M3M India Holdings , Gurgaon V. ACIT,Central Circle-2, Faridabad

ITA 1120/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3991 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 32; 69; 132; 133A; 153A; 234B; 69B; 153; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1120/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2012-13) M/s M3M India Holdings Vs. The A.C.I.T C – 13, Sushant Lok – 1 Central Circle - 2 Gurgaon, Haryana Faridabad PAN: AATFM 5860 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Department By : Ms. Rinku Singh, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 3, Gurgaon dated 31.03.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 2. The concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: Groun d No. Grounds of Appeal 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of notice issued u/s 153A and assessment order passed u/s 153A( 1 )(b) of the Act in absence of any search on appellant, and as such both the notice issued u/s 153A and order passed u/s 153A( 1 )(b) of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be quashed as such. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that mere preparation of warrant of authorization u/s 132(1) in the name of the appellant in respect of the premises namely 'C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon' could not confer jurisdiction in absence of name of appellant on 'panchnama' for said premises, which tantamount as if no search conducted on appellant as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v M/s J.M. Trading Corporation upholding the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 29.06.2009 in ITA No. 276/2009 and decision of Tribunal in the case of J.M. Trading Corporation vs. ACIT reported in 20 SOT 489 (Mum). 3 2 That addition made and upheld of Rs. 62,89,55,192/- by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is per se without jurisdiction since the same is not based on any incriminating material detected as a result of search on the appellant firm as has been also held by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 and Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act was a mechanical and, invalid approval having been granted without due application of mind to the facts of the assessee firm,, order of assessment made u/s 153A( 1 )(b) of the Act is invalid and not in accordance with law. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming an addition made by the learned Assessing officer of Rs. 62,89,55,192/- representing alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 153A(l)(b) of the Act in gross violation of the principles of natural justice -by relying on certain statements of third parties recorded at the back of the appellant without providing the opportunity to cross examine them as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE reported in case of 62 taxmann.com 3 4 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that no proceedings can be initiated u/s 153 A of the Act on the basis of document seized from third party possession / premises rather assessment should have been completed u/s 153C being specific code to deal such statement /evidence as held by Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) reported in 432 ITR 384. 5 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 3,10,94,862/- u/s 234A of the Act and interest of Rs.59,23,20,862/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant firm. Prayer It is therefore prayed that, it be held that, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding both the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and assessment framed u/s 153A(l)(b) of the Act, which were without jurisdiction and thus be quashed as such and, further addition so upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alongwith interest levied be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed. 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. We have considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of IITAT Rules. 5 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] was conducted on 21.07.2016 at the residential premises of M3M Group of cases including the assessee. Notices u/s 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee requiring it to file its return of income. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 07.08.2018 declaring an income of Rs. 3,53,03,79,100/-. 5. Basis of entire assessment proceedings revolves around the fact that the Assessing Officer was under the strong belief that as a result of search proceedings, the department came to know that the assessee firm, through a series of transactions with conduit companies, including established entry operators, have transferred and placed significant amount of fund eventually for acquisition of companies owing 430 areas of prime land at Manger, Gurgaon-Faridabad border. 