M/s Petronet LNG Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1197/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97550 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: C S AGGARWAL SR SHRI R P MALL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ITA NO: 1197/DEL/2011 AY : - 2004-05 PETRONET LNG LTD., VS. DCIT WORLD TRADE CENTRE CIRCLE 14(1) 1 ST FLOOR, BABAR LANE NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN AAACP8148D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.S. AGGARWAL, SR. ADVOCATE, SHRI R.P. MALL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING :09.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30. 9. 2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILE BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DATED 28.1.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED BOTH ON LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE ALLEGED DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WH ICH APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED ON 30.08.2010 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT D ATED 27.09.2006, WHICH ORDER WAS SERVED, WITHOUT NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT ON ASSESSEE ON 21.11.2006, DESPITE THE FACT THAT, IT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT NO NOTICE OF DEMAND HAD BEEN SERV ED ON ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 2 RESPECT OF THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND TIME TO FI LE AN APPEAL COMMENCES WITH THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND AND N O VALID APPEAL COULD BE FILED WITHOUT A NOTICE OF) DEMAND. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITH OUT A NOTICE OF DEMAND AND IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND IT WA S ADVISED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO FILE APPEAL AS AND WHEN, THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IS SERVED. IN FACT IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT ADVISED WHEN THE MATTER WAS REVIEWED ABOUT THE PENDING APPEAL S FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AFTER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED AND AN APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 13.08.2010 FOR THE S ERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND AND THEREAFTER AN APPEAL WAS FILED ON 30.8.20 10 AS SUCH IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT THE APPEAL FILED WAS BELATED LY FILED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DIDN'T REQUEST THE AO TO SERVE A COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 PRIOR T O 13.08.2010, COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A VALID GROUND FOR HOLDING THA T THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AND FURTHER THE PURPORTED DELAY IF ANY OCCURRED COULD NOT BE CONDONED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECT OR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS REPORTEDIN 167 ITR 471, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL THOUGH FILED BELATEDLY. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SLEPT OVER THE MATT ER AND THE JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY HIM ARE TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION MADE TO INCOME OF RS . RS. 2,33,91,260/- OTHERWISE IS UNTENABLE IN LAW AS HAD BEEN HELD BY HO N'BLE ITA T AND HON'BLE HC FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS WHERE SIMILAR ADDITIO NS MADE HAVE BEEN DELETED, AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 2,33,91,260/- AS INTEREST INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED . ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 3 2. LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF T HE APPEAL BY 47 MONTHS. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI C.S. AGGARWAL , SENIOR ADVOCATE, SUBMITTED THAT : A) THE ASSESEE IS A PSU COMPANY; B) IT WAS NOT SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF DEMAND AND HENCE , IT DID NOT FILED THE APPEAL, AS IT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO AP PEAL CAN BE FILED WITHOUT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND; C) THE ASSESEE COMPANY HAD NOT FILED APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, SINCE IT DID NO T RECEIVE THE NOTICES OF DEMAND AND AS IT WAS SO ADVISED BY ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHRI MAHESH ; D) RULE 45, OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, PRESCRIBES MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 AND REQUIRES THAT THIS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY, T HE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AND THE NOTICE OF ; E) THE PERIOD TO FILE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE TAKEN, A S AN WHEN NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS SERVED AND T HAT SUCH A NOTICE OF DEMAND HAS NOT BEEN SERVED TILL DATE, DESPITE REQU EST MADE TO THE AO ON 13.8.2010; F) THE COMPANY EXECUTIVE SHRI R.K. GOEL FILED A DU LY SWORN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THESE FACTS THAT THE DELAY OF 45 MONTH S WAS CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE I.E. NON RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156; ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 4 G) THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO PREFER AN APPEAL IS TO BE COUNTED AFTER SUCH NOTICE OF DEMAND IS SERVED; H) THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS I DENTICAL TO THE ISSUE THAT AROSE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE H ONBLE ITAT HAS ADJUDICATED ALL THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO MOTIVE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE A SSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. I) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE A PPEAL CAN BE FILED, ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE DEMAND NOTICE AND SUCH BONAFIDE BELI EF WAS DUE TO A PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND HENCE THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS :- 1. SURYA GENERAL TRADERS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER O F HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GRACE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX REPORTED IN 34 SOT 315 (MUM.) 3. M/S. MAHALAKSHMI REAL ESTATES VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R (ITA NO. 991/HYD/2009) 4. WELLWORTH SHARES AND STOCK BROKING LTD. VS. ACIT (I TA NO. 991/HYD/2009) 5. DINESH NAGINDAS VS. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 229 6. AUTO CENTRE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2005) 278 I TR 291 (ALL) 7. PARIJAT CHEMICALS P. LTD. VS. ITO (1995) 216 ITR 22 1 (MP) 8. SMT. RANI AGGARWAL VS. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 22 9. PREM CHAND BANSAL VS. ITO (1999) 237 ITR 65 (DEL) 10. R. SESHMAL VS. ITO 237 ITR 185 (MAD.) 11. PRIMA PAPER & ENGINEERING P. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 221 TAXMANN 209 (BOM) 12. IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS. UJAGAR SING & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2395 OF 2008 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT DATED 9 TH JUNE, 2010 13. M/S. SARTORIOUS MECHATRONICS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ACI T ITA NOS. 982 TO 984/BANG/2013 DATED 27.3.2015 ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 5 5. LD. DR SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY ON THE OTHER HA ND OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT, TH IS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE ASSESSEE, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD. HE FILED COPIES OF LETTER OF ACIT RANGE XIX, NEW DE LHI DATED 8.7.2015, WHEREIN A LETTER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CI RCLE XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 8.7.2015 WAS ENCLOSE AND COPY OF THE INCOME TAX COM PUTATION FORM AND NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND COPY OF SP EED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATE 17.11.2006 WAS FILED. HE ARGUED THAT THE AO HA S CONFIRMED THAT COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION FORM AN D DEMAND NOTICE SHOWING NIL DEMAND WAS DISPATCHED BY SPEED POST ON 17.11.2006 T O THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT THESE PAPERS ARE BEING FILED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BENCH AND THE ENTIRE BASE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE RESTED ITS CASE IS DEMOLISHED BY THESE PAPERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS :- A) AT PAGE 43 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK A LETTER DA TED 12 TH AUGUST,2006 IS ADDRESSED TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REQU ESTING FOR NOTICE OF DEMAND ALONGWITH THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THIS WAS FILED ONLY ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2010. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS SHOWS ABSOLUTE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT NO EXPLANATION IS GI VEN AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THIS DISCREPANCY. B) THE ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN NIL DEMAND, AFTER ADJUST MENT OF TAXES. ISSUING NOTICE OF NIL DEMAND CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR NOT FILI NG AN APPEAL. C) A DELAY OF FOUR MONTHS IS AN ABNORMAL DELAY AND T HE ASSESSEE WAS NEGLIGENT AND HENCE NOT DEMONSTRATED REASONABLE CAUSE. ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 6 D) THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ONE OF THE OFFICER OF THE C OMPANY SHRI R.K. GOEL, SENIOR MANAGER MENTIONED THAT SHRI MAHESH GUPTA CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAD ADVISED THE COMPANY TO AWAIT FOR THE NOTICE OF DEMA ND AND WHEREAS THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI MAHESH GUPTA. E) THAT THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED N OTICE OF DEMAND AND THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED WITHOUT A NOTICE OF DEMAN D AND THAT HE HAS ASKED FOR THE NOTICE OF DEMAND. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL WITHOUT NOTICE OF DEMAND ON 30.8.2010. WHAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DONE NOW COULD HAVE BEEN DONE EARLIER. 5.1. HE DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELA Y IS A FACTUAL MATTER AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON EACH CASE ARE DIFFERENT. 6. IN REPLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE LETTER AT PAGE 43 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK IS NOT 12 TH AUGUST, 2006 AS TYPED, BUT WAS ACTUALLY, 12 TH AUGUST, 2010 AND THAT THIS WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ER ROR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE D.R. THAT A NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY SPEED POST IS NOT BELIEVABLE. HE ARGUED THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHICH IS PHOTOCOPIED ON THE REVERSE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. HE RIDICULED THE PAPERS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SU BMITTED THAT THESE DO NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SARTORIOUS MECHATRONICS INDIA VS. ACIT, A DELAY OF 1836 DAYS WAS CONDONED FOR REASON THAT THE ASSESEE WAS GUIDED BY PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND H AD NOT FILED AN APPEAL. HE ARGUED THAT BEING A GOVT. ORGANISATION A CONSIDERAT E APPROACH HAS TO BE SHOWN. HE REITERATED THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESEE, NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL. ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 7 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDER ATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE RS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 8. THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE HAS STATED THAT THE NOT ICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND COMPUTATION FORM. EVIDENCE OF DISPATCH OF THE SAME THROUGH SPEED POS T ON 17.11.2006 IS PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE DENIES THE RECEIPT OF THE S AME, BUT IS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE. W HEN THE DOCUMENT IS SENT BY SPEED POST AND WHEN THE SAME IS NOT RETURNED TO TH E SENDER BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT IT HAS BEEN SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE PRESUME THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156 WAS SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND COMPUTATION FORM. LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WANTED THE BENCH NOT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE REVENUE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS SUBMISSION. LD. DR POINTED O UT THAT THESE ARE FILED ONLY ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH. WE SEE NO REASON AS TO WHY THESE PAPERS FILED BY THE REVENUE HAVE TO BE REJECTED. THUS THE ENTIRE BASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE BASED HIS ARGUMENT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DEVOID OF MERI T. 9. EVEN OTHERWISE IF IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED THAT NOTICE OF DEMAND HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTE R DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2006 ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2010 BEFORE AO, REQUESTING FOR NOTICE OF D EMAND. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL THAT THE DATE 12 TH AUGUST, 2006 IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EV IDENCE OTHER THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE I.E. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SIGNATURE OF ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 8 MR. R.K. GOEL, SR. MANAGER, (F&A) ON THE LETTER DAT ED 12 TH AUGUST, 2006 AND THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED ON 25 TH AUGUST, 2010 IS AT VARIANCE. 10. THE ASSESSEE STATED IN HIS LETTER DATED 27 TH JANUARY, 2011 ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THAT IT WAS ONLY AFT ER IT RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.7.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 -02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE INSTANT ASST T. YEAR 2004-05 WAS EXAMINED AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, AS NO NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS RECEIVED. THIS STATEMENT SHOWS THAT DURING THE ENTI RE INTERREGNUM PERIOD OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURSUED TH E MATTER TO OBTAIN THE -NIL- NOTICE OF DEMAND. THIS PERIOD OF DELAY HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. 11. ON THE ARGUMENT THAT AN APPEAL WAS NOT FILED ON THE ADVISE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THE ONLY EVIDENCE FILED IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT AS THE CHARTERED AC COUNTANT HAS NOT CORROBORATED THE SAME. 12. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCUR WITH THE V IEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT, IT WAS P REVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, IN FILING THIS APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 13. COMING TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE, WE HAVE PERUSED ALL OF THEM AND WE HOLD THAT EACH CASE, IS PECULIAR TO ITS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN NONE OF THE CASES IT HAS BEEN LA ID DOWN THAT IN EACH AND EVERY CASE, CONDONATION HAS TO BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF RULE. UNLIKE IN THE CASES CITED, THE BASIC REASON CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS FOUND INCORRECT. HENCE THERE IS ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 9 A FACTUAL DIFFERENCE. IN THIS CASE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT NOTICE U/S 156 WAS DISPATCHED ALONG WITH THE A SSESSMENT ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE. AS ALREADY NOTED THE VERY GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSES SEE BASED ITS ENTIRE CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FAILS AND CONSEQUENTLY WE UPHO LD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1197/DEL/2011 PETRONET LNG LTD. V S. DCIT 10 SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 9.7.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.7.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER