DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun V. M/s. Sundowner Offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 1067/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3110 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VI SHAL MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Presumptive income; Business income
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDE NT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 1067/DEL/2 016 (A.Y 2012-13) DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 13A- SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) VS SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL (BERMUDA) LTD. C/O. NANGIA & CO. 3 RD FLOOR, NCR PLAZA, NEW DELHI CANTT, ROAD DEHRADUN AAHCS0550M (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT ARORA & VISHAL MISHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR ORDER PER G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT THIS IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 18/12/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-2, NOIDA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RECEIPTS ON A CCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX ARE NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44BB OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. DATE OF HEARING 04.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.12.2017 2 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 (II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE PROVIDING FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFIT AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ALL THE DEDUCTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE GROSS RECEIP TS ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. (III) WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT ONCE THE RECEIPTS ARE OFFERED TO TAX U/S 44BB OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFITS ON GROSS BASIS, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR COMPUTING OR RE-COMPUTING THE PROFITS BY EXCLUDING ANY PART O F THE RECEIPTS FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO DEFE ATING THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR A PRESUMPTIVE SCHEME OF TA XATION U/S 44BB OF THE ACT AND OBVIATING THE NEED FOR MAINTAINING A CCOUNTS FOR INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS, PAYMENTS ETC. (IV) WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P) LTD. ( 82 ITR 542, SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SA LES TAX COLLECTED BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINE SS FORMS PART OF ITS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. OWING TO THE INHERENT SIMILARITY IN THE NATURE OF SALES TAX AND SERVICE TAX, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMEN T IN THE SAID CASE IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. (V) THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 20/09/2017 IN ITA NO. 6537/DEL/2014. THE LD. AR FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. MITCHELL DRILLING INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (2016) 380 ITR 130 (DEL.). 4. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT COMPANY HAVING IT S P.E IN INDIA, THROUGH WHICH IT IS CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS IN INDIA. ACCO RDINGLY IT HAS BEEN SHOWING 3 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT, AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ITS INCOME UNDER SEC TION 44BB(1) WHICH WAS AT 10% OF GROSS REVENUE AMOUNTING TO RS.200,01,54,0 38/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS A ND REVENUE BREAKUP SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX THE REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICE TAX RECEIPTS WHICH IS PART OF GROSS RECEIPT FROM ONGC AMOUNTING TO RS.19,51,30,225/-. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY THE AO, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT STATUTORY CHARGES CANNOT FO RM PART OF THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFIT UNDER S ECTION 44BB; AND IN SUPPORT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERV ICES LTD., 317 ITR 556. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VARIOUS ORDERS OF DELHI BENCHES OF ITAT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED DISCU SSION HELD THAT ENTIRE RECEIPTS INCLUDING ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO DETERMINE THE DEEMED PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 44BB. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UP ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., 300 ITR 265 (UK) AND OTHER DECISIONS NOTED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ANALYZ ED THE PROVISIONS OF SERVICE TAX RULES AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, WHIC H WAS DEALT BY HIM FROM PAGES 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ITA NO.6475/DEL/2012 AS WE LL AS HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF DIT VS. MITCHELL DRILLI NG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) AND ALLOWED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASS ESSEE. 