Inergy Automotive Systems Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1703/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7790 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHABH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 92D; 250; 246A; 246; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1703/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 INERGY AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD. SUB PLOT NO. 6 & 7, MARUTI SUPPLIERS PARK, PLOT NO.1, SECTOR-3A, IMT MANESAR, GURGAON-122050 VS DCIT CIRCLE -2(1) GURGAON (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RISHABH, CA RESPONDENT BY MS. NIDHI SHARMA, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING: 10/10/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/10/2019 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, GURGAON DATED 25.01.2016 PERTAINING T O A. Y.2011- 12. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE 2 ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [LD. CIT(A)] UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INDIAN INCO ME TAX ACT (THE ACT) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 246 OF THE ACT THEREBY HOLDING THE APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE LEGAL AND FACT UAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ADJ USTMENT MADE BY LD. AO / LD. TPO WOULD HAVE A FUTURISTIC IMPACT ON THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GURGAON [LD. AO] / THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-L(3), NEW DELHI [LD. TPO] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST DOES NOT SATISFY THE AR MS LENGTH PRINCIPLE ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT. 5. THAT THE LD. AO / LD. TPO ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W BY DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST AND HOL DING THAT THE CORRESPONDING DEPRECIATION ON THIS COST IN SUBSEQUE NT YEARS BE DISALLOWED, AND IN DOING SO THE LD. AO / LD. TPO GR OSSLY ERRED IN: 5.1 DISREGARDING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, AS DETERMINED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION MAINTAINED BY IT IN TERMS OF SECTION 92D OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 10D OF THE RU LES AND HOLDING THAT TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD IS NOT THE MOS T APPROPRIATE 5.2 DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TAX ABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND ACCORDINGLY PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 92 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPL ICABLE ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS; 3 5.3 FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT BETW EEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS AE FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST; 5.4 CHALLENGING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY IGNOR ING THE VARIOUS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACTUAL RECEIPT AND BENEFIT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTA NCE RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR; 5.5 MISINTERPRETING THE FACT OF THE CASE AND MISQUOTING THAT THE PAYMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT COST ARE LINKED WITH THE PU RCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL FROM AE WHILE THE ACTUAL PURCHASES FROM AE WERE INSIGNIFICANT AND IMMATERIAL; AND 5.6 DISALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT COST ON THE GROUND THAT THE BASIS OF CHARGE AND MARK-UP WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE APPELLAN T, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS NEVER REQUESTED BY THE LD. TPO DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 92CA OF THE ACT. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AN D WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER , AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HE ARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS A JOINT VENTURE WHICH W AS SET UP IN INDIA BETWEEN INERGY AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS SA, INE RGY AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS SAS(FRANCE), SUZUKI MOTOR CORPOR ATION (JAPAN) AND MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED. THE COMPAN Y IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC FUEL TANKS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES. 4. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO, BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE 4 TABULATED BELOW. THE TABLE ALSO PROVIDES THE TRANSF ER PRICING APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE I N BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE TA BLE PROVIDES THE VALUES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, THE M OST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PROFIT LE VEL INDICATORS (PLI) USED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. DURING THE TP ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELA TED TO THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST. THE RELEVANT QUERIES RAISED READ AS UNDER :- 1. IN THE COURSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROCEEDINGS, TH ERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES TO WHICH ATTENTION IS SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN. THE