ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI V. SWASTIK AUTO DEAL, MUMBAI

ITA 1376/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 137619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Question of law; Revised return
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA IJAYARAGHA VAN (JM) ITA NO. 1376/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07 THE AC I T - 25(3), C-11, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 400 051 VS. M/S. SWASTIK AUTO DEAL, D/2-33. AKURLI SHRUSHTHI CHS LTD., MHADA, LOKHANDWALA, KANDIVALI(E), MUMBAI-400 101 PAN-AAOFS 4765L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI HEMANT LAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- 35 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE TRADING BUSINESS OF CNG GA S KIT FOR AUTO RICKSHAWS AS WELL AS FINANCING LOAN FOR NEW AND OLD VEHICLES FROM VARIOUS CO-OPERATIVE BANKS. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.10.2006, ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,72,987/ - AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT FILED REVISED RETURN ON 04.01.2007 AD MITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 67,11,123/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATE D THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE AO NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 2 0.11.2006, THE ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 2 MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADING OF MOST OF THE CNG KITS IN CASH AND ARRANGING LOANS THROUGH VARIOUS BANKS. THE REAFTER LOANS ARE CREDITED IN HIS ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN AND THE SAID LOAN IS PAID IN CASH TO THE CLIENTS. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS LIKE DIARIES AND LOOSE PA PERS WERE IMPOUNDED AND SHRI UMA SHANKAR GUPTA PARTNER OF THE FIRM, ADM ITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.60,00,000/- TO COVER UP THE DISCREPANC IES FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AGREED TO FILE THE REVISED RE TURN. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CONTEN DED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS VO LUNTARILY DECLARED TO PURCHASE MENTAL PEACE AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE REPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE REVISED RETURN AFTER ONE AND HALF MONTHS FROM THE D ATE OF SURVEY, WHICH SHOWS THAT BUT FOR THE SURVEY THE APPELLANT WOULD N OT HAVE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME. HE HELD THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE REVISED RETURN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL INCOME, SHOWS T HAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. SIMIL ARLY HE FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT CLAIMED KEY MAN INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.2 ,25,312/-, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY IS ATTRACTED FOR THIS ADDITION ALSO, HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-E MPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE KEY MAN INSURA NCE PREMIUM WAS PAD AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . ACCORDINGLY, HE IMPOSED MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.20,19,601/-, WHICH IS CONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE F OUND AND THE APPELLANT ON HIS OWN ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.60,00,000/- TO AVOID FURTHER HARASSMENT AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCOPE FOR LEVYING CONCEALMENT PENALTY IN THIS CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENT WHICH SHOWS THAT ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 3 THERE WAS CONCEALMENT EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IN THE PENALTY ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXPLAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER AS TO WHY THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT IN THE O RIGINAL RETURN. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ONLY GENERAL OBSERVATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION CERTAIN DOCUMENTS LIKE DIARIES, LOOSE PAPERS HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED, WHICH SHOWS THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND INCOME EARNED OUT OF FINANCE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER EXPLAINED HOW THERE WAS CONCEALMENT B ASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARIES AND THE LOOSE PAPERS EITHER IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALTY ORDER. 5. HE INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO T HE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI UMA SHANKAR GUPTA DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY AND POINTED OUT THAT THE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS VOLUNTA RY AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE ABOVE STA TEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE A.O. REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO STATE AS TO WHETHER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, A NY PURCHASES WERE MADE IN CASH OR BY CHEQUE, THE APPELLANT REPLI ED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MAINLY MADE THROUGH CHEQUES, EXCEPT C ERTAIN PETTY PURCHASES AND OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.60,00 ,000/- EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH ANY INCRIMINA TING EVIDENCES AGAINST THE APPELLANT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A CAREFUL READING OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO REFERE NCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE OFFER O F INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY, WITHOUT DETECTION OF ANY MATERIAL AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE RE WAS NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND REMARK OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IS VERY GENERAL IN NATURE, WITHOUT PINPOINTING THE EVIDENCES AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. HE ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 4 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LACS OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT IN THIS YEAR REPRESENTS UNCLAIMED LIABIL ITIES WRITTEN BACK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE NEXT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.60 LACS, THE AMOUN T OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT AFTER THE SURVEY AS PER ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, STRICTLY SPEAKING RS.60 LAC S IS ASSESSABLE U/S.41(1) FOR A.Y.2007-08 AND, THEREFORE, PENALTY C OULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN THIS YEAR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR PENALTY AND THE SAME IS TO BE CANCELLED. SIMILA RLY REGARDING KEY MAN INSURANCE PREMIUM, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO F AILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICU LARS AND ONLY BECAUSE THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PREMIUM PAID F OR PARTNER IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AS HE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FIRM, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS I S A LEGAL ISSUE ON WHICH CONCEALMENT PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE ABOVE IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS TAKEN FROM THE APPELLANT WITH OUT CONFRONTING HIM AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. FURTHER, STRICTLY SPEAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.60 LACS COULD BE MADE ONLY IN THE NEXT YEAR AS THE APPELLANT HAS WRI TTEN BACK THE CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60 LACS AND, THEREFOR E, BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 41(1), THE SAME IS ASSESSABL E IN A.Y.2007- 2008. HOWEVER, AS AGREED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THIS YEAR AND PAID TA X WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONCEALMENT PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED IN T HIS YEAR. I, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPOSING CONCEALMENT PENALTY. SIMILARLY, I ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE REPRES ENTATIVE THAT NO CONCEALMENT PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF KE Y MAN INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID ON PARTNER, WHICH IS A DEBAT ABLE ISSUE. I THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY AND THE SAME IS CANCELLED. ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 5 7. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AN D RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD NO INTENTION OF MAKING A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE. HAD THE SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED TH E INCOME. 8. THE LD. AR SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH SUBMITTED A NOTE SUMMARIZING THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY HIM WHICH IS AS FOLLO WS: 1. IT IS CONTENDED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ME RELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DECLARATION PROCURED FROM THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION UNLESS THE ASSESSING OF FICER FINDS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE (CIT VS KHADER KHAN (2008) 3 00 ITR 157 (MAD) CIRCULAR DT. 10.3.2003 FOLLOWED IN CIT V S DHINGRA METAL WORKS (2010) 328 ITR 384 (DEL). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN VIDE ORDER DT. 30.1 2.2008 AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSERSSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LOSSE PAPERS AND DIARIES . NO EXTRA CASH, JEWE LLERY OR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FOUND SO AS TO JUSTIFY AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF 60 LACS. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE INCOME ONLY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID PROTRACTED AND PROHIBIT IVE COST OF LITIGATION. BY NOW, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED TO THE ADDITION IT DOES NOT FO LLOW THAT THE AMOUNT AGREED TO BE ADDED REPRESENTS HIS CONCEALED INCOME INASMUCH AS THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DELIBERAT E CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. (CIT VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 251 ITR 9(SC), CIT VS PACHAMUTHU (2007) 295 ITR 502 (MAD) (AGREED ADDITIO NAL INCOME AFTER SURVEY). 3. WHERE THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CONDITIONAL AND QUALI FIED OFFER, HE CANNOT BE VISITED WITH A PENALTY (CIT VS KIRAN & CO. (1996) 217 ITR 326 (BOM), ACIT VS KISHAN SINGH CHAN D ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 6 (1977) 106 ITR 534 (ALL) (HAVING REGARD TO NORMAL C OURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT CONDITIONAL SURRENDER MOTIVATED BY CO GENT REASON THAT REVENUE WILL NOT LEVY PENALTY). THE AP PELLANTS OFFER WAS CONDITIONAL AS CAN BE GATHERED FROM LETTE R DT. 5.1.2007 4. THE ONLY THING FOUND ARE THE LOOSE PAPER/DIARIES AND IN THE ABSENCE NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE SAME, THE ADDITION ITSELF UNSUSTAINABLE (S.P. GOYAL VS DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CBI VS V.C. SHUKLA (1998) 3 SCC 41 0 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JYOTI LAXMAN KONKAR VS CIT 292 ITR 163 (BOM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSEE HAVING FILED REVISED RETURN DISCLOSING A DDITIONAL INCOME AFTER A DISCREPANCY WAS DETECTED IN THE STOC K DURING SURVEY U/S. 133A, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVING UPHELD TH E LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED THE INITIAL RETURN DISHONESTLY WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL T HE INCOME, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S. KHADERKHAN SON 300 ITR 157(MAD), IT HAS BEEN HELD A S FOLLOWS: IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS A SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S. 133A IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND A STATEMEN T WAS RECORDED FROM ONE OF THE PARTNERS. ASSUMING THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES AND IRREGULARITIES IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AN OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS MADE BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIR M. BUT, SUCH STATEMENT, IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE MA TERIALS COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A SHALL NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A) AN D THE TRIBUNAL, SINCE SUCH STATEMENT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PROVI SIONS OF S. 133A. IT COULD NOT BE SAID SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STA TEMENT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM THAT THE DISCL OSED INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE AS LAWFUL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH D ISCLOSED INCOME OR ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 7 EARNING OF SUCH INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE , IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE REVENUE HAD LOST LAWFUL TAX PAYABLE B Y THE ASSESSEE. A POWER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH IS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED ON THE AUTHORITIES ONLY U/S. 132(4) IN THE COURSE OF ANY S EARCH OR SEIZURE. THUS, THE I.T. ACT, WHENEVER IT THOUGHT FIT AND NEC ESSARY TO CONFER SUCH POWER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH, HAS EXPRESS LY PROVIDED FOR IT, WHEREAS S. 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY ITO TO EXA MINE ANY PERSON ON OATH. THUS, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE POWER U/S. 133A, S. 132(4) ENABLES THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH E XAMINATION CAN ALSO BE USED IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE I.T. ACT. O N THE OTHER HAND, WHATEVER STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 133A IS NOT GIVEN AN EVIDENTIARY VALUE. WHAT IS MORE RELEVANT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHTL Y INVITED TO THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT DT. 10 TH MARCH, 2003 WITH REGARD TO THE CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION. 11. IN SHORT SEC. 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY IT AUTH ORITY TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH, HENCE, ANY SUCH STATEMENT HAS N O EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT , BY ITSELF, BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALT Y. 12. FURTHER IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED T HE INCOME ONLY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND HENCE IT IS NOT THE SAME AS D ELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF DIARIES AND LOOSE PAPERS IN THE STATEMENT WHICH ES TABLISHED SUPPRESSION OF SALES AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HAS NOT FOUND INDEPENDENT AN D CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO BRING THE CASE UNDER THE PURVI EW OF SEC. 271(1)(C). 13. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 32 2 ITR 158 (SC) WHILE DISCUSSING THE MEANING OF WORD PARTICULARS THE COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THER E IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITS RETURN WERE ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 8 FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PEANALTY U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THERE IS NO FINDING TH AT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND T O BE INCORRECT, ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. THE SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL IN COME WAS TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE ONLY OUT OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND T HEREFORE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). IT IS ALSO A SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND THOUGH QUANTUM ORDER CONSTITUTES GOOD EVIDENCE IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THE MATTER AND THEREFORE EVEN THOUGH THE QUANTUM ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THE PENALTY CAN BE DELETED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 RJ COPY TO : THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT-CONCERNED THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 1376/M/2010 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 11 .0 4 .2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 11 .0 4 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______