M/s. Solaris Bio Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 13/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3145 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2248/DEL/2014 CO NO.13/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2004 - 05 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMB E R I N ITA NO. 22 8 4 /DEL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 4 - 0 5 D CIT CIRCLE - 9 (1) , NEW DELHI VS. SOLARIS BIO CHEMICALS LTD. (NOW SOLARIS CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.). THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A A B C B7121R ) CO. NO. 13/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 04 - 05 SOLARIS BIO CHEMICALS LTD. (NOW SOLARIS CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.). THAPAR HOUSE, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT CIRCLE - 9 (1), NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A ABCB7121R ) REVENUE BY: SH RI S. S. RANA, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. YADAV, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 2 8 / 0 8 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 / 0 8 /201 7 PAGE 2 OF 11 ORDER PER : AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20 . 0 1 .201 4 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) XI, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 14 7 / 143 (3) FOR THE A.Y. 200 4 - 0 5 . 2. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME DE - NOVO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON PRODUCT DEVEL OPMENT EXPENDITURE AND TECHNICAL KNOW HOW FEES CAPITALIZED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY HON BLE ITAT FOR AY 2003 - 04.' 2. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THI S APPEAL.' 3. WHERE AS IN THE C ROSS O BJECTION S THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1.THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND AS THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENTPROCEEDINGS U/S 147 HAS BEEN EXERCISED IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS APPLICABLE TO CASES WHERE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS ARE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND FOUR YEARS HAVE BEEN ELAPSED AND THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. 2.THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE IM PUGNED CASE ASSESSMENTHAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR PAGE 3 OF 11 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. 3.THECIT(A) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THE AO HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT, INTHE REASONS RECORDED, AS TO WHAT MATERIAL FACTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4.THELD . CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN CASES WHERE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTSHAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND FOUR YEARS HAVE BEEN ELAPSED THEN IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO PROVE WITH MATERIAL THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN IN THE REASONS RECORDEDTHERE IS NO WHISPER THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY AND HENCE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS BAD IN LAW. 6.ASSESSEE CRAVES TO LEAVE ADD, ALTER, AND MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME . 4 . APART FROM THE ABOVE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 URGING TO TAKE AS FOLLOWING AS ADDITIONAL GROUND READ ING AS UNDER: - THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN AFFIRMING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO UNDER SECTION 147, IGNORING THAT THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WITH THE AO FOR FORMING A BELIEF THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. 5. THE BRI EF FACTS QUA THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS AND ADDITIONAL GROUND ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED U/S 139(1) DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 37,30,07,965/ - ; AS AGAINST PAGE 4 OF 11 THE SAID RETURNED INCOME, ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2006 , WHEREBY INCOME WAS COMPUTED A T LOSS OF RS. 25,55,48,473/ - . IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT ON 6.6.2008 A NOTICE U/S 154 WAS ISSUED BY CIRCLE 9(1) , NEW DELHI FOR CARRYING OUT RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS , WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS REPLY DATED 28.4.2009 AND THEREAFTER NO SUCH ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED , INTER - ALIA INDICATING THAT RECTIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS DROPPED . NOW AFTER THE EXPIRY OF MORE THAN 4 YEARS (I.E., AT THE FAG END OF THE 6 YEAR ) , A NOTICE U/S 147 WAS ISSUED ON 28.3.2011 ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS RECORDED : - REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR A Y 2004 - 05 . RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 31/10/2004 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS 37,30,07,965/ - AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15/12/2006 AT A LOSS OF RS 25,55,48,473/ - DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED A DEPRECIATION OF RS 1,15,36,094/ - BEING 25% OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS 4,50,36,437/ - TREATING THE SAME AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS.HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITURE ON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ON WHICH NO DEPRECI ATION IS ALLOWABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT IN TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,15,36,094/ - HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T.A CT 1961. 6. FROM THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID REASONS RECORDED IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT : - PAGE 5 OF 11 FIRSTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY REFERRING TO THE RECORDS/MATERIALS ALREADY ON RECORD AND ALLOWED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE IS SUBSTITUTING THE SAME WITH HIS OWN OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE O N PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ON WHICH NO DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ; SECONDLY; THERE IS NO INFORMATION OR TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF 25% OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IS FACTUALLY OR LEGALLY INCORRECT ; AND LASTLY; NO FAILURE HAS BEEN ASCRIBED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPON THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. 7. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDEN T FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN TERMS OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 HAS TO BE SEEN. AT THE FACE OF THE REASONS RECORDED, OSTENSIBLY THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS , ALBEIT THE RECORD REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE ENTIRE PARTICULARS OF PRODUCT EXPENSES OF RS. 4,50,36,437/ - WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INTANGIBLE ASSET ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION @ 25% HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS ACCEPTED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL MATERIAL FACTS ABOUT THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND MADE A CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET , THEN THE ASSESSEE CAN VERY WELL SAID TO HAVE DISCHARG ED I TS ONUS OF DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING PAGE 6 OF 11 OFFICER TO DRAW PROPER LEGAL INFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO TELL THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHAT LEGAL INFERENCE IS TO BE DRAWN ON THE FACTS AND MATERIAL DISCLOSED . IN THE REASONS RECORDED , THERE IS A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF PRESUMPTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE IS NECESSARY A CA PITAL EXPENDITURE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY SETTLED LAW THAT ALL SUCH PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE F ALLS IN THE REALM OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE H AVING ENDURING BENEFIT WHICH DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF INTANGIBLE ASSET OR KIND OF ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED. AT LEAST NOT H ING IS BORNE OUT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED , WHICH ALONE IS THE F OUNDATIONAL FACT AND JURISDICTIONAL POINT AND HAS TO BE EXAMINE D O NCE THE JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IS CHALLENGED. 8 . BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAD RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER: - 1. HOND A SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. DY . CI T F20121 20 TAXMANN.COM 5 (SC)/ 2012 206 TAXMAN 33 (SC)(MAG. [ 2012 ] 340 ITR 64 (SC) [ 2012 ] 247 CTR 316 (SC). 2. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. DY. CIT T20IN 10 TAXMANN.COM 2 (DELHI) [ 2011 ] 197 TAXMAN 415 (DELHI) [ 2012 ] 340 ITR 53 (DELH I) [ 2012 ] 247 CTR 322 (DELHI) . 3 . CIT VS P.V.S. BEEDIES (P.) LTD. [1 999 ] 103 TAXMAN 294 (SC ) [1 999 ] 237 ITR 13(SC ) [1 999 ] 155 CTR 538 (SC) . 4. CIT VS KIRANBHAI JAMNADAS SHETH (HUF) [ 2013 ] 39 TAXMANN.COM 116 ( GUJARAT ) {2014} 221 TAXMAN 19 (GUJARAT )( MAG.) . PAGE 7 OF 11 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL , SHRI P.C. YADAV, AFTER EXPLAINING THE ENTIRE FACTS, SUBMITTED THAT , FIRST OF ALL IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ASSESSEE S CLAIM ON DEPRECIATION O N PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME , VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 15.12 .2006 HAS GIVEN THE ENTIRE DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION ON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. IN SUPPORT , OF THIS CONTENTION HE DREW OU R ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET PLACED AT PAGE NO. 13 AND LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PLAC ED AT PAGE 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. APART FROM THAT HE POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 , ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ITS REPLY AND AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY AO HAD DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS. WHEN CE THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY RAISED THIS OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECEIVING THE COP Y OF REASONS RECORDED CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THEN NOWHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISPOSING OF THE SAID OBJECTION HAVE EV EN UTTERED THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. THUS, REOPENING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS BAD IN LAW WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CATENA OF DECISIONS FOR WHICH SEPARATE COMPILATION HAS BEEN FILED. 10 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO IN VIEW OF O UR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE PARTICULARS OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND ALSO PAGE 8 OF 11 RECONCILIATION OF CAPITALIZATION OF FIXED ASSETS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WHICH INCLUDED THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE ALSO. THIS FACT IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT FROM THE LETTER DATED 15.12.2006 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE/ QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APART FROM THAT , ALL THE PARTICULARS AND DETAILS OF CAPITALIZATION AND CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WERE ALSO SHOWN IN THE AUDIT ED BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FUL L AND TRU E DISCLOSURES OF MATERIAL FACT, THEN THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISCHARGED AND IT IS UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DRAW PROPER LEGAL AND FACTUAL INFERENCE. AS OBSERVED ABOVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER ASCRIBED ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NOR HAS BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES UNDER THE LAW CAN NEVER BE TREATED AS AN ASSET OR A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWA BLE. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING , WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE CASE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS , WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) . THUS , THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT O N THE AFORESAID REASONS IS CLEARLY BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY, IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED. 1 1 . NOW C OMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOND A SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. DY . CIT [ 2012 ] 20 TAXMANN.COM 5 (SC) 2012 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR, WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE THERE WA S A CATEGORICAL FINDING WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT GIVEN DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES RELATABLE TO PAGE 9 OF 11 TAX FREE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON UNDER THE CUMULATIVE HEAD EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. IN LIGHT OF SUCH A CATEGORICAL FINDING, THE RATIO OF THE HON BLE COURT DOES NOT HAVE ANY BINDING PRECEDENCE ON THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL HE REIN ABOVE THERE WAS NO FAILURE OR OMISSION ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY MATERIAL FACT AND IN ANY CASE THIS ISSUE IS ALWAYS A QUESTION OF FACT. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P.V.S. BEEDIES (P.) LTD. [1999] 103 TAXMAN 294 (SC) [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC) [1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) IS CONCERNED , WE FIND THAT THIS WAS THE CASE WITHIN THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF SECTION 147(B) PERTAINING TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED MUCH PRIOR TO YEAR 1989 AND THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS INVOLVED WERE 1974 - 75 AND 1975 - 76 AND IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF LIMITATION OR EMBARGO WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS , THE JUDGMENT S R ELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AT ALL. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE CATENA OF DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICAL LY HELD THAT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD FOUR YEARS IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 , I T IS MANDATORY THAT THE FAILURE SHOULD BE ASCRIBED IN THE REASONS RECORDED AND FAILURE TO DO SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE CASE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARFROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE RELEVANT DECISIO NS ON THIS POINT ARE: WOODWARD GOVERNOR (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT DELHI HIGH COURT WP(C) - 16902/2004 ORDER DATED 5.10.2016 ; ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LT D. VS. DCIT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT - (2012) 343 ITR 0141 . PAGE 10 OF 11 1 2 . THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED WHEREAS ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 . 0 8 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - ( G.D. AGRAWAL ) (AMIT SHUKLA) (PRESIDENT , ITAT ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED: 30 . 0 8 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 2 8 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29 . 0 8 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS . 8 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON . 8 .2017 PAGE 11 OF 11 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK . 8 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.