M/s. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 47/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0009 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N GUPTA I T P
• Assessee Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Difference of opinion
• Section: 43B; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5147 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), VS. M/S. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRI SES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI 4-A, HANSALAYA, 15, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. C.O.47/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), 4-A, HANSALAYA, 15, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI. GIR / PAN:AAECS3636D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRR KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G N GUPTA, I.T.P. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.05.2013. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS DELETED PENALTY OF RS.15,97,334/- M ADE BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN C.O.: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII , NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER CALLED C!T(A) FOR SHORT) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO 1,3 & 4 WHICH ARE AS BELOW: GROUND OF APPEAL NO 1 : 2 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVIES PENALTY UNDER S ECTION 271 (1) ( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS HE HAS FAILED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEAL ED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED TH E LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT SATISFACTION' ENVISAGED IN SECTION 271 (1) OF THE ACT MUST BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. GROUND OF APPEAL NO 3 : THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CA SE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L NO 1 & 2 ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TAX ON THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS 15,97,334/- RESULTING IN TH E LEVY OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS 15,97,334/- WHEREAS THE TAX ON THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IS ZERO IN VIEW OF CLAUSE (C ) OF EXPLANATION 4 BELOW SECTION 271 (1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 & THEREFORE NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. GROUND OF APPEAL NO 4 : THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO 1,2 & 3 ABOVE, THE TAX ON INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WORKS OUT ONLY TO RS 14,52,123/ - AND NOT RS 15,97,3341 - SINCE NO SURCHARGE IS APPLICABL E AS EVEN THE ASSESSED INCOME IS LESS THEN RS ONE CRORE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2009 AND BESIDES OTHER ADDITIONS , ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING EXPENDIGURE WERE MADE: I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE TO SUGAR DEVELOPMENT BANK RS.17,80,611/- II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DHARMADA ACCOUNT RS.23, 56,346/- 3. THE A.O. INITIATED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND IMP OSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS. LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS 3 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE PENAL TY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.6 FINDINGS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OR DER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF LD. AR AND ORAL ARGUMENTS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C ) AT THE RATE OF 100% ON TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THREE AD DITIONS: 1. PROVISION OF INTEREST ON SDF LOANS RS. 17,80,6 11/- 2. DHARMADA COLLECTION AND INTEREST ON ACCUMULATED FUNDS RS. 23,56,3461- IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, LD. AR'S MAIN ARGUMENTS AGAINST LAVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) ON THESE ADDITION ARE THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME, FOR EACH ITEM OF ADDITION THERE W AS ATLEAST THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF THE THESE CLAIM AND THE CLAIMS ARE NOT EX-FACIE BOGUS. LD. AR HAS RELIED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT, THE SA ME WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 11.1 .2012. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER.- 'BEFORE PARTING WITH [HIS MATTER, THE ASSESSEE WOUL D LIKE TO DRAW YOU KIND ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1) THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL COMPANY 128 ITR 570. IN THIS CASE, ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE FULLY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLAN T'S CA IN FORM NO. IOCCAC HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENABLE TO SEGRE GATE THE TURN OVER OF HOUSE BOOKS AND BOOKS PUBLISHED BY OTHER PU BLISHERS CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE DISCLOSED, PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C ), OF THE ACT WAS NOT LEVIABLE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF RAHASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V HARSHVARD HAN CHEM AND MINERAL UD. 259ITR 212 AND CHANDRA PAL BAGGA V ITAT 26J 2) THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V HONEYWELL DACE (INDIA) LTD. 292ITR 169 WHERE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT 'WHERE THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD GONE TO T HE EXTENT OF HOLDING THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO SUBST ANTIATE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. 4 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 3) THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. 157ITR 822, WHERE IT WA S HELD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE STANDS DISAL LOWED DOES NOT LED TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS IN REGARD TO THAT ITEM. 4) THE DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V AJAIB SINGH & CO. 253 ITR 630, WHERE IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT IF A CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER ERRONEOUS UNDERSTAN DING OF LAW HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, IF CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION O F CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 5) THE DECISION OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HARYANA EDUCATION SOCIETY, 251 ITR 846. AN A CTUAL PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX WAS MADE AND THE CLAIM WAS MADE BONA F IDE FOR DEDUCTION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM WOULD NOT AMOUNT OF CONCEALMENT. 6) THE DECISION F MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CAFCO SYNDICATE SHIPPING CO., 294 ITR 134 & CIT V. INDEN BISLERS 240 ITR 943, WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'WHERE A PARTICULA R EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, PENALTY U/S 27 L (I)(C) IS NOT IMP OSSIBLE. 7) LASTLY, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDINA IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROCHEMIC ALS LTD. 322ITR 158. HE ARGUED THAT THERE WAS TWO OPINION ABOUT THE ALLO WABILITY OF THESE DEDUCTION/EXPENSE. IN THIS LIGHT, HE RELIED UPON VA RIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, CITED SUPRA ON THIS ISSUE, WHEN HON BLE COURTS HAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT UNLESS THERE IS IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OR EX FACIE BOGUS CLAIM OF ANY EXPENSE OR DEDUCTION, PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) IS NOT LAVIABLE. HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NT CITED SUPRA AFTER THE DECISION OF BON' E APEX HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES STARTING FROM THE CASE RELIA NCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 322 ITR 158 WHERE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT HAS CONSIDERED ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA T EXTILES AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C), THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION FILING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITION - IS A PRE- REQUISITE FOR LEVY OF 5 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C), HAS TO BE FULFILLED .. APA RT FROM OTHER DECISIONS HE FINALLY RELIED UPON THE RECENT DECISIO NS OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT V AMTEK AUTO CO. 352 ITR 394, WHERE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON DEBATABLE ISSUE, PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) WAS NOT LAVI ABLE. I HAVE CONSIDERED ENTIRE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE CITED BY LD. AR AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDER ING THESE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT UNLESS A CA SE IS MADE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY U/S 27I(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. IN ORDER TO SATISFY EITHER OF THESE TWO CRITERIA, THE COURT HAS DECIDED THAT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C), EITHER THERE SHO ULD BE EX-FACIE BOGUS CLAIM OF EXPENSE, DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE OR THER E SHOULD PRIMA FACIE NO TWO DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF ADDI TION. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, I WOULD NOW EXAMINE THE FACT S OF THE CASE, WHETHER EITHER OF THESE TWO CRITERIA IS SATISFIED I N RESPECT OF TWO ITEM OF ADDITIONS SEPARATELY:- 1) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF INTEREST ON SUGAR DEVELOPMENT FUND (SDF) FOR RS. 17,80,6111-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST PAYAB LE TO IFCI UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE SUGAR DEVELOPMENT FUND WAS CREATED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ., MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION DEPART MENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION TO PROVIDE LOAN FOR MODERNI ZATION OF SUGAR PLANT. DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDING, ON THE NATU RE OF LOAN, LD. AR HAS FILED LETTER NO. 4-112005-SDF, GOVERNMENT OF IN DIA, DT.1-07- 2005, WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT LOAN HAS BEEN SANC TIONED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER CONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION FOR MODERNIZATION/REPLACEMENT OF TWO NUMBERS OF BOILERS WITH INCIDENTAL EXPANSION OF CRUSTING CAPACITY OF SUGARCANE. IN THA T LOAN APPROVAL LETTER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WIL L BE DISBURSED THROUGH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION I.E. IFCI IN THIS CAS E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B FOR THE A.Y 2000-01. AS THE LOAN IS FROM SUGAR DEVELOPMENT FUND AND IFCI IS ONLY DISBURSING AGENCY THE 6 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 ASSESSEE WAS UNDER REASONABLE BELIEF BEFORE THE ORD ER OF IT AT THAT SECTION 43B IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE LOAN IS SANCTI ONED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THEREFORE, HIS ARGUMENT THAT T HERE WAS PRIMAFACIE TWO OPINION AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF EX-FACIE BOGUS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION APP EARS TO BE CONVINCING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING EN TIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT PE NALTY U/S 271(L)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. 1) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DHRMADA COLLECTION AND I NTEREST ON ACCUMULATED FUND FOR RS. 23,56,346/-:- LD, A.R'S MAIN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE NON LEVY OF PEN ALTY U/S 27I(I)(C) ON THIS QUANTUM OF ADDITION IS THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN, THERE WAS DIRECT DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF T HE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIJLI COTTON MILLS 116 ITR 60 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT DHARMADE COLLECTION IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER OF IT AT ON THIS ISSUE AND UNDER RULE 16 OF I.T.RULE, 1962 READ WITH SEE 158 A(L) OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED FORM N O. 8 FOR OTHER YEARS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME VID E ORDER DATED 14.12.2011 FOR A.Y 2003-04, CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS REVERSED BY HONBLE ITAT VIDE OR DER DT. 4.6.2010. THEREFORE, ON THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOM E, THERE WAS TWO OPINIONS AVAILABLE ON THE TAX ABILITY OF DHARAMDA C OLLECTION. I, THEREFORE, AM OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C) IS NOT LEVIA BLE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS TWO OPINION AVA ILABLE AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. HOWEVER HE SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO TWO OPINIONS AS REGARDS INTEREST PAYABLE TO IFCI AS PAY MENT OF INTEREST WAS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B WHICH MEANS THAT INTE REST WAS TO BE ALLOWED AS 7 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 EXPENDITURE ONLY IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT AND NOT IN THE YEAR OF ACCRUAL. THEREFORE, MENS REA WAS PROVED AND THE CLAIM WAS NO T BONA FIDE, THEREFORE, A.O. ALSO RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY. AS REGARDS OTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DHARMADA, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS C ONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT ON APPEAL HAD REVERSED THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). 6. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGES 1 TO 8 AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ENTIRE INFORMATION WAS S UBMITTED AND THERFORE IT WAS NOT A CASE OF WRONG FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS A ND RATHER IT IS A CASE WHERE ALL INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED AND THE VERY FA CT THAT DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES HAD DELIVERED DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE TW O ADDITIONS ITSELF PROVES THAT TWO OPINIONS WERE POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE, PENA LTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE IN THIS CASE. RELYING UPON THE CASE LAW OF CITVS MANI LAL TARACHAND 254 ITR 630 (GUJ.) LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT IN THAT CASE, IT WA S HELD THAT IF INCOME WAS NOT DECLARED IN ONE YEAR AND WAS DECLARED IN SUCCEE DING YEAR, PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT IN THE PR ESENT CASE, INTEREST WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT LEAST AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT A ND THEREFORE APPLYING THE RATIO OF ABOVE CASE, EVEN IF THE CLAIM WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF ACCRUAL, PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE. ARGUING UPON THE 2 ND GROUND OF IMPOSING PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF DHARMADA, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT DHARMADA AMOUNT COLLECTED BY ASSESSEE WAS USED FOR MAKING DONATIONS . IT WAS BEING UTILIZED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF MAKING DONATIONS AND THEREF ORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE 8 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 INCOME OF ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IN RESPECT OF ABOVE P ROPOSITION WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: I) 116 ITR 60 CIT VS BIJLI COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. II) 107 ITR 776 CIT VS TOLLYGUNGE CLUB LTD. 7. LD. A.R. FURTHER RELIED UPON DELHI BENCH D ORD ER IN THE CASE OF JHPL HOLDING (P) LTD. VS ACIT IN I.T.A. NO. 6472/DE L/2012, LD. A.R. HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON APEX COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. 322 ITR 158 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN WRONG CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS IN DETAIL HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER WITH WHIC H WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY AND THEREFORE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HA S BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A S WELL AS C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOV., 2014. SD./- SD./- ( I. C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 14 TH NOV., 2014 SP 9 ITA NO.5147/DEL/2013 C.O.47/DEL/2014 COPY FORWARDED TO:- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER