Gopi G Nambiar, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1083/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 108320114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Tangible material; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLAN I, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR RED DY, AM ITA NO. 1083/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2007-08 SH. GOPI G NAMBIAR VS. JCIT, RANGE 47 C/O SH. SANJEEV K JAIN & CO. NEW DELHI E 35, GREEN PARK MAIN NEW DELHI PAN: AABPN 6283 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- SH.SALIL AGARWAL, ADV. SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, C.A RESPONDENT BY:- .SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR . D.R O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI DATED 05.02.2010 PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF:- FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT IN PARA 4 OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER ARE EXTRACTED FOR READ Y REFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SA LARY, INCOME FROM OTHER SORUCES AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 30.7.06 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF 2 RS.92,98,529.00 THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME ON 1-2- 2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 92,94,006.00 A LONG WITH THE INCOME OF RETURN, THE APPELLANT FILED A COMPUTATION OF TAXES PAID BELOW THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. THE FOLLOWING NOTE WAS ANNEXED: 'THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED STOCK OPTIONS AS PER TH E STOCK OPTIONS SCHEME PLAN 13 OF THE EMPLOYER ON 11TH FEB., 2002 NUMBERIN G 1313 SHARES WHICH VESTED WITH HIM ON 11 TH FEB. 2006. OF THIS 500 SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH A CASHLESS SCHEME AS ON 23/03/2006. THE ASSESSEE HA S EARNED A GAIN FOR AN AGGREGATE VALUE OF RS. 23,85,138/- (AS PER COMPU TATION SHEET/LETTER FROM SOCIETE GENERALE ENCLOSED) ON THE SALE OF THE SAID STOCK OPTIONS. LEGAL OPINION HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE EMPLOYER M/S SEAGARM ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CAPITAL GAINS IS TO BE CALCULATED AND AS PER THE SAID LEGAL OPINION, THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN CALCULATED BY A DOPTING THE DATE OF GRANT AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A CO MPUTATION, HENCE THE GAIN HAS BEEN CALCULATED ACCORDINGLY. IT IS FURTHER CLA RIFIED THAT AS THE STOCK OPTIONS HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11TH FE B.2002 AND SUCH AN ASSET WAS SOLD/TRANSFERRED ONLY AS ON 23/03/2006 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSET TRANSFERRED WAS A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET WHI CH HAD BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE STOCK OPTION WAS GRANTED TO HIM'. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED STOCK OPTIONS IN A CASHLESS SCHEME WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF A LEGAL OPINION HAD T AKEN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS A DATE OF GRANT AND COMPUTED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN ON THE SAID BASIS. THEREAFTER, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE LAST DAY OF MONTH IN WHICH THE RETU RN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED. ON 17.02.2009 A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A RETURN OF INCOME U/S 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3 ON 19.03.09, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RETURN OF INC OME U/S 148 UNDER PROTEST AS ALSO FILED A LETTER OBJECTING TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 AND ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR IS SUANCE OF SECTION 148 BE SUPPLIED TO HIM. ON 10.11.09 ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISS UED REQUESTING TO SHOW CAUSE AS WHY THE ABOVE MENTIONED CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. THE AO REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE ISSUE OF REOPENING. HE ASSESSED THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SU RRENDER OF STOCK OPTIONS UNDER CASHLESS SCHEME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. A GGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY REJECTED BOTH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., ON THE ISSUE OF R EOPENING AS WELL AS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF ESOP IS TAXABLE UNDER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE APP LIED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHR I JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA IN ITA NOS. 185 AND 186/DEL/2009. AGGRIEVED THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASASESSEE MR.SALIL AGGAR VAL SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE THE ASSESSE DISPUTES IS THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF HIS SUBMISSIONS IS THAT : A. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE AO REFERRED TO THE FAC T THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE SHARES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER ESOP THROUGH CASHLESS SCHEME AND THAT THIS IS THE BASIS FOR REOP ENING AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN A NOTE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, HAS STATED 4 THESE FACTS AND THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION OR MATE RIAL WHICH CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN ADDITIO N TO WHAT THE ASSESSEE SATED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, TO WARRANT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON`BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD. (2013) 29 TAXMANN.COM 392 (DE LHI), JUDGEMENT DATED 12 DEC 2012 IN ITA NO. 555/2012 FOR THE PROPO SITION THAT WHEN THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE REASONS RECORDED OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION, REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. B. THAT EXPLANATION II (B) OF SEC.147 DOES NOT APPLY T O THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THERE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSE SSEE AND AS IT IS AN ISSUE OF RATE OF TAX THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THE INCO ME. C. ON MERITS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESOPS IN QUESTION V ESTED IN THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.02.2002 WHICH WAS SOLD ON 13.04.2006 AND FOR THE SECOND TIME ON ESOPS VESTED ON 17.12.2 002 WHICH WAS SOLD ON 02.02.2007 AND AS RIGHTS IN QUESTION WERE HELD F OR MORE THAN 36 MONTHS, AND HENCE THE GAIN IN QUESTION IS A LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- I. MR. PURWEZ RUSI PATEL VS. JCIT, DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN ITA NO.4936/DEL/2010; II. ACIT VS. SH. PARAM PAUL UBEROI OF DELHI BENCH OF IT AT IN ITA NO.4477/DEL/2011; III. ABHIRAM SETH VS. JCIT DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN ITA NO.2302/DEL/2010; IV. ACIT VS. AMBRISH KUMAR JHAMB, DELHI BENCH OF ITAT I N ITA NO.4936/DEL/2010; 5 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS THAT OF THE LD.AO. ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENI NG HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM PERNOD RECARD INDIA P VT. LTD. AND IT IS A CASE WHERE TANGIBLE MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHICH WAS RELIED UPON FOR REOPENING. ON MERITS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA IN ITA NOS. 185 AND 186/DEL/2009. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY SU BMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA IN ITA NOS. 185 AND 186/DEL/2009(SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY HIM,. 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERA TION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE PAP ERS ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 8. THE FIRST ISSUE IS ON THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS RECORDED ARE AS FOLLOWS:- SH. GOPI GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, ASSESSMENT YEAR 20002-03 A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2007 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,87,11,780/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A EMPL OYEE OF M/S SEAGRAM INDIA PVT. LTD. ON THE PERUSAL OF RETURN IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 88,57,512/ - WITH FOL LOWING NOTE: 'THE ASSESSEE 6 WAS GRANTED STOCK OPTIONS UNDER PLAN 13 AND 14, WHI CH STOOD VESTED WITH HIM ON 11.02.2002 AND 17.12.2002 (I.E. THE DATE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION) THE SAID OPTIONS HAVE BEEN SOLD ON 13.04.2006 AND 02.02 .2007 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A GAIN FOR AN AGGREGATE VALUE O F RS. 88575121- (RS. 4121177 + 4736335) AS PER COMPUTATION SHEET ENCLOSE D ON THE SALE OF THE SAID STOCK OPTIONS. A LEGAL OPINION HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE EMPLOYER M/S SEAGRAM ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CAPITAL GAINS I S TO BE CALCULATED AND AS PER THE SAID LEGAL OPINION, THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS B EEN CALCULATED BY ADOPTING THE DATE OF GRANT AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, FOR T HE PURPOSE OF A COMPUTATION, HENCE THE GAIN HAS BEEN CALCULATED ACCORDINGLY. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT AS THE STOCK OPTIONS HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.02.2002 AND 17.12.2002 AND SUCH AN ASSET WAS SOLD/TRANSFERRED O NLY ON 13.04.2006 AND 02.02.2007 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSET TRANSFERR ED WAS A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE STOCK OPTION WAS GRANTED TO HIM. THERE IS AN ISSUE REGARDING APPROPRIATE DATE OF TRA NSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS DEPENDING ON WHICH THE AMOUNT IS TO BE SHORT TERM O R LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASES OF (I) SUMIT BHATTACHARAYA VS. ACIT (2008) 19 SOT 763 (MUMBAI(SB) (II) GIRIDHAR KRISHNA M VS.ACIT, ITAT BANGALORE 'B' BENC H (2008) 117 TTJ (BANGALORE) 665. ' IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ACQUISITION OF SHARE UNDER TH E EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION SCHEME HAPPENS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES HIS OPTION AND IS ALLOTTED THE SPECIFIED NUMBER OF SHARES., AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PERNOD RICHAR D INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMALLY M/S SEAGRAM INDIA PVT. LTD.) VIDE LETTER DATED 14. 10.2008, THE SHARES WERE GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES UNDER ESOP THROUGH CASH LES S SCHEME AND IN THIS SCHEME THE EXERCISE DATE AND SALE DATE WAS SAME. FR OM THE SAID CLARIFICATION FROM PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMALLY M/S SEAGRAM INDIA PVT. LTD.), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY ARE WRON GLY TREATING THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF S HORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WR ONGLY TREATED THIS CAPITAL GAIN AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS CHARGEAB LE @20% WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE CHARGED @30% TREATING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR A Y 2007-08 HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. ISSUE NOTICE U S 148 OF THE IT ACT. 7 8.1. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED DEMONSTRAT ES THAT THE LETTER DATED 14/10/2008 RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM PERNOD RECARD IN DIA PVT. LTD DOES NOT GIVE ANY NEW INFORMATION OR MATERIAL TO THE LD.AO. WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED BY WAY OF A NOTE, I.E. THAT HE HAS RECEIVED ESOP UNDER CASHLESS SCHEME WAS STATED BY WAY OF A LETTER BY PE RNOD RECARD INDIA PVT. LTD. THUS THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN THE AB SENCE OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR FRESH INFORMATION. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF MS. ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED (SUPRA) AT PARA 15 HELD A FOLLOWS: 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REASONS DISCLOSE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURN U/S 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AN D NOTHING MORE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER PROCEED INGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BOTH STRONGLY DEPR ECATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CA SE DO CONFIRM OUR APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTE RPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASONS TO BELIEVE VIS--VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1)CAN CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN TH E REASONS RECORDED, OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF INTIMATION. IT REFLECTS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 9. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. 10. ON MERITS THE DATE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS WA S 11.02.2002 AND 17.12.2002 RESPECTIVELY AND THESE STOCK OPTIONS WE RE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.04.2006 AND 02.02.2007 RESPECTIVELY. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE GAIN IN 8 QUESTION IS A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. PURWEZ RUSI PATEL (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PA RAM PAUL UBEROI (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF ESOP IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE WHEN THE OPTION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE. IN OTHER WORDS THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE DECISIONS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE ACQUIRED A VALUABLE RIGHT ON THE DATE OF GRANT AND THIS VALUABLE RIGHT, WHICH IS CAPITAL ASSET, WHEN S OLD AFTER 3 YEARS, WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE VALUABLE RIGHT WHICH IS A CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD FOR MORE THAN 36 MONTHS BY THE ASSESSEE MAKING IT A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE WAS CONSID ERED BY THE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ABHIRAM SETH (SUPRA). AT PARA 7.1 AND 7.2 T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ABHIRAM SETH VS. JCIT, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 7.1. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TAXABILI TY OF GAINS ON THE TRANSFER OF SUCH RIGHTS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAI NS IS JUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IF WE ACCEPT ASSESSING OF FICERS STAND, THEN THERE WILL BE NO CAPITAL GAIN; IF THE DATE OF ALLO TMENT OF SHARE AND SALE THEREOF IS THE SAME, THE PRICE OF PURCHASE OF SHARE S CANNOT BE THE PRICE PAID FOR RIGHT WHICH IS NOT HELD AS PURCHASE , WHICH BECOMES UNASCERTAINABLE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE EARLIER RIGHT OF ALLOTMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PURCHASE OF SHARES AND THUS LEADS TO A PRESUMPTIVE SITUATION. IN THAT CASE AS RIGHTLY OBS ERVED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF BOMI S BILLIMORIA (SUPRA), THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE UNASCERTAINABLE IF WE APPLY THE CASE OF DHURJATI GU PTA (SUPRA), THEN ALLOTMENT CONSTITUTES NEW RIGHT OF PURCHASE AND THE PRICE WILL BE SAME AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION. IN BOTH SITUATIONS THER E WILL BE NO TAXABILITY. 7.2. IN OUR VIEW, THESE PROPOSITIONS ARE OF NO AVAI L INSOFAR AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED A VALUABLE AND TRANSFERABLE 9 RIGHT ON THESE SHARES AS ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES IN 1995-96 TO 1999- 2000, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE CASES OF BOMI S.BILL IMORIA (SUPRA) AND DHURJATI GUPTA (SUPRA), ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE RIGHT OF SHARE CONSTITUTE CAPITAL AS SETS AND THE GAINS SHOULD BE TAXED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, AS TH E HOLDING PERIOD IS MORE THAN 3 YEARS. WE REVERSE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE, TREATING THE GAINS AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL ;GA INS. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ALLOW THIS G ROUND OF THE ASSSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO TAX THE GAIN IN QUESTION UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (J.SUDH AKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 26 TH JULY, 2013 *MANGA 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ON: 3. DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER ON: 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ON: 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO SR.P.S. ON: 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK ON : 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GIVEN TO HEAD CLERK ON: 9. DATE OF DISPATCHING THE ORDER ON :