DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1279/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4777 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AAKASH SINGHAL
• Keywords: Diversion of income; Proportionate interest; Capital Gains
• Section: 43B; 14A; 195; 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI F BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 1279/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13] THE DY. C.I.T VS. M/S AGRICULTURE INSURAN CE COMPANY CIRCLE 1(2) OF INDIA LTD NEW DELHI 13 TH FLOOR, 14, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG NEW DELHI PAN: ABKPS 7088 K (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AAKASH S INGHAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA PAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] - I, NEW DELHI DATED 04.12.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APP EAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,62,47,181/- BEING INCOME FROM INVESTMENT NOT INCL UDED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 75,29,079/- BEING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR S HORT] R.W.R 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN SET UP TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SECURI TY TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE AND ELITE ACTIVITIES, THROUG H INSURANCE PRODUCT AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, AS PER DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS PROMOTED BY THE G ENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC), NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRIC ULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD) AND FOUR PUBLIC SECTOR INSURAN CE COMPANIES VIZ. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW INDIA ASS URANCE COMPANY LTD., ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND UNITED IN DIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AS IN THE PAST, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE CORP INSURANCE. 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INV ESTED ITS FUNDS AS PER THE INVESTMENT PATTERN PRESCRIBED BY THE IRDA REGUL ATIONS ON INVESTMENTS, AND THE COMPANY'S INVESTMENT POLICY. G ROSS INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS AMOUNTED TO RS. 252.56 CRORES, WHICH IN CLUDED A N INVESTMENT INCOME OF RS. 8.62 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT EXCLUDES INCOME FROM IN VESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,62,47,181/-, WHICH HE FOUND DIRECTLY CREDITED TO THE CORPUS FUND OF CENTRAL & STATE GOVERNMENT, AS T HEIR SHARE OF INCOME. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE AM OUNT OF RS. 8.62 CRORES HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY EXPLAINING THAT THIS INCOME IS THE PROPORTIONATE INCOME GENERATED ON THE AMOUNT OF CORPUS FUND ALLOCATED IN THE RATIO OF CORPUS FUND LYING WITH TH E COMPANY TO TOTAL INVESTIBLE FUNDS, AS THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE CORPUS FUND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SAME IS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO THE CORPUS FUND AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 4 7. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY F AVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PROCEEDED BY MAKING AN ADDITI ON OF RS. 8,62,47,181/-. PROCEEDING FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 43,88,951/- AND U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D OF THE RULES, FURTHER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 2,50,038 /-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDED BY COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W .R 8D OF THE ACT AT RS. 75,29,079/-. 8. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8.62 CRORES, THE ASSESSE E REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ASSOCIATED POWER 218 ITR 195 AND FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED ITS CLAIM OF DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLES. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT A ND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUN T OF RS. 8,62,47,181/- WAS ADDED BY THE AO WHICH WAS INCOME RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE INVESTMENTS AND DIRECTLY CRE DITED TO THE CORPUS FUND. THIS CORPUS FUND WAS CREATED BY THE GO VERNMENT OF INDIA AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WITH CONTRIBUTIONS RECE IVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND STATE / U.T.S. THIS CORPUS FUND IS THE PUBLIC FUND WHICH IS MANAGED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY I.E. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS DULY DESIGNATED THE APPELLA NT COMPANY TO ACT AS AN IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. THE MINISTRY OF AGRI CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAD ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO THE AP PELLANT COMPANY TO CREDIT THE INTEREST EARNED TO CORPUS FUN D ONLY AS THE INCOME EARNED BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE MINIST RY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COOPERAT ION VIDE LETTER DATED 28.06.2007 HAS DIRECTED THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO ADD UP THE INTEREST ACCRUED IN THE CORPUS FUND. THE APPELL ANT HAS FILED THIS COPY OF THE LETTER AS ANNEXURE A TO THE SUBMIS SION. X THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED THE AUDITORS OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE CAG WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT CAG HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS ON THE ACC OUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND SUGGESTED THAT INTEREST EARNE D TO BE CREDITED TO CORPUS FUND AND IT WAS TO BE ACCEPTED B Y THE APPELLANT COMPANY BEING A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY. THE REMARK S HEET HAS BEEN ATTACHED BY THE APPELLANT AS ANNEXURE B TO THE SUBM ISSION. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT CORPUS FUND BELONGE D TO AND OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.' THE COMPANY USED THE FUNDS AS P ER THE INVESTMENT GUIDELINES OF IRDA ALONG WITH THE NORMAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT AND CREDITED THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AMOUNT 6 DIRECTLY TO THE CORPUS FUND AS DIRECTED BY THE GOVE RNMENT OF INDIA VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 28.06.2007. COPY OF THE SAME IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE A TO THE SUBMISSION. FOLLOWING THE SAID DI RECTION, THE APPELLANT COMPANY EARNED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,52,56 ,33,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN BIFURCATED TO THE POLICYHOLDER FUND, SHAREHOLDER FUND AND CORPUS FUND IN THE RATIO OF BALANCES AT TH E BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, THE BIFURCATION OF THE INTEREST INCOME EA RNED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT A S PER ANNEXURE C TO THE SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUED T HAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT CORPUS FUND BELONGED TO THE COMPANY IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS FAC TUALLY INCORRECT AS THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS MERELY ACTING AS AN IMP LEMENTING AGENCY. THE AR ALSO ARGUED THAT THIS FUND HAS BEEN SET UP TO MEET THE CATASTROPHIC LOSSES TO THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR A ND IT HAS BEEN CREDITED WITH THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM GOVER NMENT OF INDIA AND STATES ON THE FIFTY-FIFTY BASIS. THE INCOME OF THIS FUND CANNOT BE USED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AT ITS OPTION AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE COMPANY. THE INCOME CRED ITED TO THE CORPUS FUND IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND TO BE USE D AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. WHENEVER A C HARGE IS CREATED OR AN OVERRIDING TITLE IS CREATED, THE APPE LLANT COMPANY BECOMES ONLY A COLLECTOR OF ANOTHERS INCOME. IN OT HER WORDS, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CEASES TO BE HIS INCOME, BE CAUSE THE CHARGE HOLDER HAS THE PRINCIPLE RIGHT BY VIRTUE OF ITS OVERRIDING TITLE TO RECOVER THAT INCOME BEFORE IT REACHES IN T HE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HA S RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AS SOCIATED POWER VS. CIT 218 ITR 195 (SC) WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF DIVERSION 7 OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLES HAS BEEN EXPLAINED B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IN THIS CASE A CONSENT DECREE WAS PA SSED IN FAVOUR OF STEPMOTHER DIRECTING THE SON TO PAY FIXED MONTHL Y SUM TO HER AND DECLARED THAT MAINTENANCE WAS CHARGE ON ANCESTR AL ESTATE. THE PRIVY COUNCIL HELD THAT THE SUM RECEIVED AND PAID A S MAINTENANCE WAS NOT HIS INCOME AT ALL AND IT IS DIVERSION OF IN COME, THUS NOT OVERRIDING TITLE APPLIES WHEN, BY REASON OF AN OVER RIDING TITLE OR OBLIGATION INCOME IS DIVERTED AND NEVER REACHES THE PERSON IN WHOSE HANDS IT IS SOUGHT TO BE ASSESSED; THE PROFIT EARNED BY HIM IS NOT REALLY HIS PROFIT, BUT BELONGS TO SOMEBODY E LSE AND ASSESSEE HAS NO TITLE TO IT. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO CORPUS OF THE FUND ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT DIRECTIV ES AND GUIDELINES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 10. AFTER DISCUSSING CERTAIN OTHER JUDICIAL DECISIO NS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM INVESTMENTS AND CREDITED TO THE CORPUS FUND HAS BEEN CREDITED AS PER THE DIRECT IONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND SUCH INCOME WAS EARNED OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVE RNMENT IN THE CORPUS FUND FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES BY THE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,62,47 ,181/-. 8 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT TH E APPELLANTS ACTIVITIES IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS OUT OF CORPUS FUND VIS A VIS OTHER INVESTMENTS ARE SAME FOR WHICH COMMON EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE ASSES SEE HAS UTILIZED THE CORPUS FUNDS, OWNERSHIP/ RIGHT TO USE, VESTS WITH T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY RE FERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS DELETED THE ADD ITIONS WITHOUT ANY SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SUPPO RT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LETTER FROM GOVERNME NT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, WHICH READS AS UNDER: I AM DIRECTED TO SAY THAT THE FUNDS UNDER THE CORPU S FUND ARE PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS O N 50:50 BASIS. AS THE CORPUS FUND BELONGS TO THE CENTRAL A ND STATE GOVERNMENT, THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON ALSO BELON G TO THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE COR PUS FUND IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED IN THE CORPUS FUND. 9 13. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE. THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, READ WITH THE AFORESAID LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT, C LEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS IS A CASE OF DIVERSION OF IN COME BY OVERRIDING TITLES. CONSIDERING THE FATS OF THE CASE IN THE LI GHT OF THE LETTER OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE BY T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED POWER [SUPRA] IS WELL TAKEN. THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN VARIOUS JUDGMENT S, TO NAME A FEW, CIT VS. NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILL PVT LTD 244 ITR 738, BIJLI COTTON MILLS [P] LTD 116 ITR 60, DALMIA CEMENT LTD 237 ITR 617, ETC. ALL THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ELABORATELY BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF T HE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDIN GS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED 402 ITR 640. 10 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2011-12 AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CA SE OF INSURANCE BUSINESS, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 OF THE ACT OVERR IDE ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF PERSONS CARRYING ON INSURANCE BUSINESS. 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 5779/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 09 TH NOVEMBER 2017. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS FOLLOWED THE EAR LIER ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 3115/DEL/2013. THE REL EVANT FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 READ AS UNDER . 'INSURANCE BUSINESS, - 44 : NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHIN G TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT RE LATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'IN TEREST ON SECURITIES', 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', 'CAPITAL GAINS' OR 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' OR PROFITS AND GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH BUSINESS CARRIED O N BY A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OR BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, SHAL L BE 11 COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES CONTAINED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE. 23. THE ABOVE PROVISION MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT SE CTION 44 APPLIES NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CO NTAINED WITHIN THE 'PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT RELATI NG TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER DIFFERENT HE ADS. WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THERE IS NO REQ UIREMENT OF HEAD-WISE BIFURCATION CALLED FOR WHILE COMPUTING TH E INCOME U/S 44 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF A INSURANCE COMPANY: ' THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS ESSENTIALLY TO BE A T THE AMOUNT OF THE BALANCE OF PROFITS DISCLOSED BY THE ANNUAL ACCO UNTS AS FURNISHED TO THE CONTROLLER OF INSURANCE. THE ACTUA L COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF INSURANCE BUSIN ESS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 5 OF THE FIR ST SCHEDULE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SPECIAL PROVISIONS COUPLED WI TH NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL B EYOND THESE PROVISIONS. 24. SECTION 14A CONTEMPLATES AN EXCEPTION FOR DEDUC TIONS AS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT ARE THOSE CONTAINED U/S 28 TO 43B OF THE ACT. SECTION 44 CREATES SPECIAL APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS IN THE CASES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WHICH IS BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 14 A OF THE ACT AS ACCORDING TO US, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO THE AO TO TRAVEL BEYOND SECTION 44 AND FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 12 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THA T THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,31,454/- STANDS D ELETED. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN ITA 3115/DEL /2013, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1279/DEL/2016 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.11. 2019. SD/- SD/- [ SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 VL/ 13 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.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE 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 RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER