INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AHMEDNAGAR V. ANIL PRAKASH KARDILE, AHMEDNAGAR

MA 319/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department's appeal against the decision of the CIT(A), which partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition made under sections 69 and 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's appeal was initially dismissed by the ITAT due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circulars. However, the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application arguing that the case fell under exceptions to the monetary limits prescribed by the Circulars, citing organized tax evasion activities. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, concluded that the Circulars do not apply retrospectively to pending cases and thus dismissed the Miscellaneous Application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474214 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Surendra Shantilal Peety, PCIT vs. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S RAJPUROHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Retrospective amendment; Document seized; Documents seized; Tax effect; Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Penny stocks; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 132; 69; 13; 40A(3); 268A; 20

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.319/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.2077/PUN/2017) Assessment Years : 2012-13 ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Shri Anil Prakash Kardile A/p Burannagar, Tal. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar – 414001 PAN : DJQPK7850A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Department by : Shri B S Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 05-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The Revenue through this Miscellaneous Application has requested the Tribunal to recall the order passed by it on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appeal on account of low tax effect although the same is covered by the exceptions mentioned in CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 and Circular No.F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), dated 20.08.2018. 2. The Ld. DR referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Application drew the attention of the Bench to the same which read as under: 2 MA No.319/PUN/2022 “The ITAT, Pune Bench \"B\", Pune vide ITA No.2077/PUN/2017 dated 29.11.2019 has decided the appeal in the case of Anil Prakash Kardile of Ahmednagar, for A.Y. 2012-13 (PAN- DJQPK7850A). 2. While deciding the appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in view of CBDT's vide circular 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019(supra) has amended para 3 of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 thereby enhancing monetary limit of tax effect from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.50, Lakhs for filling of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. 3. In this connection, it is submitted that:- On receipt of information from the Ahmednagar Police that the assessee had made investment in purchase of number of immovable properties during the year, the Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s 148 of the I T Act to the assessee, requiring him to file his return. Responding to the notice, the assesses filed a return on 24.01.2014 declaring income of Rs.5,70,350/- (consisting of profit of Rs.2,80,882/- in land trading, brokerage of Rs.1,54,208/- and profit of Rs.1,35,261/- in automobile spare trading), and agricultural income of Rs.5,44,380/-. Later, on 29.01.2015, the assessee revised the return declaring income at Rs.33,34,336/- and agriculture income at Rs.5,44,380/-. 3.1 During the assessment proceeding, A O noticed that during the year under consideration assessee had invested a total amount of Rs.1,16,82,270/- in purchase of properties. As assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation about source of investment in these properties, the A O held that the entire investment of Rs.l,16,82,270/- is liable for addition u/s 69 of I T Act. The A O further noted that as the assessee had made cash payment for entire amount of purchase, sec 40A(3) of the I T Act also attracts. After deducting stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,70,320/- from the said amount, the A O worked out net purchase amount of Rs.1,15,11,950/-. The A O added it to the income returned on conjoined application of two provisions of sec 69 and 40A(3) of the I T Act. Accordingly order us/ 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 13.03.2015 assessing the income at Rs. 1,47,48,290/- and agriculture income at Rs.5,44,380/-. Aggrieved with the AO's order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), Pune. The CIT(A) partly allowed assesee's appeal. 4. While during the appellate proceeding assessee contended that out of total transaction in purchase of properties of Rs.1,16,82,270/- one purchase agreement dated 01.01.2012 with Shri Zawar for total consideration of Rs.69,71,950/- was cancelled. The assessee filed supporting documents in respect of his contention as additional evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)-2 Pune vide letter dated 20.12.2015 called the remand report and comments of A O on additional evidence filed by assessee. 3 MA No.319/PUN/2022 4.1 The A O vide letter dated 13.02.2017 submitted report stating therein that on verification of additional submission made by assessee it is evident that the assessee had not purchased the said property and the agreement to sale made by the assessee with Mr Nankumar Zawar for total consideration of Rs.69,71,950/- has been cancelled. (Copy of remand report enclosed). 4.2 The Hon'ble CIT(A) vide order dated 25.05.2017 relying upon various decision Authorities held that sec 40 (A) (3) of the I T Act has not put blanket ban on allowance on all cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/-. As per the first proviso to sect 40A(3) of the I T Act no disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) of the I T Act taking into consideration the business expediency and other relevant factor. 4.3 Hon'ble CIT(A) held that the assessee has made cash payment to his vendors under business compulsions and therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the business expediency concluded that no disallowance was warranted u/s 40A(3) of I T Act. 5. Further, the Hon'ble CIT(A), considering remand report & other fact, held that assessee had made total investment during the year of Rs.66,45,401/- as against investment considered vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 13.03.2015 at Rs.1,16,82,270/. The CITA(A) also held that source of the extent of Rs.58,35,660/- as explained. 