ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(2), NEW DELHI V. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1024/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the A.C.I.T against Himalaya International Ltd concerning the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The primary issues were the classification of income from mushroom cultivation as agricultural income and the eligibility for deductions under section 35AD for a cold chain facility. The Tribunal examined whether the income from mushroom cultivation should be considered agricultural income and whether the assessee met the conditions for claiming deductions under section 35AD. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of disallowance of employee contributions to provident and superannuation funds due to delays in deposit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46867 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Inventaa Industries (P) Ltd (2018) 95 taxmann.com 162 (Hyd-Tri)(SB), British Agro Products (India) (P) Ltd. (DOD: 05/04/2023), Apollo Tyres Ltd. 122 Taxmann 562, Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd 448 ITR 518(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SWEETY KOTHARI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revision of order
• Section: 263; 13; 43B; 115JB; 20

Judgement Text

"ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs. Himalaya International Ltd Circle – 11(2) E-555, Palan Extension, New Delhi First Floor, Sector - 7 Dwarka, New Delhi PAN: AAACH 0158 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Sweety Kothari, CA Department By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above two appeals by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 4, New Delhi dated 24.10.2017 for A.Y 2013-14 and order of the ld. CIT(A) - 35, New Delhi dated 20.11.2017 for A.Y 2014-15 respectively. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 2 of 21 2. Since the underlying facts are common in both the appeals if the Revenue and pertain to same assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of non acceptance of cultivation of mushrooms as agricultural income, as the necessary features/characteristics ton treating it as agricultural income do not exist for mushroom cultivation. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made on account of disallowance to the tune of Rs. 64,26,27,000/- u/s 35AD where the AO held that chain cold storage is merely on addition to the exiting production plant 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CII (A) has erred in allowing the addition of final account & book profit after the financial accounts were audited and finalized and signed on 27.08.2013 and approved, in the continuation of Decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. 122 Taxmann 562. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting an perverse claim that during the finalization of accounts, it came to the notice of the company that sale has been purportedly recognized because if it was noticed during ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 3 of 21 finalization on 27.08.2013, it would not have been approved ard signed by all the parties including auditor & board of directors involved. 5. The assessee craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground above at the time of the hearing. appeal raised” 4. Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee declared an income of Rs. 20,01,68,000/- earned from growing of mushroom as agricultural income and claimed the same as exempt in its return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as non- agricultural income relying on the decision of Blue Mountain Food Products Ltd. 14 ITD 254 and Chandigarh Bench decision in Chandra Mohan and made addition of Rs. 20,01,68,000/- by holding the mushroom cultivation income to be non-agricultural income. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who held the same to be agricultural activity. 6. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 4 of 21 8. Per contra, on ground no 1 of the Revenue’s appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Inventaa Industries (P) Ltd (2018) 95 taxmann.com 162 (Hyd-Tri)(SB) wherein it has been held that income from production and sale of mushroom whether on land or under controlled conditions has to be regarded as agricultural income. The case of Blue Mountain and Chander Mohan relied by the Assessing Officer has been considered by the Special Bench and distinguished. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in British Agro Products (India) (P) Ltd. (DOD: 05/04/2023) which discusses Inventaa. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that the income from growing mushrooms was accepted as agricultural income in the case of the assessee itself in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, revision proceedings for AY 2012-13 u/s 263 of the Act were initiated by the Pr. CIT and order u/s 263 of the Act was passed with certain directions therein. (Refer page 6- 7 for facts and then 19 for conclusion). The assessee filed an appeal against the said order before the Hon'ble ITAT wherein the ITAT ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 5 of 21 relying on the decision of Inventaa Industries held that the income from growing mushrooms as agricultural income. The Department filed an appeal against the said order before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the High Court vide its order dated 28/02/2024 did not interfere with the directions framed by ITAT (Refer para 4-5 at page 32-33 and para 7 on page 40-41). Thus, the ITAT as well as Hon'ble High court held in the case of the assessee in the AY-2012-13 that income-from growing mushrooms is agricultural income in view of the Special bench decision of Inventaa Industries. 10. We have heard the rival submission and have carefully perused the materials on record. In view of the discussion as above and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee itself in AY 2012-13, this issued is covered in favour of the assessee. Following respectfully the decision of the hon’ble High Court income from growing mushroom are held to be exempt income u/s 10(1) being agricultural income and we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) directing the AO to delete the addition so made. The ground of the Revenue is thus dismissed. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 6 of 21 11. With respect to the Ground no. 2 regarding disallowance of Rs 64,26,27,000/- u/s 35AD of the Act, the facts in brief are that the assessee has claimed a weighted deduction @ 150% of the value of plant and machinery for installation of cold chain storage facility at Gujarat Plant as per the provisions of Section 35AD(1A) of the Act. The AO held that the food processing business of the assessee was already in existence and a new facility was set up in the existing plant of the assessee, therefore the assessee did not fulfil the basic criterion to claim the deduction and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction. 12. The ld DR relied forcefully on the orders of the AO. 13. Per contra, the ld AR submitted that the assessee had a food processing unit in Vadnagar. An entirely new cold chain facility was installed in addition to the said food processing unit. All new plant and machinery were purchased for the cold chain facility. This cold chain facility is an independent business activity and is neither a part nor an extension of the earlier manufacturing plant. The food processing unit and cold chain facility are two independent units ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 7 of 21 which are not dependent on each other. Thus, this facility was in addition to the existing business and was not set up by splitting up its existing business. 14. The assessee placed a photocopy of the certificate from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries certifying the value of the plant and machinery installed in the said cold chain facility which shows that huge machinery was installed therein. 15. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the section 35AD(2)(i) of the Act does not provide that the deduction will not be allowed if the business of the assessee is already in existence. It provides that deduction u/s 35AD will not be allowed if and only if the new business/plant and machinery has been set by splitting of or reconstruction of the business already in existence. It is the say of the ld AR that the phrase 'business already in existence' used in section 35AD(2)(i) has been used in the relevant condition in conjunction to the setting up of the new business by splitting up or reconstructing an already existing business. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 8 of 21 16. The ld AR further stated that the AO has grossly misinterpreted the provisions of section 35AD(2) of the Act and disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 35AD merely because the business of the assessee was already in existence. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee had set up new cold chain facility by splitting up or reconstructing its existing business. The AO has neither alleged nor brought any evidence on record to show that the cold chain facility was formed by splitting up of the existing business. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that Section 35AD(1A) as on 01.04.2013 provided for 150% weighted deduction of the expenditure incurred for plant and machinery in specified businesses on fulfilment of certain conditions. The setting up and operating a cold chain facility is such a specified business mentioned in section 35AD(8)(c)(i). The conditions to be fulfilled for claiming such deduction for setting cold chain facility are as under: ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 9 of 21 i) it should not be set up by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence. ii) It is not set up by the transfer of previously used machinery for any purpose. 18. We find that the assessee has purchased all new machinery for setting up the cold chain facility in addition to the existing business. The Assessing Officer has nowhere stated or made a case that the Cold Chain Facility was formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the old business. We are therefore of the considered view that the assessee has complied with all the conditions and thus, the deduction claimed u/s 35AD(1A) has been rightly allowed by the CIT(A). The ground of the Revenue is thus dismissed. 19. With respect to ground no. 3 and 4 regarding rejection of computation of MAT u/s 115JB on the basis of restated financial statements, the brief facts are that the assessee had entered into a transaction of sale of machinery with M/s Simplot India on 24/08/2012 as a result of which a surplus of Rs. 34.15 Crores arose. However, at the fag end of the financial year on 22/03/2023, ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 10 of 21 Simplot issued a notice to the assessee expressing its disagreement towards purchase of machinery and also filed a legal suit against the assessee company in Competent Court of Singapore on 24/05/2013. 20. The assessee in its original financial statement as on 31/03/2013 recognized the sales consideration of sale of machinery of Rs 34.15 crore as profit. This financial statement as on 31/03/2013 were originally approved by Board of director on 27/08/2013 and signed by auditor. Subsequently, as the deal for sale of machinery to Simplot did not materialize and a recovery suit was filed in between these two dates i.e. in May 2013, the assessee reversed/derecognized the said profit on sale of machinery in its accounts. Therefore, the profit considered from sale of machinery in the original annual account was rectified by the auditors and the Board before concluding the said meeting held on 27/08/2013 and the annual accounts were reinstated. The restated financial statements were presented and adopted in the AGM held on 30/09/2013. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 11 of 21 21. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO held that the assessee has restated the financial statements without approval of the annual general meeting as required by the Companies Act and this exercise was done only to reduce its books profit to avoid payment of MAT under section 115JB of the Act. As per section 115JB of the Act, an assessee is required to pay MAT on book profit as per financial statements which shall be laid before the company in its AGM as per the provisions of the Companies Act. The AO held that the reinstated accounts cannot be accepted because they were never laid before AGM and therefore considered the book profit at Rs. 55,03,74,000/-. 22. The ld DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 23. The ld AR, on the other hand, stated that the companies are compulsorily required to prepare their books of account in compliance to the Accounting Standards issued by ICAI in terms of Section 211(3A) of the Companies Act. It was submitted that AS-9 on \"Revenue Recognition\" issued by ICAI provides that if at the time of raising any claim, it is unreasonable to expect ultimate collection, revenue recognition should be postponed.\" Further as ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 12 of 21 per AS-4 on \"Contingencies and Events occurring after the Balance Sheet date\" issued by ICAI states that the assets and liability should be adjusted for the events occurring after the balance sheet date. Thus, it was compulsory for the assessee to de-recognize the revenue booked on sale of plant and machinery to M/s Simplot because the party had already filed a suit for recovery of its claim against the assessee in Arbitration Court of Singapore. The ld AR further informed that the Singapore Arbitration Court passed an award vide its order dated 23/03/2020 wherein the assessee has been asked to pay damages of USD 16,70,998/- to Simplot (Refer para 902 page 174 of the Arbitration Order). Further, the Arbitration Court held that the assessee should bear 90% of the Arbitration cost and the claimant should bear 10% (Para 955 Page 189 of the Arbitration Order). 24. The ld AR further submitted that even if it is assumed that the restated financials were not adopted in the AGM of the assessee company, then while considering the original financial statements of the assessee, the amount of Rs. 34.15 Crores cannot be accepted as income as the same has not accrued to the assessee. It is the say ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 13 of 21 of the ld AR that where the assessee made a mistake while making any claim in the return of income, then the AO cannot take the benefit of the mistake of the assessee and is bound to compute the correct and real income of the assessee. The ld AR submitted that the CIT(A) held that it cannot be part of profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act and, therefore, the net profit should be considered as per restated financial statements of the assessee for the purpose of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act. 25. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee considered the profit from the sale of machinery to Simplot in its original financial statement. A dispute arose between the two parties regarding the sale of machinery and the matter reached an arbitration where not only the sale was nullified but the assessee had to pay damages. These facts are not controverted by the Revenue. 26. We find it appropriate, at this juncture, to refer the decision of the CIT(A) as under: ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 14 of 21 In the above background, the issue to be decided in this appeal is that whether the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores is liable to be assessed as book profit under MAT in the hands of the assessee or not. As regards the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores it is noticed that the said amount was initially agreed as consideration for machinery by the buyer (Singapore Company), however, before the completion of previous year under consideration i.e. 2012- 13, the buyer conveyed his disagreement towards the purchase. The buyer has also filed a legal suit against the assessee in the month of May. All these facts suggest that amount of Rs. 34.15 crores never accrued as income to the assessee. Now the only question remains here is whether the same will be considered as profit while computing the book profit u/s 115JB or not. As per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of the Section 115JB, every company shall prepare its financial statements as per the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 taking into consideration the accounting policies and accounting standards suggested under the said Act. The profit computed as per the said financials shall be considered for the purpose of computing book profit under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The profit computed by the assessee in the restated financial statements is not in violation of any provisions of the Companies Act. Further, the said financial statements bears the signature of board of directors and the statutory auditor of the assessee company which denotes that the said financials have been prepared taking into consideration accounting policies and accounting standards suggested under the said Act. The fact that the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores has not accrued to the assessee as income, has nowhere been denied by the AO in the assessment order. Further, there is no accounting standard which suggests that the income which has not accrued/earned by the assessee should be considered as its profit/turnover in its financial statements. The AO himself has also not considered said amount as income of the assessee while computing the taxable income as per the normal provisions of the Act. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the restated financials were not adopted in the AGM of the assessee company, then while considering the original financials of the assessee, the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores cannot be accepted as income/turnover of the assessee as the same has not accrued/earned by the assessee. If the assessee had made any mistake while making claims in the return of income, then the AO cannot take benefit of the ignorance/mistake of the assessee. Rather, the AO is duty bound to compute the correct and real income of the assessee. Since, there is no evidence on record to prove that the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores is the income of the assessee, the same cannot be considered as the profit of the assessee. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 15 of 21 Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 34.15 crores cannot be held to be the profit/turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. This ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. 27. We are of the considered view that the assessee was well within his right under AS-9 and AS-4 of Accounting Standard to restate its financial statement. We are inclined to agree with the CIT(A) that no income has accrued /arisen to the assessee from sale of the machinery during AY 2013-14 and therefore no profit from sale of machinery can be considered as income in the impugned year. Further we find that the restated financial statement was also presented and adopted by the AGM on 30.09.2013 which was not presented by the employee of the assessee while filing the return of income. We are inclined to agree with the CIT(A) that where assessee has made a mistake, the AO should refrain from taking advantage of it and the AO is obliged to assess correct and real income of the assessee. We therefore uphold the decision of the CIT(A). The ground of the Revenue is thus dismissed. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 16 of 21 ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] 28. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue is as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has not erred in deleting the addition on account of non acceptance of cultivation of mushrooms as agricultural income, as the necessary features/characteristics of agriculture do not exist for treating mushroom cultivation as agricultural income? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has not erred in not appreciating that the Employee Contribution to the Provident Fund/Superannuation fund u/s 2(24)(X), which is allowable as expenses only if paid within the time-limits u/s 36(1)(va). Once it is not allowable u/s 36(1)(va), it cannot be held allowable 43B which is a section restricting allowability of otherwise allowable payment/expenses? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the CIT(A) has not erred in deleting the addition on account of miscellaneous expenses as despite being provided repeated opportunity the vouchers could not be produced for verification? 4. The assessee craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 29. Ground No. 1 pertaining to exemption claimed u/s 10(1) for agricultural income from mushroom cultivation has been discussed elaborately and decided by us in favor of the assessee while deciding Ground No. 1 in A.Y 2003-14. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 17 of 21 12,97,58,000/- claimed u/s 10(1) of the Act. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is thus dismissed. 30. The ground no 2 is with regard to disallowance of Rs. 21,94,347/- claimed u/s 36(1)(va) for delay in deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. The issue of ESI/PF is decided against the assessee by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CheckmateServices Pvt Ltd 448 ITR 518(SC). This ground is allowed in favour of revenue. 31. The ground 3 with respect to disallowance of Rs. 9,10,219/- for sales Promotion Expenses , the AO held that the assessee claimed business promotion expenses of Rs. 7,10,166/- separately under the grouping of selling expenses and also claimed an amount of Rs. 7,10,166/- under sales promotion expenses under grouping miscellaneous expenses. The AO held that there is no reason for claiming the expenses again under the head miscellaneous expenses. Further, the assessee claimed other miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 10,00,165/- under grouping of miscellaneous expenses and no supporting voucher or copy of ledger was ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 18 of 21 submitted. Therefore, these expenses could not be verified whether incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Therefore, the AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 7,10,166/- of sales promotion expenses and Rs. 2,00,033/- being 20% of the total misc. expenses. 32. We find that the CIT(A) found that the assessee is a Limited Company with audited books of account and the AO cannot made adhoc disallowances without rejecting the books of account. Therefore, the addition was deleted. 33. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 34. After considering the facts and submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly considered the expense on sales promotion has been taken twice by the assessee. The AO should have examined the claim of the assessee that said expense were grouped in addition to business promotion before making the disallowance. As regards 20% disallowance out of miscellaneous expenses, such estimated ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 19 of 21 disallowance cannot be made without pointing out any specific defect in the details submitted by the assessee. We are of the view that the AO cannot make adhoc disallowance on surmises and conjectures without rejecting the books of account. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the addition to be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 35. In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 7844/DEL/2017 is dismissed whereas ITA No. 1024/DEL/2018 is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09th APRIL, 2025. VL/ ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 20 of 21 Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd Page 21 of 21 Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order .04.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member .04.2025 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order "