6. The assessee was-show caused to explain as to why the sum of Rs. 62.89 crores which was paid in cash over and above the deal of Rs. 135.9 crores for acquisition of shares of M/s Kenwood Mercantile Pvt Ltd [KMPL] and M/s Goodfaith Builders Pvt Ltd [GBPL] by M/s 6 Peakwood Realty Pvt. Ltd be not added to its income for Assessment Year 2012-13 u/s 69 of the Act. 7. Panchnama exhibited at Page 7 of the Paper Book shows that the issue of warrant was in the case of Shri Basant Bansal, Shri Roop Kumar Bansal, Shri Pankaj Bansal, Smt Anita Bansal, Smt. Abha Bansal and M/s M3M India Holdings to search 106A, Tower – 1, DLF Aralias, Golf Link, Gurgaon. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that this premises was neither owned by the assessee nor resided by the assessee, but is the residence of the partners of the assessee-firm. Exhibit 1, which is warrant in the case of M/s M3M India Ltd, M/s M3M India (P) Ltd, M/s M3M India Holdings Pvt ,M/s Misty Meadows [P] Ltd, Paras Twin Tower, Tower –B, 6 th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector – 54, Gurgaon. 9. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that this premises was owned and occupied by the assessee but its name is not in the warrant to search. It was vehemently contended before us that nothing has emerged from the premises which was neither owned nor 7 resided by the assessee and no document was found which could connect the assessee. 10. On identical set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sarvamangalam Builders and Developers [P] Ltd ITA Nos. 943 to 945/2015 had the occasion to consider a similar situation. The relevant findings read as under: “5. The Revenue has filed these appeals against the common order dated 14 th March, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 196 to 198/Del/2011 for the Assessment Years (‘AY’) 2002-03 to 2004- 6. The short point arises for consideration whether the ITAT erred in holding that the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act initiated against the Assessee was bad in law since the premises which were searched under Section 132 were not of the Assessee. 7. The ITAT has noted as a matter of fact that the premises that was searched i.e. 3 rd Floor, Global Arcade, M. G. Road, Gurgaon was not of the Assessee. There was nothing on record to connect the Assessee with the premises searched. Therefore, qua the. Assessee, the proceedings under Section 153 A was invalid. This being a factual aspect, no question of law arises. 8. The appeals are dismissed.” 8 11. The Hon'ble High Court has upheld the following findings of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 196 to 198/DEL/2011 which read as under: “11. It cannot be denied that this is an issue pertaining to jurisdiction. It goes to the very root of the matter. The facts with regard thereto are available before us. As such, we can very well go into this issue at this stage. The Warrant of Authorization (APB page 177-178) shows the address of the premises to be searched as '3 rd Floor, Global Arcade, MG Road, Gurgaon.' The assessment order as well as the order under appeal have taken note of the fact of this address being the address of the premises searched, The assessee contends that this premises is not owned by it and, therefore, the search carried out is invalid qua the assessee. The department has not disputed the factum of the said premises not belonging to the assessee. Even the document pertaining to the assessee, which was found from this premises in the search was, as stated by the Id. Counsel for the assessee before us on query, owned up by the Vipul Group and surrender was made by them on the basis thereof. Thus, indisputably, there is nothing on record to connect the assessee with the premises searched. Now, in 'JM Trading Corporation', 20 SOT 489 (Mum) (supra), it has been observed, inter alia, that mere search of the premises owned by the assessee but rented to another concern does not by any implication, prove the conduct of search against the assessee, in view of the fact that the assessee was not available at the address searched upon. In the present case, the situation is rather more in favour of the assessee. Here, it is not that the premises was owned 9 by the assessee but was rented out. Rather, undisputedly, the premises searched does not belong to the assessee. The department's appeal in the case of 'JM Trading Corporation' was dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. While doing so, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that non-compliance of the provisions of the Income-tax Act by the authorized officer renders a search invalid and illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the department. In 'Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2', 129 ITD 376 (Ahm) (supra) also, since, inter alia, no search operation was conducted in the premises of the assessee, it was held that the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were invalid and bad in law.” 12. In light of the above decision of the co-ordinate bench, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, we have no hesitation to hold that no search operation was conducted in the premises of the assessee. 