ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Mbians Internationaql Inc., New Delhi

ITA 13/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3032 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.13/DEL./2016, A.Y. 2008-09 ITA NO. 14/DEL/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. MBIAN S INTERNATIONAL INC. WARD 51(5), 170, M-FLOOR, GAFFAR MAR KET, NEW DELHI KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI (PAN : AAOFM8028Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 27.02.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : SINCE BOTH THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARE INTER CONNECTE D, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMPOSITE ORDE R TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. ITA NO. 13/DEL/2016 2. THE APPELLANT INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE REVENUE') BY FILING THE AFORESA ID APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/10/2015 PAS SED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT : ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 66,17,470/- TO 20% OF SUCH PURCHASE. 2. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF TH E ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO 20% OF THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASONS THERE FOR. ITA NO. 14/DEL/2016 3. THE APPELLANT INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DEL HI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE REVENUE') BY FILING THE AFORESA ID APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/10/2015 PAS SED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE PENALTY OF RS. 20,44,881/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. ITA NO. 13/DEL/2016 4. BRIEFLY STATED THAT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDIC ATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 66, 17,470/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S. LOTUS COMMUNIC ATIONS AND M/S. DEEPA ENTERPRISES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FR OM AFORESAID PARTIES. ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DOCUM ENTS BROUGHT ON RECORD. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEAL WHO HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION T O 20% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH COMES TO 13,23,548/- AND THER EBY DELETED THE REMAINING ADDITION BY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEA L. FEELING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE P URCHASES FROM M/S. LOTUS COMMUNICATION AND DEEPA ENTERPRISES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 63,85,071/- AND 2,32,669/- RESPECTIVELY . IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION FROM THESE TWO PARTIES DURING THE REMA ND PROCEEDING AS THE CONFIRMATION FILED BEFORE THE AO WAS NOT LEG IBLE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT T HE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 8. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN WE EXAMINE PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IT IS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED THEREIN, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY AO TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF G ENUINENESS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS, HOWEVER, NO CONFIRMATION OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 4 DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDI TORS WERE FURNISHED ; THAT EVEN NO DETAIL WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO THOSE CREDITORS EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS FIL ED NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THOSE PERSON, BEFORE BEFORE AO; THAT NO PAYMENT EVEN TILL DATE WAS MADE TO THOSE PERSONS AN D AS SUCH THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES APPEARED TO BE HWALA OPERATORS FR OM WHOM ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ENTRIES IN THE SHAPE OF PURCH ASES; THAT THE PURCHASES WERE SHOWN FROM THOSE PARTIES WITH INTENT ION TO INFLATE THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES AND TO REDUCE THE PROFIT TH AT PURCHASES SHOWN IN THE NAME OF M/S. LOTUS COMMUNICATION AND M /S. DEEPA ENTERPRISES WERE NOT GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT( A) BY RELYING UPON THE CASE OF M/S. UNIQUE METAL INDUSTRIES PROCE EDED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 20% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. 9. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TWO CREDITORS IN QUESTION AND THAT PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE NAME OF M/S. LOTUS COMMUNICATION AND M/S. DEEPA ENTERPRI SES WERE NOT GENUINENESS, THUS, BOGUS, AS ONLY ENTRIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PURCHASES, IT IS DI FFICULT TO MAKE OUT, AS TO HOW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO TO 20%. CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 5 ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY L D. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO IS HEREBY RESTORE D. ITA NO. 14/DEL/2016 10. BRIEFLY STATED THAT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUD ICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSME NT FRAMED U/S 143(3) AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE, AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 20,44,881/- @ 100% FOR CONCEALME NT OF INCOME OF RS. 66,17,740/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS PARTICULARS OF INCOME / FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME TO EVADE THE TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME. 11. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) B Y FILING THE APPEAL WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO B Y DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE GONE T HROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DOCUM ENTS BROUGHT ON RECORD. 13. UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED TO HA VE MADE PURCHASES FROM M/S. DEEPA ENTERPRISES AND M/S. LOT US COMMUNICATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 66,17,740/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE DURIN G QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM BY PRODUCING ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 6 SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE QUANTUM ADDITION F RS. 66,17,740/- HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRM ED. 14. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORI TIES AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR TO THE PARTIES, T HE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS:- AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT? 15. BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED GOES TO PRO VE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED VALID SATISFACTI ON AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME RATHER PROCEEDED TO RECORD THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALM ENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NOT ONLY THIS EVEN AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE PENALTY O RDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH IF HE HAS LE VIED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FUR NISHING ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 7 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME RATHER PROCEEDED T O PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDERS :- CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM SATISFIED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS PARTICULARS OF INCOME/FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS ATTEMPTED TO EVADE TA X ON SUCH CONCEALED INCOME AS PER SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION I THERETO. PENALTY IMPOSABLE U/S 271( 1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION I THERETO ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOU GHT TO BE EVADED IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER :- INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 43,920/- AMOUNT OF INCOME CONCEALED RS. 66,17,740/- TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEALED INCOME RS. 2 0,44,881/- MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE @ 100% RS. 20,4 4,881/- MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE @300% RS. 61,34,643/- PENALTY IMPOSED @ 100% RS. 20,44,881/- 16. UNDISPUTEDLY, ADDITIONS MADE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED RATHER TO PROCEED WITH IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C), THE AO HAS TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS CONCE ALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 17. BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER GO TO PROVE THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN IF HE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 8 GINNING FACTORY & ORS. (SUPRA) DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE THREADBARE AND CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION :- 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EME RGES IS AS UNDER: A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSI NG PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILIT IES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIE NT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVER IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATIO N 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOULD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT BEC AUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO I NITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) IS A SINE QUA N ON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDI NGS BECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE T O THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND TH E COMMISSIONER. I) THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 9 J) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TA X AND INTEREST THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES IT H AS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILI TY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOULD HAVE ESCAPE D FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN TH E ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERE D IS NOT BONAFIDE, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE 1 0 ITA NO.4549/DEL./2011 BONAFIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING T O THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION IB TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INI TIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AU THORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS O F INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE H AS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 10 JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDIN GS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY THOUGH EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT O F THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHIN G OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSME NT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID IN TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 18. SO, FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE HIG H COURT IN CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & ORS. (SUPRA) , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS FAI LED TO FULFILL THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY WHICH IS NOT AUTOMATIC. EVEN O THERWISE, WHEN IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO APPLY THE DEEMING PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER EXPLANATION1 (A) & 1(B) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAIN ABLE. 19. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AO/CIT (A) HAVE ERRED IN LEVYI NG/CONFIRMING ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 11 THE PENALTY OF RS.20,44,881/- WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, HENCE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH /02/ 2019 BR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 13-14/DEL./2016 12 DATE OF DICTATION 18.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.01.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 27.0.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 27.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 27.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 27.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 27.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.0 2.2019 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