Aksar Wire Products (P) Ltd., Faridabad V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 1167/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98093 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PRAKASH MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K C SINGHAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1167/DE L/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010- 11) AKSAR WIRE PRODUCTS (P) LTD., PLOT NO. 288, SECTOR-24, FARIDABAD. AABCA4277B VS ACIT, CIRCLE II, FARIDABAD. APPELLANT BY SHRI K.C. SINGHAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. VED PRAKASH MISHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-FARIDABAD VIDE HIS ORDER DA TED 16/12/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 148 ARE VOID AB-INITIO SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO VER IFY THE VERACITY OF THE INFORMATION BEFORE RECORDING THE SO CALLED REASONS AS HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN VARIOUS CASES. MERE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM (INV) WING DOES NO T CONFER POWER ON ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN IGNORING THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT RE LIED UPON DATE OF HEARING 03.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.12.2015 2 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 BY THE APPELLANT WHILE UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF SU CH PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 148 ARE VOID AB-INITIO SINCE THE REASONS RECORDED ARE VAGUE WITH OUT REFERENCE TO ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO N EXUS OR LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE INFORMATION/MATERIAL AND THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INC OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS CONTRARY TO T HE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED I N LAW IN IGNORING THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT RE LIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WHILE UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF SU CH PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED THE ABOVE LEGAL ISSU E ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DATE WHEN THE REASONS WERE RECORDED. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE BURDEN U/S 68 STOOD DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF ENORMOU S EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. IN FACT, THE ONUS SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED WAS BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148. 5. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PRESUMING INCORRECT FACT THAT SHARES WERE NOT ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE APPLICANT TIL L DATE. THUS, THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS VITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ASSUMPTION. 6. MERE MENTIONING OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DOES NOT AND CANNOT NOT ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF T HE ALLEGATION. FURTHER, NOTHING HAS BEEN CONFRONTED T O THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D, THEREFORE, CONTENTS OF THE REPORT CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE LEGALLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERE ALLEGATIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT EVIDENC E, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE LEGALLY MADE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IF REQUIRED. 3 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS RECORDED BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12/10/20 10 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 98,563/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PR OCESSED THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. HE RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMA TION REGARDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SHRI SURENDRA KUM AR JAIN GROUP TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARY COMPANIES FROM THE OFF ICE OF DIT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN, AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SEARCH/SURVEY/INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE IN VESTIGATION WING, DELHI CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: CHEQUE BOOK/R TGS DATE FROM COMPAN Y NAME TO COMPANY / PERSON NAME BANK CHEQU E/ RTGS/ PO NO. CHEQUE BOOK/R TGS DATE AMOUNT (RS.) NAME OF THE MIDDLE MAN/MEDIA TOR ANNEXU RE NO. PAGE NO. 04.07.0 9 VICTORY SOFTWAR E P. LTD. AKSAR WIRE PRODUCTS P. LTD. AXIS RTGS 04.07.0 9 10,00,000 /- SUKESH GUPTA A - 21 BACK PAGE 33 2.1. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY INITIATE D REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HE RECORDED THE RE ASONS RECORDED IN RESPECT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY FILED THE RETURN DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 98,563/- AS WAS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINA L RETURN FILED U/S 4 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 139(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE THEREOF ISSUED NOTIC E U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) DATED 19/09/2013 TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 10 LAKHS FROM THE APPLICANTS BEING M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. WHO HAD APPLIED FOR 10,000 EQUIT Y SHARES OF RS. 10/- EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 90/- EACH. THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER REFUSED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND REJE CTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. HELD THAT THE SAID COMPANY BELONGS TO SURENDRA KUMAR GROUP AND IS IN T HE BUSINESS OF A PROFESSIONAL ENTRY PROVIDER. IT IS ALSO OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 27/12/2013 HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE APPLICANT M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A). 3.3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED V ARIOUS DETAILS REGARDING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES BEING GUNPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND VICTORY SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 15 LAKHS AND 10 LAKHS RESPECT IVELY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PARTIES, WHICH COULD PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CRED ITWORTHINESS. 5 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 3.4. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES HEREIN. THE A SSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF HAND SEWING NEEDLES, ALUMINUM/PLASTIC KNITTING NEEDLES AND OTHER IRON NE EDLES, HAVING ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY AT ITS LEADING BRAND NAME TITONY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED 25,000 EQUITY SHARES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 TO THE FOLLOWING SHAREHOLDERS: 1. M/S GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES LTD. - 15,000 SHARES 2. M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. - 10,000 SHARES 4.2. OUT OF THE ABOVE SHARES ALLOTTED OTHER THAN DI RECTORS AND ITS SPOUSE, KIDS, THE TWO COMPANIES HAD APPLIED FOR, TO ISSUE, SUBSCRIBE AND ALLOT THE SHARES AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 90/- EACH. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THA T THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE NAME OF MR. SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. 4.3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. THERE IS AN INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RECEIVED FROM THE DIT(INV.)-II, NEW DELHI THAT ASSE SSEE HAS OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR RS. 10,00,000/ - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010- 11, FROM SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN GROUP CASES, WHO IS ENTRY PROVIDER. 6 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 2. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/- AND ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY COMES TO NOTICE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 148 IS BEING ISSUED FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11. 4.4. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED SHOWS THAT T HE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 10 LAKH FROM SH RI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN GROUP OF CASES, WHO IS AN ENTRY OPERATOR . THE LD. AR CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIT(I NVESTIGATION WING) WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION. THE LD. AR SU BMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELIABLE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PLACED ON RECORD ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE INCORPORAT ION DETAILS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE CONFIRMATIONS SOUGHT FROM THEM REGARDING THE SAME. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICATION THROUGH BANK ING CHANNELS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE DOUBTED FOR. 4.5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF CASH BY SURENDRA JAIN GROUP FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRY, WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHICH HAS BEEN PERF ORMED THROUGH A MEDIATOR SHRI SUKESH GUPTA, WHO HAS RECEIVED CASH FROM THE BENEFICIARY, AND ROUTED BACK THIS CASH INTO DUMMY A CCOUNTS 7 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 BELONGING TO THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER M/S S URENDRA KUMAR JAIN GROUP, WHO HAS THEN FINALLY TRANSFERRED THE REQUISITE AMOUNT VIDE RTGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 13 1 FOR VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE S UMMONS WAS RECEIVED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS REFUSED. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INVES TIGATING OFFICER WAS DEPUTED TO CHECK THE ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMED APP LICANTS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF APPLICANT AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERSONAL VERIFICATION AND LOCAL ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE ITI IT WAS REPORTED BY HIM TH AT NO SUCH COMPANY IS OPERATING/EXISTING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS IN THE NAME OF M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. NEITHER ANYBODY ON T HE GIVEN ADDRESS KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS APPLICANT COMPANY NOR HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHERE DO THEY HAVE THEIR OFFICES. 4.6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION SO CLAIMED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S VICTORY SOFTWAR E PVT. LTD. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS BY BOTH THE PARTIES . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE ALLEGED SHRI S.K. JAIN GROUP. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HAS ALLEGED THAT THE COMPANY BY T HE NAME VICTORY SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES OF SHRI S.K. JAIN AND IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT MATERIALS ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE SA ME. IT IS FURTHER 8 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY FROM ITS APPLICANT BEING VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. B Y PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED ALL TH E DETAILS REGARDING THE APPLICANTS INCLUDING PAN NUMBERS, BOA RD RESOLUTION, COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS, INCORPORATION CERTIFIC ATES, MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND THE ACKN OWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURNS FILED BY THE APPLICANTS. 4.7. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS T O THE COMPANY BY THE NAME VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. WHICH WAS RECE IVED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH REMARK REFUSED. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS NOBODY WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE SAID A DDRESS AND FURTHER IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE COMPANY IS M ERELY EXISTING ON PAPERS. 4.8. THE ASSESSEE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS P. LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2012) 20 TAXMAN.COM 797 (DEL.). T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT AS THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT EXCEPT THE ANNEXURE WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A PRIMA FACIE NEXUS OR LINK CANNOT BE MADE TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WHICH SHOWS THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT FROM THE REASONS R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND HAS INDEPEN DENTLY ARRIVED AT A BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL WHICH HE HAD B EFORE HIM THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 9 ITA NO. 11 67/DEL/2015 4.9. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE NAMES AND ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE COMPANIES , WITH WHICH IT HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION, AND THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE SITUATION. WE OBSERVE FROM THE R ECORDS PLACED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUT ED THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PAYMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO THE ASS ESSEE BY THE APPLICANT COMPANIES. NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE ANY MA TERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE COMPANY VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. IS A NON- EXISTING AND A FICTITIOUS ENTITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, INCORRECT TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF S HARE APPLICATION FROM VICTORY SOFTWARE IS BOGUS. MERELY BECAUSE THE NAME OF ONE SHRI SUKESH GUPTA APPEARS AS A MEDIATOR IN THE ANNE XURE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT SUKESH GUPTA HAD FACILITATED SO C ALLED BOGUS TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S VICTORY SO FTWARE P. LTD. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SUMMON S U/S 131 OF THE ACT, TO SUKESH GUPTA TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE WA S INVOLVED IN THE SO CALLED BOGUS TRANSACTION. 10. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARRIVE AT A CONC LUSION THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S VICTORY SOF TWARE P. LTD. ARE BOGUS. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC HARGED ITS BURDEN U/S 68 AS IT HAD FILED THE ENORMOUS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF M/S VICTORY SOFTWARE P. LTD. BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER FOR HIM TO INVESTIGATE UPON IN DETAIL. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E WRONG. HE HAS 10 ITA NO. 1 167/DEL/2015 ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO PROVE THAT THE RECEIPT OF MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S VICTORY S OFTWARE P. LTD. IS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THE ENTRY OPERATOR S. K. JAIN GROUP. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ALLOW GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT REOPENING BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS MET VALID. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2015 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.12.2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 11 ITA NO. 1 167/DEL/2015 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07.12.15/08.12.15 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08.12.15/09.12.15 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 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.