6. The Hon'ble CIT (A) decision is not acceptable in view of the following facts. 6.1 As per Sec 40A(3), where an assessee incurred expenditure which involves payment of more than Rs.20,000/- to a single person on a single day, he was not entitled to any deduction in respect of such expenditure. The rule under sub section (3) admits of three exceptions, which are narrated in the proviso. If an assessee could prove that having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities or having regard to the consideration regarding business expediency or having regard to the other relevant factor, it would not be possible for him to make payment by way of cheque or demand draft/ the assessee would still be entitled to deduction. Therefore/ it is for the assessee to prove the existence of (i) Nature and extend of banking facility that compelled him to made payment in cash. (ii)Consideration of business expediency that compelled him to make payments in cash and (iii) Any other relevant factors that would justify such payments such as the transactions and payments are made on a bank holiday the seller is refusing to accept the payment by way of crossed cheque /draft. 4 MA No.319/PUN/2022 However the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to prove that these payment did not fall within any of the exception of Rule 6 DD, there was a contravention to the provision laid down in sec 40 (A)(3). Therefore, addition made by the A O needs to be upheld. 7. In view of the above mentioned facts, further appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was filed. 8. While deciding the appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in view of CBDT's vide circular no.17/19 dated 08.08.2019(supra) has amended para 3 of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 thereby enhancing monetary limit of tax effect from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs.50 Lakhs for filling of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. 9. In this case, information was received from the Police Department, The Police Department were seized documents such as sale/purchase and sathekhats executed by Kardile Family. Copies of those seized documents such as sale/purchase deeds, sathekhats/ list prepared by Police Department and copy of Panchama obtained from the Assisstant Police Inspector that the assessee had made investment in purchase of number of immovable properties during the year, the Assessing Officer was re-opened case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the I T Act to the assessee. 10. In view of the above mentioned facts, or para no.9 the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable, further, the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Police Department being law enforcement agency is covered by the exceptions mentioned in CBDT's circular NO.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 & circular no. F.NO.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 20.08.2018. 11. In view of the above facts, the miscellaneous application is filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, requesting the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Pune to reinstate the appeal No. 2077/PUN/2017 dated 29.08.2019. 12. Authorization of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Pune bearing No.PN/Pr.CIT-1/Judl/M.A/1006-APK/2019-20/2573 dated 30.12.2019 directing to file Miscellaneous application u/s 245(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of Hon'ble ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune dated 29.11.2019 in ITA No. 2077/PUN/2017 in the case of Anil Prakash Kardile, Ahmednagar for A.Y. 2012- 13, is enclosed herewith.” 3. He submitted that the contents of the Miscellaneous Application are self explanatory and therefore, necessary order may be passed by the Tribunal. 5 MA No.319/PUN/2022 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Shantilal Peety (2022) 445 ITR 590 (Bom) and submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that the Circular No.23/2019 dated 06.09.2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 would not apply retrospectively to the pending appeals though involving an organized tax evasion activity on date of said Circular. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani (2022) 134 taxmann.com 249 (Guj), she submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the said case has held that CBDT Circular No.23/2019, dated 06-09-2019 and Office Memorandum No.279, dated 16-09-2019 both providing that cases involving organized tax evasion scam through bogus long-term capital gain/short term capital loss on penny stocks are not subject to monetary limits prescribed for filing appeals, would apply prospectively to appeals filed on or after 16-09-2019. She accordingly submitted that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides. We find the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect. It is the grievance of the Revenue through this Miscellaneous Application that since the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the information received from the Police department being law enforcement agency, it 6 MA No.319/PUN/2022 is covered by the exceptions mentioned in CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 and Circular No.F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), dated 20.08.2018. Thus, the order of the Tribunal should be recalled and the appeal should be adjudicated on merit. We do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. DR. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surendra Shantilal Peety (supra) has held that the Circular No.23/2019, dated 06.09.2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 would not apply retrospectively to the pending appeals though involving an organized tax evasion activity on date of said Circular. We find the Hon’ble High Court after extensively discussing the issue and following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani (supra) has held as under: “26. A perusal of the section 268A of the IT Act 1961 clearly provides that the CBDT is empowered to issue orders, instructions or directions to the income tax authorities thereby fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit for the purpose of filing of appeal or application for reference by any income tax authority under the provisions of Chapter XX. By exercising the powers under the said provisions, the CBDT has already issued various circulars referred to above. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Polycott Corpn. [2009] 178 Taxman 255/318 ITR 144 has held that the instructions cannot be interpreted as a statute though it is pursuant to the power conferred under section 268A of the IT Act. What the Court has to consider is the plain language of the paragraph and the object behind the said provisions. The object appears to be not to burden Courts and Tribunals in respect of the matters where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed. Even before issuing the Circular No. 5/2008 dated 15th May 2008 which was under consideration of this Court, the CBDT had been issuing instructions whereby the monetary limit had been fixed. It is held by this Court that the duty is cast upon Assessing Officer that even if disputed questions arise for more than one assessment year, then an appeal should be filed only in respect of that year where the monetary limit as specified in para 3 of the said circular would have exceeded. 28. A perusal of the Circular No. 3/2018 indicate that by the said circular, in supersession of the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10-12-2015, the CBDT 7 MA No.319/PUN/2022 decided that the departmental appeals may be filed on merits before ITAT and High Courts and special leave petitions/appeals before Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified therein. Insofar as those proceedings before the High Courts are concerned, the monetary limit is prescribed as Rs. 50 lakh. 29. In clause 7 of the said circular, it was made clear that in a case where appeal before the Tribunal or a Court is not filed only on account of the tax effect being less than the monetary limit specified therein, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income-tax shall specifically record that \"even though the decision is not acceptable, appeal is not being filed only on the consideration that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in the said Circular.\" A safeguard has been provided that there shall be no presumption that the Income- tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues. It was further clarified in the said circular that the Income-tax Department shall not be precluded from filing an appeal against the disputed issues in the case of the same assessee for any other assessment year or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, if the tax effect exceeds the specified monetary limits. 30. However, in the said Circular dated 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 and more particularly in para Nos. 10 and 11 various exceptions were provided and if adverse judgments were filed in respect of those exceptions, the revenue has been directed to contest those judgments on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 of the said Circular No. 3/2018. In para 13 of the said Circular, it is further clarified that the said Circular was applicable to the special leave petitions/appeals/cross objections/references to be filed after the date of the said Circular before Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunals and it shall apply retrospectively to pending Special Leave Petitions/appeals/cross objections/references. It was directed that the pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 of the said Circular may be withdrawn or not pressed. 31. However, by the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, the CBDT enhanced the monetary limit from Rs. 50 lakh to Rs. one Crore insofar as the appeals before the High Courts are concerned as step towards further management of the litigation. 32. In the Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019, the CBDT noticed that several references had been received by the Board in large number of cases where organised tax evasion came through bogus long term capital gain and short term capital loss on penny stocks and the department was unable to pursue the cases in higher judicial fora on account of enhanced monetary limits. The Board further noticed that in large number of cases ITATs and High Court have recognized the unique modus operandi involved in such scam and had passed judgments in favour of the revenue. However, in cases where some appellate fora had not given due consideration to position of law or facts investigated by the department, there was 8 MA No.319/PUN/2022 no remedy available with the department for filing further appeal in view of the prescribed monetary limits. 33. The CBDT accordingly clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in Circular issued under section 268A specifying monetary limits for filing of departmental appeals before ITAT and High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court, appeals may be filed on merits as an exception to the said Circular where the Board, by way of special order direct filing of appeal on merit in cases involved in organised tax evasion activity. The said Circular No. 23/2019 was clarified by the Office Memorandum No. F.No. 279/MISC./M-93/2018-ITJ (PT.) dated 16th September 2019 that by virtue of powers of the CBDT under section 268A of the IT Act 1961, the monetary limits fixed for filing appeals before ITAT/High Court and SLPs/appeal before Supreme Court shall not apply in cases of assessees claiming bogus long term capital gain/short term capital loss through penny stocks and appeals/SLPs in such cases shall be filed on merits. It is, thus, clear beyond reasonable doubt that the exception is carved out by the Circular No. 23/2019 to file appeal on merits in cases involved in organized tax evasion activity notwithstanding anything contained in any circular issued under section 268A of IT Act, specifying monetary limits for filing of departmental appeals. 34. However, on plain reading of the said Circular No. 23/2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019, it is clear that the appeals are directed to be filed on merits as exception to the earlier Circulars issued under section 268A of the IT Act in cases involved in organized tax evasion activity from the date of the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 and not to the appeals already filed and were pending involved in organized tax evasion activity on the part of assessee prior to the date of the said Circular dated 16th September, 2019. 35. In our view, the said Circular No. 23/2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 would not apply to the pending appeals though involving an organized tax evasion activity on the date of the said Circular. The said Circular No. 23/2019 does not provide that the said Circular would apply even to the pending cases lodged on the date of the Circular. In our view, those pending appeals on the date of the said Circular No. 23/2019 thus would not be covered by the said Circular No. 23/2019 even with the special order of the CBDT. 36. In our view, the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 do not empower the CBDT to pass any special order directing the income tax department to file an appeal on merits in pending cases even if alleging organized tax evasion activity on the part of the assessee. 37. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 and more particularly, para No. 13 thereof, specifically prescribing that the said Circular would apply to the SLPs/appeals/cross 9 MA No.319/PUN/2022 objections/references to be filed from the date of the said Circular in Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunals and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/ references. The Income-tax Department was directed to withdraw/not press the pending appeals below the specified tax limits set out in para 3 of the said Circular. However, no such specific direction was given in the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019, thereby to apply the said conditions set out therein to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references before the Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunal involving organized tax evasion activity. In our view, the said Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 cannot be read with the Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019. The legislative intent is thus clear that the said Circular dated 6th September 2019 would not apply with retrospective effect. 38. Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Vijay Pal Singh (supra) has considered the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 and also the Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 and has held that the said Office Memorandum was only with reference to the decision taken by the Board and notified as well by Circular No. 23/2019. Since no 'Special Order' was passed by CBDT, such appeals could not be entertained. However, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the revenue to approach this Court afresh in appropriate cases wherever 'Special Order' has been issued by the Court as an exception to the Circular No. 17/2019 and 23/2019 where organized activity was noted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order passed by the Chhatisgarh High Court on 2nd August 2021 in the case Vijay Pal Singh case (supra). 39. Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Natwarlal Sharda (supra) has considered the issue as to whether the CBDT Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 and Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 had any retrospective effect. The Gujarat High Court in the said judgment held that the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 speaks about the appeals that may be filed with the special order of the Board in future, irrespective of the monetary limits fixed in earlier cases on merits in cases involved in organized tax evasion activity and the same, thus, could not be construed to have retrospective effect. The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal interpreting the said Circular/Office Memorandum in the impugned order which was subject matter of the said appeal has rightly observed that in respect of each case or category of cases where an appeal should be filed in view of the Circular dated 6th September 2019 or not shall be decided by the Board by way of special order, and thus a specific requirement of issuance of special order by CBDT is must. In our view, the principles laid down by the Gujarat High Court in case of Anand Natwarlal Sharda (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court. 40. In our view, in the appeals preferred after the date of the Circular dated 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 involved in organized tax evasion activity can 10 MA No.319/PUN/2022 be filed on merits before the ITAT/High Courts/ Supreme Court including the cross objections only if the CBDT passes a special order in those SLPs/appeals/cross objections before the Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunals if the tax limit is less than the specified monetary reliefs prescribed in the Circulars issued by the CBDT under section 268A of the IT Act, 1961. 41. These circulars under section 268A of the IT Act 1961 by the CBDT are issued with an object to not to burden the Courts and Tribunals in respect of the matters where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed, subject to the exceptions carved out in these Circulars. 42. It is not in dispute that the appeals filed by the appellant-revenue in this bunch of appeals allege the voluntary declaration of the amounts shown as long term capital gain and short term capital loss by the respondents-assessees during the search action under section 132 (4) of the IT Act, 1961. However, in view of the fact that the said Circular No. 23/2019 dated 6th September 2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 not applicable with retrospective effect, though appellant-revenue has alleged organized tax evasion activity on the part of the respondent-assessee in those pending appeals as on the date of the said Circular No. 23/2019, the appellant-revenue cannot be allowed to pursue these appeals. In our view, since the tax effect involved in this bunch of appeals is less than the monetary limit prescribed in the earlier circulars referred to aforesaid issued by the Department of Revenue, CBDT, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appellant- revenue cannot be allowed to proceed with these appeals on merits. 43. The aforesaid appeals are accordingly dismissed, however, without prejudice to rights and liberties of the appellant to approach this Court afresh in appropriate case wherever special orders have been issued by the Board as an exception to the Circular No. 17/2019 and 23/2019 where organized tax evasion activity of the assessee is noted in future i.e. after the date of the said Circular. 44. In view of the dismissal of these appeals and in view of the tax effect not having exceeded the monetary limits as prescribed in CBDT circulars, this Court is not required to answer the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court by order dated 10th March 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court holding that the Circular No.23/2019 dated 06.09.2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 would not apply retrospectively to the pending appeals though involving an organized tax evasion activity on date of said Circular, therefore, 11 MA No.319/PUN/2022 respectfully following the same, we hold that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 1st October, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 12 MA No.319/PUN/2022 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 30.09.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 01.10.2024 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 on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "