M/s. Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA), New Delhi V. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 1249/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8576 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 260A; 144C; 64; 43; 13; 11

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI A BEN CH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICI AL MEMBER ITA NO. 5332/DEL/2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] & ITA NO. 1249/DEL/2014 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11] M/S JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION VS. THE D Y.C.I.T AGENCY [JBIC], CIRCLE 3(1) 2ND FLOOR, DR. GOPAL DAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 28, BARAKHAMBHA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI PAN: AAAAJ 1961 C [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07. 2020 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL GULATI, CIT- DR 2 ORDER PER BENCH: THE ABOVE TWO SEPARATE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PREFERRED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED U/S 1 43(3) R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] DATED 20.09.2011 AND 26.11.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-11 RESPECTFULLY. SINCE THE GRIEVA NCES ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE YEARS, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHE R AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE BREVITY. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 I N ITA NOS. 5705/DEL/2010 AND 3284/DEL/2012 REPORTED IN 158 ITD 62. 3. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT APPROACHED THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING AN Y DISTINGUISHING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH [SUPRA]. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN ITA NO. 5332/DEL/2011 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09, THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS U NDER: GROUND NO. 1 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALL OWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT ON ITS SHARE OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 34 ,47,414 OUT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY SARA FUND (VENTURE C APITAL FUND -VCF). GROUND NO.2 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS. 9,03,566 BY TAXING THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IN INTEREST INCOME FROM VCF UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER S OURCES' ON GROSS BASIS AND NOT ON NET BASIS IN DISREGARD OF THE FACT 4 THAT INCOME OF A VCF CAN BE PASSED ON TO ITS NLY AF TER ADJUSTING THE EXPENSES IT INCURRED OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE A EARN SUCH INCOME. GROUND NO 3 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12, 28,594 [5,50,00,000-5,37,71,406] @22.73% I.E. RS. 2,79,260 WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE APPELLANTS HANDS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. IN ITA NO. 3284/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07, THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 1 (I) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWIN G THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT ON ITS SHARE OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 43 ,48,571 OUT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY SARA FUND (VENTURE C APITAL FUND - VCF). ( II) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE 5 THAT THE COMPANIES FROM WHICH SARA FUND HAD EARNED DIVIDEND HAD ALREADY PAID ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 115-0 OF THE ACT AND SARA FUND WAS NO T REQUIRED TO PAY ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX FOR THE SECON D TIME ON THE SAME INCOME. GROUND NO. 2 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN DISALLOWIN G EXPENSES OF RS. 1, 13,11,955 BY TAXING THE SHARE OF THE APPE LLANT IN INTEREST INCOME FROM VCF UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOUR CES' ON GROSS BASIS AND NOT ON NET BASIS IN DISREGARD OF TH E FACT THAT INCOME OF A VCF CAN BE PASSED ON TO ITS INVESTORS O NLY AFTER ADJUSTING THE EXPENSES IT INCURRED OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE INVESTORS, TO EARN SUCH INCOME. GROUND NO. 3 (I) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THA T OUT OF A TOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF RS. 176,000,000 DURING THE YE AR, ONLY RS. 119,738,454 WAS OUT OF INCOME OF THE VCF WHILE THE INCOME COMPONENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION WAS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 142,134,265. (II) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DISTRIBUTION MADE IN THE 6 PREVIOUS YEAR THE INCOME COMPONENT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE STATUTORY DECLARATION U/S 11 5U(2) MADE BY SARA FUN D WAS ALONE ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. (III) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THA T THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IN THE PAYMENT OF RS. 56,261,546 [176,000,GOO- 119,738,454] @ 22.73% I.E. RS. 12,788 ,250/ WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. (IV) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, MATER IAL EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD I.E. NOTES TO THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME. FORM 64 AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SARA FUND. (V) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115U(2) OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVIDE OR FURNISH INFORMATION DIFFERENT FROM AND/OR CONFLICTING WITH THE STATUTORY DECLARATION IN FORM 64 FURNISHED TO THE I NCOME-TAX AUTHORITY BY THE VENTURE CAPITAL FUND (SARA FUND) A ND WAS BOUND BY THE STAND ADOPTED BY SARA FUND. 4/12 7 (VI) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO COMPUTATION MECHANISM HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ACT FOR OFFERING THE INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115U OF THE ACT . 7. IN ITA NO. 3284/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07, THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO') HAS ERRED IN PASSIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') AND THEREBY APPROVED BY THE H ON'BLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). EACH OF THE GROUND IS REFERRED TO SEPARATELY, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. GROUND NO. I BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 30,39,471 RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS SHARE FROM SARA FUND, A VENTURE CAPITAL FUND (VCF) OUT OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT. 8 GROUND 0.2 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS. 37,94,980 BY TAXING THE SHARE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN INTEREST INCOME FROM VCF UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES' ON GROSS BASIS AND NOT ON NET BASIS IN DIS REGARD OF THE FACT THAT INCOME OF A VCF CAN BE PASSED ON TO I TS INVESTORS ONLY AFTER ADJUSTING THE EXPENSES IT INCU RRED OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE INVESTORS, TO EARN SUCH I NCOME. GROUND NO. 3 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 51,6 0,098 [231,000.GOO- 225,839,902] @ 22.73% I.E. RS. 11,72, 890/ WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS AS 'INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES' 8. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION AND GROUNDS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-607 AND 2007-08, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVA NCES ARE IDENTICAL, UNDERLYING FACTS IN ISSUES ARE SAME, THOUGH THE QUA NTUM MAY DIFFER. 9. GROUND NO. 1 IS ADJUDICATED AS UNDER. 9 10. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT PARA 14 TO 14.6 OF ITS ORDER. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A. O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAVE TAKEN A WRONG VIEW BY HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GROW TAX-FREE INCOME U/SS 10(34) AN D 10(35) OF THE ACTS UNLESS ADDITIONAL TAX HAS BEEN PAID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 115-0 AND 115-R OF THE ACT A ND AS SUCH THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/SS 10(34) AND 10(35) IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE DIVIDEND INCOME DISTRIBUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 115-0 AND 115-R WHEREAS, THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 115-0 TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(34), IS TO BE COMPLIED WITH AT THE LEVEL OF VENTURE CAPITAL UNDERTAKING AN D NOT AT THE STAGE WHEN THE INVESTOR, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, RECEIVED THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM VCF. SO, THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT AND ITS SHARE O F DIVIDEND INCOME IS OUT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY SARA F UND. WHEN THE COMPANY WITH WHICH SARA FUND HAS BEEN INVE STED, HAD ALREADY PAID ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX ON THE EARNE D DIVIDEND AS REQUIRED U/S 115-0 OF THE ACT, SARA FUND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX SECOND TIME ON THE SAM E INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS NO. 1(1) AND 1(11) OF I.T.A. NO. 3284/DEL/2012 AND GROUND NO. L OF I.T.A. NO. 5705/D EL/2010 ARE DETERMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 [SUPRA], WE DECIDE GROUND N O. 1IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 12. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 HAS BEEN CON SIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AT PAR A 15 OF ITS ORDER AND PARA 15.4 AS UNDER: 15.4 THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS AGAIN REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 115U D ISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WHICH MANDATES THAT VENTURE CA PITAL COMPANY AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUND IS GIVEN THE STATUS OF PAS S THROUGH VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATMENT OF INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCO UNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE VENTURE CAPITAL UNDERTAKING. A PERSON W HO MAKES INVESTMENT IN THE VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY OR VENTUR E CAPITAL FUND, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, EARNED THE INCOME OUT OF SUC H INVESTMENT WHICH INCOME SHALL BE TREATED FIRSTLY AS INVESTMENT DIREC TLY IN THE VENTURE CAPITAL UNDERTAKING AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUND OR VEN TURE CAPITAL COMPANY IS ONLY A PASS THROUGH VEHICLE. SO, IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO BOOK EXPENDITURE IN CURRED BY SARA FUND AS IF THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE DIRECTLY IN THE VENTURE CAPITAL FUND. SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,13,11,955/- DISALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) BY TAKING TH E SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE IN INTEREST INCOME FROM VCF UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES ON 11 GROSS BASIS AND NOT THE NET BASIS, WHICH REQUIRES T O BE DETERMINED BY TREATING THE SAME NATURE OF INCOME LIKE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, DIVIDEND AND OTHER INCOME SUCH A S INTEREST ETC. SO, GROUNDS NO. 2 OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DETERMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED HOW THE EXPENSES OF RS. 9,03,566/- HAS BE EN ARRIVED AT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF COMPUTAT ION WHICH ARE EXHIBITED AT PAGES 100 TO 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK. S INCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, GR OUND NO. 2 IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE R EVENUE. 14. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 3 HAS ALSO BEE N CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AT PARA 16 OF ITS ORDER [SUPRA]. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ORDER READ AS UNDER: 16.3 FROM THE PERUSAL OF FORM 64 AND BALANCE SHEE T / REVENUE ACCOUNT OF SARA FUND, IT IS PROVED THAT DISTRIBUTIO N OF RS. 17,60,00,000/- QUA A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS. 11,72,890/- QUA A.Y. 2007-08 12 WAS MADE TO ITS BENEFICIARIES AS PER THE NUMBER OF UNITS PURCHASED BY EACH BENEFICIARY, WHICH FACT IS EXPLAINED IN THE FO OT NOTE 3 OF FORM 64 AND IT ALSO APPEARS IN THE BALANCE SHEET / REVENUE ACCOUNT OF SARA FUND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DISCLOSED THE INC OME AT RS. 119738454/- BY SUBTRACTING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 562615 46/- WHICH IS THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL NATURE AND AS SUCH NOT TAXABL E IN THE HANDS OF INVESTOR BY TREATING THE SAME NATURE OF INCOME LIKE LTCG, STCG, DIVIDEND AND OTHER INCOME SUCH AS INTEREST ETC. AND AS SUCH TO BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIONS AS APPLICABLE UNDER DIF FERENT HEADS OF INCOME MEANING THEREBY A PERSON WHO MAKES INVESTMEN T IN THE VCC AND VCF,. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, EARNED THE INCOME OUT OF SUCH INVESTMENT, WHICH INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS IF THE INVESTMENT WAS DIRECTLY IN THE VCU AND VCF AND VCC IS ONLY A PASS THROUGH VEHICLE. SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE NET INCOME FOR T AX AT RS. 11,97.38,454/- BY SUBTRACTING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,6 2,61,546/- AND THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. SO, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IN THE PAYMENT O F RS 5.62,61,546/- (17,60,00,000 - 11,97,38,454) @ 22.73% I.E. RS. 1,2 7,88,250/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 115U OF THE ACT. SO, WE DETERMINE THE GROUNDS NO. 3 OF BOTH THE APPE ALS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13 15. IN ITA NO. 1249/DEL/2014, SIMILAR GRIEVANCE REL ATES TO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 5332/DEL/2011 WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 3284/DEL/2012 AND 5705/DEL/2010. FOR OUR DETAILED REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE, THE SAME IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 16. IN SO FAR AS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF T HE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 5332/DEL/2011 AND 1249/DEL/2014 ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.07. 2020. SD/- SD/- [KULDIP SINGH ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2020. VL/ 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ASST. REGISTRAR 4. CIT(A) ITAT, NEW DELHI 5. DR 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