13. It would be pertinent to mention here that search u/s 32 of the Act was also conducted at the Registered Office of the assessee at C - 13, Sushant Lok, Phase – 1, Gurgaon wherein the names of the entities mentioned are : 10 1. M/s M3M India Holdings Pvt Ltd 2. Shri Basant Bansal, 3. Shri Roop Kumar Bansal, 4. Shri Pankaj Bansal, 5. Smt Anita Bansal, 14. Here also, the name of the assessee is not mentioned though the ld. DR strongly stated that search was in the case of Bansal Group of cases. In our considered opinion, that would not be sufficient to enter the premises of any person without any valid search warrant. 15. As no authorization in respect of the assessee was mentioned in the search warrant for the above mentioned premises, therefore, search conducted on 21.07.2016 on this premise cannot be basis to issue notice u/s 153A of the Act as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court [supra]. 16. Similar view was taken by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s S.P. Cold Storage, Raipur in ITA Nos. 142 to 147/BLPR/2012 order dated 30 th October 2015. The relevant findings read as under: 11 “We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the AO can initiate action u/s 153 A where a search is initiated u/s 132 or hooks of accounts, other documents or any assets are requisitioned u/s 132A. In this case no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm. Search was conducted at the premises, which happens to be the residence of the partners of the assessee firm. No books of accounts. Documents, etc. relating to the firm was found during that search. No statement of the partners of the firm was recorded. No requisition was made u/s 132A of the I,T. Act. There is no evidence that notice of search was ever issued on the partner: On the same date i.e. 16 th July, 2007 a survey operation was conducted u/s 133A at the business premises of the assessee firm. In pursuant of survey operation, statement of partners was recorded. The survey operation continued from 16 th July, 2007 to 19 t! July, 2007 and various books, documents, papers etc. were found and impounded. In this background we have to examine as to whether the search u/s 132 of the l.T. Act in this case gives jurisdiction to the AO u/s 153A of the l.T. Act. Now' the assessee’s plea and the learned CIT(Appeals)' view is that in these facts no search and seizure operation was ever conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm which is a sine qua non for assuming assessments u/s 153 A of l.T. Act. On the other hand, learned D.R’s plea is that section 153 A postulates initiation of search u/s 132 and such a search at the residential premises of the partners of the firm amounts to a search as envisaged u/s 153 A of the l.T. Act.” 12 17. This view is further supported by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Neelam Aggarwal Vs. DCIT17 SOT 579 [Lucknow]. The relevant findings read as under: “We have considered the submissions of learned D.R. and have also perused the material on record. In our considered view, the contentions of learned D.R. are not well founded. A search is deemed to be concluded as soon as facts relating thereto are recorded in the Panchnama. A search would deem to continue only in respect of that premises only. Even if the search had not concluded in that premises then it cannot mean to have continued in respect of another premises. It is undisputed fact that warrant of authorization issued in the joint name of Shri D.P. Agrawal and Neelam Agrawal was in respect of locker No. 187, P.N.B., Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur where a separate warrant was issued in respect of locker No. 150, P.N.B., Bahraich. Firstly, two banks are at two different places. Locker numbers are different then it could not be said that warrant of authorization issued in the name of Shri D.P. Agrawal and Neelam Agrawal was also in respect of locker No. 150, P.N.B., Bahraich. In fact in law a warrant of authorization contains two important ingredients; (jj the person against whom the. search warrant is issued, QQ premises in respect of which it is believed that concealed wealth, and/or documents relating to concealed income would be found and in respect of which search warrant is issued. The search warrant requires the mentioning of particulars of the premises to be searched. The name of owner of that premises and its address are important particulars. In one case, 13 owner of the premises and persons searched, may be the same but in another case, they may be different. A premise to be searched has to be properly specified in the ‘‘. arrant. Unless all the particulars are contained in a warrant, the warrant cannot be said to be complete. Therefore, a warrant issued in respect of one premises owned by a different person (in the present case PNB, Kanpur owning locker No. 187) cannot authorize the officers to search another premises. I n the present case, locker No. 150, P.N.B., Bahraich is a different premise and therefore search of locker No. 187, P.N.B., Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur cannot be said to continue in respect of locker No. 150, P.N.B., Bahraich. A satisfaction for issuance of warrant has to be necessarily mention all the above important ingredients and, therefore, one warrant for search is specific to a person searched, the premises and its owner. 9. A warrant issued in respect of one premise cannot be valid to search another premises. If the authorities intend to search another premise, they will have to issue another warrant after recording satisfaction as per law. Our view is supported by the provisions of section 132(1) which clearly provides that though warrant of authorization can be issued in respect of any building, place, vessel, or aircraft in respect of which the authorizing officer has reasons to suspect that the person, against whom the search warrant is being issued, has kept or hidden concealed wealth or income or books or treatments relating thereto, but once the authorizing officer has issued the warrant against a particular specific building than thereafter that warrant cannot be a general 14 warrant authorizing the authorized officers (categories of officers as mentioned in that section) to enter and search any building, place, vessel, or aircraft which they (authorized officers) choose.“ 18. We will now address to the issue raised in Ground No. 2 and 2.1 by which the assessee claims that since no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 and Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 squarely apply on the facts of the case. 19. Before addressing this issue, it would be pertinent to understand the factual matrix of the entire quarrel. 20. M/s KMPL and GFPL collectively own about 430 acres of land at Mangar, Faridabad-Gurgaon border in the ratio 90.02%: 9.98% respectively. These two companies were acquired by M/s Ess Gee Sheltors Pvt Ltd [now known as M/s Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd], controlled by Shri Suresh Gandhi and family for a consideration of Rs. 198 crores. 15 21. Rs. 135.90 crores has been accounted for in the books and Rs. 62.89 crores were paid over and above this amount in cash. This is the allegation of the Revenue. This transaction happened on 21.02.2012. The company now known as Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd was acquired by another company M/s Royal Crown Projects Pvt Ltd on 16.02.20212. Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Pankaj Bansal, who are partners in this firm and Shri Gaurav Jain, VP Finance of the M3M Group were involved in negotiations, deal structuring and the overall transactions, as alleged by the Revenue. 22. As mentioned above, shares of KMPL and GBPL are purchased by Peakwood Realty Pvt. Ltd but earlier known as M/s Ess Gee Sheltors Pvt Ltd has also mentioned that KMPL and GBPL collectively hold 430 acres in village Mangar, Faridabad-Gurgaon border. 23. Share holders of KMPL were foreign entities, namely Shri Kishan Ghalot, and Stockest Pvt Ltd and, therefore, remittances were approved by RBI vide approval dated 08.08.2011. 24. Share holders of GFPL were also foreign entities, namely Shri Amit Grover, Princgle Security Pvt Ltd, and, therefore, foreign remittances were approved by the RBI vide approval dated 08.08.3011. 16 Shares were purchased by M/s Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd. The source of funds with M/s Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd for such investment is Rs. 175 crores from M3M India Holdings [assessee], through M/s Innovative Realtech Pvt Ltd. The investment of M/s Peakwood Realty Pvt. Ltd in F.Y. 2011-12 was 46,14,860 shares of KMPL amounting to Rs. 97,62,64,760/- and advance to KMPL was Rs. 21,70,53,983/- and in F.Y. 2012-13, advance to GBPL was Rs. 29,86,556/- and investment was 36 2420 shares of GBPL amounting to Rs. 14,13,43,804/- totaling to Rs. 1,33,76,49,103/-. 25. These transactions are duly recorded in the books of account and there is no dispute whatsoever. The only allegation of the Revenue is that apart from the above payment of alleged consideration of Rs. 62.89 crores is paid in cash for purchase of shares of two companies, namely KMPL and GBPL by Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd. 26. In this entire factual matrix, we fail to understand why the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. What we could gather from the assessment order and understanding the submissions made by the ld. DR is that since Rs. 175 crores have been paid by the assessee to Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd has 17 prompted the Assessing Officer, who categorically assumed at Para 5.3.1 of his order as under: “Once it is established that accounted part of the payment was paid by the assessee, then the natural corollary is that even the unaccounted part was paid by the assessee.” 27. This conclusive observation of the Assessing Officer itself shows that the entire edifice of making assessment is nothing but assumptions, surmises and conjectures. 28. The most important factor which needs specific mention is that while framing the assessment in the case of Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 62,89,71,086/- being additional cash consideration for acquiring shares of KMPL and GBPL. The same addition has been made in the hands of the assessee. 29. The Bench asked a very simple question to the ld. DR that in whose hands substantive addition has been made and in whose hands protective addition has been made. 18 30. The ld. DR could not answer to this simple question and we do not understand from the perusal of the record of the assessee and considering the assessment in the case of Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd, though one thing is certain that same addition in respect of similar transaction has been made in the hands of the two assessees. 31. A perusal of the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 in the case of Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd shows that there is a reference of some document found on 18.06.2015 which is also exhibited at page 415 of the Paper Book Volume 2, which is internal page 10 of the assessment order in the case of Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd. This document shows that some additional consideration has been paid amounting to Rs. 62,89,71,086/-. This document was found from the laptop of one Smt. Bina Shah. 32. This document was neither found from the premises of the assessee nor from the possession of the assessee and is sole basis of making entire payment. Since this incriminating material was neither found from the premises of the assessee nor connected with the assessee in any manner, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 19 Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla and Meeta Gutgutia [supra] squarely apply. 33. Interestingly, there is no adverse inference drawn in respect of sellers of shares i.e. KMPL and GBPL though the impugned addition has been made on the basis of pure surmises and conjectures nothing has been done in the hands of the sellers of the shares. 34. As mentioned elsewhere, shareholders of GBPL and KMPL are NRI and, therefore, Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd had to take ‘No Objection Certificate’ for transfer of shares from RBI which was duly obtained by it. 35. It appears that the Assessing Officer has proceeded with a preconceived mind without realizing that the documents which he is referring to is for making addition neither has names of the sellers of the shares nor name of the assessee. Therefore, following the ratio laiddown by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court [supra], this addition deserves to be deleted. 20 36. Even on merits of the case, the addition cannot be sustained as the Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 69 of the Act which has been modified by the ld. CIT(A) and sustained the addition u/s 69 of the Act. 37. A revisit to the facts of the case would clear the quarrel. 38. The assessee remitted Rs. 175 crores on 03.02.2012 and 04.02.2012 to Innovative Realtech Pvt Ltd. This transaction is duly reflected as advance in the audited financial statement of the assessee. M/s Innovative Realtech Pvt Ltd remitted Rs. 175 crores to Royal Crown on 04.02.2012 through banking channel and this transaction is also reflected on the asset side of the financial statement of M/s Innovative Realtech Pvt Ltd. M/s Innovative Realtech Pvt Ltd is regularly assessed to tax since Assessment Year 2011-12. 39. M/s Royal Crown remitted Rs. 133.76 crores to Ess Gee Sheltors now known as Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd. This amount is shown as advance and is duly reflected in the financial statement of Royal Crown Pvt Ltd. It is assessed to tax regularly since Assessment Year 2012-13. Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd made remittances to KMPL and GBPL towards investment in shares totaling to Rs. 1,33,76,49,103/-. 21 All these transactions have been fully recorded in respective balance sheet of the company. 40. Addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 62,89,55,192/- is purely on assumption and without any basis. Presuming that the assessee has paid cash for the purchase of shares as these sellers of shares were holding 430 acres of prime land in Village Mangar, Faridabad – Gurgaon border. 41. Addition though modified by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 69B of the Act but has been confirmed on the presumption, surmises and conjectures of the ld. CIT(A) is also without any sound basis as provisions of section 69B provides that where during F.Y. the assessee has made certain investment and it is found that the amount expended for making the said investment exceeds in the books of account and the assessee furnished no explanation or explanation so offered in relation to source of such income for making such investment in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not found satisfactory, then such excess amount may be deeded as income of the assessee for the said Assessment Year. 22 42. Firstly, investment was made by Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd and not by the assessee and secondly, the Assessing Officer has made addition in the hands Peakwood Realty Pvt Ltd, then there should not be any reason for making same addition in the hands of the assessee when the assessee is not party to the transaction. 43. Considering the entire factual matrix from all possible angles, addition made in the hands of the assessee on all counts deserves to be deleted. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. 44. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1120/DEL/2022 is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23 rd September, 2022. VL/ 23 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order