4 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS BEFORE US ALONG WITH THE ITAT DECISION IN CASE OF ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 BEING ITA NO. 6537/DEL/2014 ORDER DATED 20.09.2017. THE T RIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE FIND THAT NOW THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. MITCHELL DR ILLING INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, AFTER A NALYZING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (1973) 8 7 ITR 542, OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER:- 9. SECTION 44BB BEGINS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE THAT EXCLUDES THE APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 28 TO 41 AND SECTIONS 43 AN D 43A TO ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 44 BB. IT INTRODUCES THE CONCEPT OF P RESUMPTIVE INCOME AND STATES THAT 10% CREDIT OF THE AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYAB LE OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF 'THE PROVISI ON OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLANT A ND MACHINERY ON HIRE USED, OR TO BE USED, IN THE PROSPECTING FOR, OR EXT RACTION OR PRODUCTION OF, MINERAL OILS IN INDIA' SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE PR OFITS AND GAINS OF THE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION IS TO TAX WHAT CAN BE LEGITIMATELY CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE E ARNED FROM ITS BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. 10. THE EXPRESSION 'AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE' IN SECT ION 44BB(2)(A) AND THE EXPRESSION 'AMOUNT RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVE D' IN SECTION 44BB(2)(B) IS QUALIFIED BY THE WORDS 'ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH, OR SUPPLY OF PLA NT AND MACHINERY. THEREFORE, ONLY SUCH AMOUNTS WHICH ARE PAID OR PAYA BLE FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN FORM PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE 5 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE GROSS INCOME UNDER S ECTION 44 BB (1) READ WITH SECTION 44BB(2). 11. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED ON TO THE GOVE RNMENT FROM THE PERSON TO WHOM IT HAS PROVIDED THE SERVICES CAN LEG ITIMATELY BE CONSIDERED TO FORM PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S 'PRESUMPTIVE INCOME' UNDER SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT? 12. IN CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (SUPRA) SALES TAX I N THE SUM OF RS. 32,986 WAS COLLECTED AND KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN A SEPARATE 'SALES TAX COLLECTION ACCOUNT'. THE QUESTION CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT WAS: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE SUM OF RS. 32,986 HAD BEEN VALIDLY EXCLUDED FROM THE AS SESSEE'S BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR?'. HOWEVER, THERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED B Y IT AS SALES TAX IN THE STATE EXCHEQUER SINCE IT TOOK THE STAND THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISION CREATING THAT LIABILITY UPON IT WAS NOT V ALID. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE SALE S TAX COLLECTED, AND NOT DEPOSITED WITH THE TREASURY, WOULD FORM PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE'S TRADING RECEIPT. 13. THE DECISION IN GEORGE OAKES (P) LTD. (SUPRA) W AS CONCERNED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE MADRAS GENERAL SALES (DEFINITION OF TURNOVER AND VALIDATION OF ASSESSMENTS) ACT, 1954 ON THE GRO UND THAT THE WORD TURNOVER WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE I.T.A. NO.6537/DEL/2014 6 DEALER ON INTER-STATE SALES. UPH OLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID STATUTE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT 'THE E XPRESSION 'TURNOVER' MEANS THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT FOR WHICH GOODS ARE BOUG HT OR SOLD, WHETHER FOR CASH OR FOR DEFERRED PAYMENT OR OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, AND WHEN A SALE ATTRACTS PURCHASE TAX AND THE TAX IS PA SSED ON TO THE 6 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 CONSUMER, WHAT THE BUYER HAS TO PAY FOR THE GOODS I NCLUDES THE TAX AS WELL AND THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT SO PAID WOULD FALL WI THIN THE DEFINITION OF TURNOVER.' SINCE THE TAX COLLECTED BY THE SELLING DEALER FROM THE PURCHASER WAS PART OF THE PRICE FOR WHICH THE GOODS WERE SOLD , THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT INCOMPETENT TO ENACT A STATUTE PURSUANT TO ENTR Y 54 IN LIST II MAKE THE TAX SO PAID A PART OF THE TURNOVER OF THE DEALER. 14. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, BOTH THE A FOREMENTIONED DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXTS IN WHICH THE QUESTIONS AROSE BEFORE THE COURT. IN OTHER WORDS THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE COURT ON THE EXPRESSION 'TRADING RECEIPT' OR 'TURNOVER' IN THE S AID DECISIONS WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTEXT. THE LATER DECISION OF TH E SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (SUPRA) WHICH SOUGHT TO IN TERPRET THE EXPRESSION 'TURNOVER' WAS ALSO IN ANOTHER SPECIFIC CONTEXT. THERE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WAS 'WHETHER EXCI SE DUTY AND SALES TAX WERE INCLUDIBLE IN THE 'TOTAL TURNOVER' WHICH WAS T HE DENOMINATOR IN THE FORMULA CONTAINED IN SECTION 80 HHC (3) AS IT STOOD IN THE MATERIAL TIME?' THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED ITS EARLIER DECISION I N CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (SUPRA) AND ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN THE NEG ATIVE. THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE 'TOTAL TURNOVER' FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80 HHC (3) BROKERAGE, COMMISSION , INTEREST ETC. DID NOT FORM PART OF THE BUSINESS PROFITS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF EXPORT TURNOVER. IT WAS OBSERVED: 'JUST AS COMMI SSION RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE IS RELATABLE TO EXPORTS AND YET IT CANNOT FORM PART OF 'TURNOVER', EXCISE DUTY AND SALES-TAX ALSO CANNOT FORM PART OF THE I.T.A. NO.6537/DEL/2014 7 'TURNOVER'.' THE OBJECT OF THE L EGISLATURE IN ENACTING SECTION 80 HHC OF THE ACT WAS TO CONFER A BENEFIT O N PROFITS ACCRUING WITH REFERENCE TO EXPORT TURNOVER. THEREFORE, 'TURNOVER' WAS THE REQUIREMENT. 'COMMISSION, RENT, INTEREST ETC. DID NOT INVOLVE AN Y TURNOVER.' IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT 'SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY' LIKE THE AFOREMENTIONED TOOLS LIKE INTEREST, RENT ETC. 'ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEM ENT OF 'TURN OVER'. 7 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 15. IN CIT V. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (SUPRA), THE SU PREME COURT APPROVED THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CN V. SUDA RSHAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH IN TURN CONSIDERED TH E DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GEORGE OAKES (P) LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LAK SHMI MACHINES WORKS (SUPRA) IS SUFFICIENT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FRAMED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED B Y THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE CANNOT FOR M PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE 'PRESUMP TIVE INCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44 BB OF THE ACT. 16. THE COURT CONCURS WITH THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND IN ON V. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD (SUPRA) WHI CH HELD THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE CUSTO MS DUTY PAID ON EQUIPMENT IMPORTED BY IT FOR RENDERING SERVICES WOU LD NOT FORM PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 44 BB OF THE ACT. 17. THE COURT ACCORDINGLY HOLDS THAT FOR THE PURPOS ES OF COMPUTING THE 'PRESUMPTIVE INCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOS ES OF SECTION 44 BB OF THE ACT, THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNT PAID IS FOR RENDERING SERVICES IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GRO SS RECEIPTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 44 BB (2) READ WITH SECTION 44 BB (1). THE SERVICE TAX IS NOT AN AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE, OR RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. THE ASSES SEE IS ONLY COLLECTING THE SERVICE TAX FOR PASSING IT ON TO THE GOVERNMENT . I.T.A. NO.6537/DEL/2014 8 18. THE COURT FURTHER NOTES THAT THE POSITION HAS BEEN MADE EXPLICIT BY THE CBDT ITSELF IN TWO OF ITS CIRCULARS. IN CIRCULAR NO. 4/2008 DATED 28TH APRIL 2008 IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT 'SERVICE TAX PAID BY THE TENANT DOESN'T PARTAKE THE NATURE OF 'INCOME' OF TH E LANDLORD. THE LANDLORD ONLY ACTS AS A COLLECTING AGENCY FOR GOVERNMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SERVICE TAX. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT TAX DEDUCT ION AT SOURCE) UNDER 8 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 SECTIONS 194-1 OF INCOME TAX ACT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THE AMOUNT OF RENT PAID/PAYABLE WITHOUT INCLUDING THE S ERVICE TAX. IN CIRCULAR NO.1/2014 DATED 13TH JANUARY 2014, IT HAS BEEN CLAR IFIED THAT SERVICE TAX IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THE S ERVICE TAX COMPONENT UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 7. APART FROM THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICI AL PRECEDENCE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SERVICE T AX ELEMENT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTING THE PROFIT AND THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT STATUTORY CHARGES CAN NOT FORM PART OF THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFIT UNDER SECTION 44BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, IN LIGHT OF DECISIONS I N ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH DECEMBER, 2017 SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (G. D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED: 08/12/2017 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 9 ITA NO. 1067/DEL/2016 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04/12/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04/12/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 08.12.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 8 .12.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.