Nitesh Bera(HUF), Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore

ITA 1350/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0310 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SUNDAR RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM (SMC) ITA NO.1350(B)/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09) SHRI NITESH BERA, (HUF) NO.25/1 K.R.SHETTYPET, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002 PAN NO.AADHN4285M APPELLANT VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S SUNDAR RAJAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 06-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2 016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, BANGALORE DATED 12-08-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE A GA I NST THE APPE L LANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND WEIGHT OF EV I DENCE , PROBAB I L I T I ES , FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT ' S CASE . 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES TO BE ASSESSED TO TOTAL I NCOME AT RS.30 , 59 , 47S / - AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS . 27 , 35 , 317/- ON T H E FACTS AND C I RC U MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUST I FIED I N CONF I RM I NG THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WHEN THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD NOT ASSUMED PROPER JUR I SDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT S I NCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 2 4.THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE I MPUGNED PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD I N LAW AS NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I . E. , 31/03/2013 AND T HE I MPUGNED PROCEED I NGS ARE HENCE NOT SUSTA I NAB L E IN LAW. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED I N CONFIRM I NG THE ACT I ON O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - OPEN THE ASSESSMENT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFF I CER D I D NOT HAVE ' REASON TO BELIEVE ' THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 BUT COULD O NLY HAVE HAD A REASON TO SUSPECT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 6 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROVIDING T O THE ASSESSEE ALL THE DETAILS REL I ED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND HIS CASE AND HENCE IN VIOLATION O F PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE INCOME OF R S. 29,29,090/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST RS. 26,04,932/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE AUTHOR I TIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DEMAT ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE CONCLUSIVE EVI DENCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER THE HEAD OTH ER SOURCES PURELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES DEVOID OF ANY EVIDEN CE AND THUS THE TREATMENT OF RS.29,29,090/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 9. THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO NOTICE OF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION AND TH E SAME IS IN V I OLATION OF PRINCIP L ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS BAD IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WITH THE H ON ' BLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AS CONFIRMED BY T HE CBDT CIRCULAR NO . 400/234/95-IT (B) DATED 23/05/1996, THE APPELLANT COMPANY DENIES ITSELF LIAB L E TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. T HE CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C IS NO T IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THE RATE, AMOUNT AND METHOD FOR CALCULAT ING INTEREST IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 11. THE AUTHOR I TIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SEC. 234C CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 234B(2) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY KUMAR SABOO & OTHERS 340 ITR PAGE 382. APPELLANT ALSO WISHES TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUND S, WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT, FOR THE ADJUDICATION BY THIS HON'BLE BE NCH OF THE ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 3 TRIBUNAL . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT TO RAISE THESE FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOT PREVIOUSLY RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). R ELIANCE IS PLACED ON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION VS. CIT, 1998 229 ITR 383 SC. 12. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONCLUDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ASSESSING THE APPELLANT UNDER THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL INSTEAD OF HUF AND THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HENCE BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE QUAS HED IN TOTO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 13 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, D ELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE AND TO FI LE A PAPER BOOK AT THE T I ME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 14 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL M AY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER; 1.THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT PASSED ON 17/02/2014 WAS EFFACED ON REOPENING OF TH E REASSESSMENT ORDER AND MAKING A FRESH ORDER OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT, ON 22/03 /2016 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 153C OF THE ACT WHEN CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND I N SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF MAHASAGAR GROUP OF CASES AND THE REOPENING IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY T HE REOPENING INITIATED AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONCL UDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R . W.S 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 4 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE ACT, SERVED ON ONE SRI BANSHI RAM AS REFERRED IN TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.1, IS NOT PROPER SER VICE OF NOTICE ON THE APPELLANT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.147, WITHOUT SERV ING NOTICE ON THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4 .WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW O UGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT, WAS BASED ON A CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, CHANGE AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 4. REGARDING ALL THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, ONLY O NE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FIRST ASS ESSMENT ORDER ASSED BY THE AO IS NOT U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT AND THEREFORE, IF THE SAME INCOME IS ADDED IN THE FIRST ORDER AND SECOND ORDER ALSO THEN THE FIRST ORDER BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR RE-OPENING ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK 5. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 5 ASSESSEE GOT THE BENEFIT THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,29,090/- DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND IN COURS E OF SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132 ON 25-11-2009 IN THE CASE OF M/S MAHASAGAR GROUP CASE, THE KEY PERSON OF THE GROUP SRI MUKESH CHOKSI HAS ADMITTED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT THAT HE AND HIS GROUP WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE CLIENTS TO DECLARE SPECULATION PROFIT/LOSS, SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, PROFIT/LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF C OMMODITY TRADING, INTRODUCE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR INTRODUCE MONE Y IN THE FORM OF GIFT AND ALSO IDENTIFIED THE BENEFICIARIES. IT IS ALSO N OTED THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF SUCH BENEFICIARIES. IT IS SEEN F ROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT IT IS VERY CATEGORICALLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,29,090/- A ND IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THIS INCOME IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRESENT YEAR ON 09-02-2009. UNDER THESE FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, RE-OPENING IS VALID. 7. REGARDING THE SECOND ASPECT AS HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE ME, IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IF AN INCOME IS ADDED IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO IN THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER THEN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT O RDER DOES NOT SURVIVE. I FIND THAT THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 19-11-2010 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.7 & 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 6 8. IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED AT THE INCOME AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.27,35,320/ -. THE LATER ASSESSMENT ORDER IS U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 OF THE AC T DATED 17-02-2014. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, IT I S NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PRE SENT YEAR DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.27,35,320/- COMPRISING SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN OF RS.26,04,932/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS.1.3 0,385/-. ON PAGE- 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS.30,59,475/- COMPRISING OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PER RETU RN OF INCOME OF RS.1.30,385/- AND INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.29,29,090/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE SAME INCOME IS ADDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT R.W.S 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 . 9. IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE INCO ME WAS COMPUTED AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH COMPRI SES OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.1,30,385/- AND INCOME FROM SHOR T TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.26,04,932/- AND THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME IS RS.27,35,320/- ,WHEREAS IN THE LATER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R .W.S.147 OF THE OF ACT, AN ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29,29,090/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE AMOUNT OF SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.26,04,932/- WAS NOT A DDED IN THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 7 THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED 10. REGARDING THE MAIN GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND NEEDS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. FOR GROUND NO.2, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI VS ACIT IN ITA NO.2430/DEL/2015 DATED 20- 05-2016. COPY SUBMITTED AND KEPT ON RECORD. 11. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN T HAT CASE, THE AO HAS INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASI S OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C ARE APPLICABLE WHICH EXCLUD ES OPERATION OF SEC.147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN THE PRESENT CASE, RE-OPENING IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH CARRIED O UT IN A DIFFERENT CASE BUT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF KEY PERSON OF THE GROUP MR. MUKESH CHOKSI, WHERE SEARCH TOOK PLACE U/S 132 OF THE IT A CT, 1961 AND SINCE THE ACTION OF THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT ON T HE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF T HE IT ACT IN THE CASE OF THIRD PARTY, BUT IT IS ON THE BASIS OF A STATEM ENT OF A PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED, SEC.153C IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 8 THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE . NO OTHER ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BY THE LD., AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS I SSUE AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 13. REGARDING GROUND NO.3,4 & OTHER GROUNDS, IT W AS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON ONE MR. BANSHI RAM, NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THIS CONTENTION WAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CITA), BUT THERE IS NO DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AND THEREFORE, THIS M ATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THIS AS PECT. 14. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE BENCH ASKED THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE TO FIND OUT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THIS ASPECT. 15. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CON SIDERING THESE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION ON THIS ASPECT THAT WHETHER NOTICE U/S 148 WAS PROPERLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 16. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO DECISION IS CALL ED FOR REGARDING ANY OTHER ISSUES AT THIS STAGE AND IF IT IS FOUND BY TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT NOTICE ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 9 WAS PROPERLY SERVED THEN, HE SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSU E ON MERIT AFRESH BUT IF IT IS FOUND BY HIM THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT P ROPERLY SERVED ON THE ASSESEE THEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WILL BE VO ID AND AS A RESULT, NO OTHER ISSUE WILL SURVIVE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MEN TIONED IN CAPTION PAGE. (A.K.GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D A T E D : .06.2016 PLACE: BANGALORE AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.1350 (BANG)2014 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. D ATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER