not genuine and the same was fabricated. The basis adopted by the AO for treating the commission expenses as non-genuine has already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. In our considered view, the AO before making the disallowance of the commission expenses should have taken the confirmation from the respective parties under section 133(6)/131 of the Act. But the AO failed to do so.
10.3. The AO was in possession of the details of the transactions and parties on behalf the commission was paid to these parties. Thus the AO, in case of any doubt in the amount of commission expenses, should have taken the confirmation from the parties. But he failed to exercise such power provided under section 133(6)/131 of the Act.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 8 - 10.4. We also note that there is no dispute about the discrepancies observed by the AO during the assessment proceedings. As such the discrepancies were there in the details/submission filed by the assessee. But on perusal of the order/details available on record, we note that the assessee reconciled all these discrepancies with the explanation and from documentary shreds of evidence. Thus, it is transpired that the assessee has discharged his primary onus by furnishing the details to the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the onus shifts from the assessee to the AO to disprove the explanation/details submitted by the assessee with cogent reasons. But the AO failed to do so. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II reported in 38 taxmann.com 448 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise.”
10.5. We are also of the view that the details filed by the assessee 1st time in respect of the commission expenses have no evidentiary value given the fact that the assessee filed the fresh details after admitting his mistake. Thus, in our considered view the AO was under the obligation to consider the fresh details filed by the assessee instead of comparing the same with the earlier submission of the assessee. It is because the assessee has admitted his mistake in respect of the details filed by the 1st time.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 9 -
10.6. We also note that there were discrepancies in the bills issued by the commission agents which were filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As such there was no control of the assessee over the 3rd parties who have actually issued these bills of the commission to the assessee. Therefore, the mistakes committed by 3rd parties should not be the basis of the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus if the details furnished by the 3rd parties are not believable, then the AO is under the obligation for taking the clarification from the concerned parties.
10.7. We also find force in the contention of the learned AR for the assessee that the turnover of the assessee was quite huge amounting to Rs. 24,31,54,719/- which is not possible without the involvement of the commission agents in this kind of trade. The learned DR has not brought anything on record against the contention of the learned AR for the assessee.
10.8. We also disagree with the contention of the learned DR to refer the matter to the AO for conducting the necessary inquiries from the commission agents. It is because the AO had sufficient details in its possession during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are reluctant to provide further opportunity to the Revenue for making the fresh inquiries on the same set of documents. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of ITAT Jaipur in case of Abdul Latif (130 ITD 255) wherein it was held as under:
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 10 -
“We do not feel to provide second inning to the revenue because the entire facts were before the AO and the AO made an addition on wrong grounds.”
10.9. In view of the above, we are not impressed with the finding of lower authorities. Therefore, we reverse the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The next inter-connected issue raised in Ground Nos. 2 & 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO for Rs. 90,000/- on account of capital contribution.
11.1. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown capital contribution amounting to Rs. 1,50,616/- by way of gift from his real brother Shri Sudarshan Jagdishan Aiyer. The assessee claimed to have received the US $ 1350 from his brother.
11.2. However, the AO found that US $1350 is representing Indian currency for Rs. 60,616/- only. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 90,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credit and accordingly, added to the total income of the assessee.
The aggrieved assessee, preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT(A).
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 11 - 13. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that Rs. 90,000/- was received from his brother which is very much reflecting in the bank statement.
However, the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that there was no evidence filed by the assessee to prove that the sum of Rs. 90,000/- was received from the brother. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR before us reiterated the submission as were made before the authorities below. The Ld. AR also submitted that the telescoping benefit should be given in case the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- is not treated as a gift from the brother of the assessee.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidence for the capital contribution of ₹ 90,000 only. Indeed there was a credit amount reflected in the bank statement of the assessee amounting to ₹ 90,000/- but the onus is on the assessee to substantiate the
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 12 - same as a gift received from his brother on the basis of documentary evidence.
18.1. The learned AR before us has also not provided any details to adjust the same with the telescoping benefit. Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The third issue raised in the fourth ground of assessee’s appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,05,290/- on account of excess depreciation.
The assessee in the year under consideration has shown addition in respect of factory sheds, building, furnace, and plant & machinery. The addition shown by the assessee in respect of these items was allocated before 30th September-2010 and after 30th September-2010. The assessee in respect of addition made before 30th September-2010 claimed depreciation at the full rate prescribed under the provisions of section 32 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the depreciation was claimed on the basis of the date on which the fixed assets were actually put to use.
20.1 The major cost on the replacement and renovation of factory shed and the furnace was completed before 30/09/2010. After that, the production was suspended beginning from 30/09/2010 to 21/11/2010 which can be verified from the record of excise.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 13 -
20.2 The assessee in support of his claim also furnished the copy of the ledger in respect of expenses incurred for its fixed assets namely furnace.
20.3. However, the AO found that the activity for the addition of plant & machinery, renovation/replacement of factory shed was carried up to the end of the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation on factory shed, building and plant & machinery amounting to Rs. 39,754/- and Rs. 1,65,536/- respectively and added to the total income of the assessee.
The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the work was suspended only about the construction of the furnace. As such, there was no suspension of the work for the replacement/renovation of the factory shed and building.
21.1. The assessee claimed to have furnished the necessary details demonstrating that the work for the replacement/renovation of factory building and shed was completed much before 30/09/2010. The assessee also claimed that the activity for the furnace cannot begin without the completion of factory shed and building. The fixed assets in the factory shed and building were not put to use due to the work of furnace, but it was ready to put to use. Therefore, even it is not actually used, the assessee is entitled to the depreciation thereon.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 14 - 21.2. There was two kinds of expenditure under the head plant & machinery which were incurred before 30/09/2010 and after 30/09/2010. There was no connection between the expenditure incurred before 30/09/2010 and after 30/09/2010. There is also no connection between the addition of plant & machinery and the activity of construction for the furnace. Accordingly, the assessee claimed for the depreciation on the addition of plant & machinery before 30/09/2010 at full rate. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the activity of production was suspended from 30/09/2010 to 21/11/2010. The labor charges amounting to Rs. 1,01,000/- were paid to M/s Bapa Sitaram welding works vide bill dated 12/03/2011 which was classified under the head ‘factory shed.’ Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR before us submitted that the factory shed was ready to put to use. There is no nexus between the factory shed/building and the plant & machinery with the construction of furnace activities. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed to allow the depreciation at the full rate on the addition of fixed assets before 30/03/2011.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, we note that the assessee has shown additions in the fixed assets as detailed under:
Details of fixed assets & depreciation allowable Name of Opening Additions/ (Deduction) Closing Rate of Depreciation Additional Closing the Asset WDV Before After Sept. Balance Depreciation Depren.* WDV Sept. Block-II Factory 1,629,298 795,080 2.417,826 4,842,204 10 363,329 - 4,478,875 Shed & Bldg. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Block-III Plant & 3,405,957 688,456 1,236,423 5,330,845 15 706,894 261,334 4,362,616 Machinery XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Furnace 16,667 257,465 1,463,792 1,737,924 15 150,904 197872 1,389,148
25.1. However, the AO was of the view that the additions and ready to use of the assets shown by the assessee before 30th September 2010 were not actually put to use till 30th September 2010. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the depreciation in respect of such additions should be restricted to 50% of the actual depreciation claimed by it. Accordingly, the disallowance of the excess depreciation was made amounting to Rs. 2,05,290/-. The learned CIT (A) subsequently confirmed the view of the AO.
25.2. The controversy before us arises whether the assets were actually ready to use in respect of the additions made by the assessee before 30th September 2010 were eligible for the depreciation at full rate.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 16 - 25.3 Regarding factory shed and building, we note certain facts as admitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as detailed under:
He has incurred labor expenses amounting to ₹ 1,01,000/- dated i. 12th March 2011. The assessee in support of his claim has also filed the copy of the bill of M/s Bapa Sitaram Welding Works. The production activity was suspended from 30th September ii. 2010 to 21st November 2011. Almost all the expenses on the furnace were incurred during the period when the work was suspended. As such the major expenses amounting to Rs. 24,17,826/- were incurred after 30th September 2010. On perusal of the ledger, the assessee has incurred part of the expenses amounting to ₹ 7,95,080/- before 30th September 2010.
25.4. From the above details, it is transpired that the factory shed and building were not put to use before 30th September 2010. It is because, we are of the view that there was one factory and the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence suggesting that the part of the factory was put to use involving an expenditure of ₹ 7,95,080.00. The onus lies on the assessee to justify with the supporting materials that the factory shed and building against such cost were put to use before 30th September 2010.
25.5. We also note that the assessee has claimed to have put to use part of the factory shed and building before 30th September 2010 and part of the factory shed and building after 30th September 2010. If it is one
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 17 - composite building, then the assessee has to demonstrate with the supporting evidence to prove that part of the factory shed was either ready or put to use before 30th September 2010. But the assessee has not proved the same on the basis of documentary evidence. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the lower authorities.
25.6. Regarding the plant and machinery, we note that the assessee claimed to have incurred the expenses on plant and machinery substantially before 30th September 2010. As per the assessee, these machineries were ready to use. Therefore, these were eligible to claim the depreciation on such plant and machinery. However, we are of the view that such plant and machinery cannot be used without operating the furnace which was not ready to use before 30th September 2010. Thus it is transpired that the use of the plant and machinery depended upon the use of the furnace. There is no dispute that the furnace was not operational before 30th September 2010.
25.7. Now the controversy arises as to whether the assessee can claim depreciation in respect of those assets which are ready to use but were not put to use because their use depends upon the operation of other machinery which were not actually ready to use before 30th September in the given facts and circumstances. In this regard, we note that the use of the plant and machinery depended upon the operation of the furnace which was not put to use before 30th September 2010.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 18 - 25.8. Thus, there remains no ambiguity that the plant & machinery were not put to use before 30th September. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 50%. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the order of authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The next issue raised in the assessee’s appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 52,342/- being 20% of telephone and administrative expenses on an ad-hoc basis. The AO observed that the assessee had claimed telephone expenses and administrative expenses amounting to Rs. 41,982/- and 2,19,730/- which is not verifiable. As per the AO, the element of personal use out of such expenses cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the AO made the disallowance @ 20% of such expenses amounting to Rs. 52,342/- and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee also claimed that the AO had made the disallowance without issuing any show-cause notice.
The aggrieved assessee, preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that ad-hoc disallowance is not permitted under the provisions of law. There was no specific defect pointed out by the AO in the claim of the assessee.
27.1. The assessee without prejudice to the above, also submitted that the ad-hoc disallowance @ 20% is quite unreasonable. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee has not filed the necessary details in support of the expenses
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 19 - claimed by him. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the possibility of personal use cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR before us reiterated the submissions as were made before the Ld. CIT(A), whereas the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the AO made the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis on the ground that the possibility of personal expenses incurred by the assessee under the head telephone expenses and office and administrative expenses cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the AO treated 20% of such expenses as used for the personal puposes. Thus an amount of ₹ 52,342/- was disallowed by the AO which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT (A).
30.1. The learned counsel for the assessee has also not produced any documentary evidence to justify that there was no personal element in the aforesaid expenses. However, in our considered view the AO before making the disallowance of the expenses on an ad-hoc basis should have referred the claim made by the assessee in the earlier years as well as in the subsequent years which he failed to do.
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12 - 20 -
30.2. However, we are of the view that the disallowance at the rate of 20% is slightly on the higher side. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restrict the disallowance to the extent of 10% of the total expenses. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The other grounds raised in the assessee’s appeal are general which do not require any independent and separate adjudication.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 01/02/2019
Sd/- Sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/02/2019
ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
ITA No.668/Ahd/2016 Shri Rajeshkumar J. Aiyer vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2011-12
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 15.1.19 (dictation pad 35- pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 16.1.19 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S … 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order……………