SE ISSUES CONCERN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO TH E PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST. THIS IS THE DESCRIPTION THAT IS FO UND IN YOUR TRANSFER PRICING REPORT (TP REPORT]. YOUR FORM 3CEB DESCRIBES THIS AS PURCHASE OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW. BY WHATEVER NAME CA LLED, YOU HAVE PAID RS.19,800,000. TRANSFER PRICING APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE 2 . YOUR TP REPORT HAS AGGREGATED THIS TRANSACTION WIT H OTHER SI. NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTION METHOD AMOUNT (IN INR ) 1 PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST TNMM 19,800,000 2 PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS 569,242 3 PURCHASE OF MACHINERY 10,608,771 4 PURCHASE OF COMPONENTS 8 9,701 5 ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL CUP 125,440,000 6 ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL ] 5,360,000 7 ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL 48,640,000 5 INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS LIKE THE PURCHASE OF CAP ITAL GOODS. YOU HAVE USED THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND OPERATING PROFIT/SALES (O P/SALES) AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR. 3. ADMITTEDLY DURING THE YEAR YOU HAVE NOT COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AND HENCE YOU HAVE NOT EARNED AN Y REVENUES. HENCE, TO GIVE SOME MEANING TO THE MAM TH AT YOU HAVE CHOSEN YOU HAVE PROJECTED YOUR INCOME FOR THE NEXT T HREE YEARS (FYS ENDING 2011, 2012 AND 2013) AND ARRIVED AT OP/SALES OF 14.59%. 4. THE AVERAGE OP/SALES OF THE COMPARABLES HAS BEEN WO RKED OUT TO BE 3.63%. HERE YOU HAVE USED MULTIPLE YEAR DA TA, BUT THE THREE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF T HE COMPARABLES IS FYS ENDING 2009, 2010 AND 2011. | 5. HEREIN LIES THE OBVIOUS FALLACY OF YOUR APPROACH. R ULE 10D(4) REQUIRES THAT THE COMPARABILITY DATA THAT IS USED BE 'CONTEMPORANEOUS'. THE RULE DOES NOT ENVISAGE THE D ATA THAT IS USED FOR THE ASSESSEE WILL BE FOR A PERIOD DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS USED FOR COMPARABLES. THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU HAVE GONE ABOU T THE APPLICATION OF TNMM IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE WAY IT IS LAID OUT IN THE INCOME TAX RULES. 6. HENCE,YOUR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS STANDS REJECTED. BENCHMARKING OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST 7. IN YOUR TP REPORT, YOU HAVE MENTIONED AT SECTION 5.4 .5, INERGY INDIA HAS PAID DEVELOPMENT COST TO INERGY JAPA N AS PER THE 'DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MASTER AGREEME NT' BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, IN ERGY JAPAN HAS 6 PROVIDED CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES TO INERGY INDIA FOR WHICH IT HAS CHARGED ON THE BASIS O F COST PLUS 5% MARK UP'. 8. IN THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, YOU WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT. VIDE YOUR SUBMISSI ON DATED 4 NOVEMBER 2014, YOU HAVE 'STATED AT PAGE 4, THE ASS ESSEE WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT IT DID NOT ENTER INTO AN INTER-COMPANY AGREEMENT WITH ITS AE IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MENT IONED TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE'. 9. SINCE, IT NOT APPEARS THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE AGR EEMENT IN YOUR TP REPORT IS UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS, THE ENTIRE ANALYSIS THAT YOU HAVE MADE IN THE TP REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO THIS T RANSACTION STANDS REJECTED. 10. IT IS A SETTLED MATTER THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS TO EST ABLISH THE ARM'S LENGTH NATURE OF ANY INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO N LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN YOUR CASE, THAT ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISC HARGED. EFFECTIVELY THERE IS NO ANALYSIS IN EXISTENCE THAT SUPPORTS THAT ARM'S LENGTH NATURE OF THIS TRANSACTION. IT CAN BE SAID W ITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT NO INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A SUBS TANTIAL PAYMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 11. IN YOUR SUBMISSION DATED 4 NOVEMBER 2014, YOU HAVE STATED THAT NONE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS T HAT YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR INCOME. HENCE, TP PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY HERE. YOU HAVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE INDIA SER VICES PVT LTD (WP NO. 871/2014). 12. THE RELIANCE ON THIS DECISION IS MISPLACED. THE POINT OF 7 EXAMINATION THERE WAS WHETHER AN INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION ARISES IN CERTAIN CASES OR NOT. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE IN Y OUR SITUATION. THERE IS N O DOUBT THAT AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS BEEN UN DERTAKEN. ONCE THAT IS SETTLED, THIS OFFICE HAS TO DETERMINE TH E ARM'S LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THAT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE SAME APPLIES TO ALL THE OTHER DECISIONS THAT YOU HAVE CITED. 13. IT IS THE NOT THE TASK OF THE TPO TO DETERMINE YOU R PROFIT OR BE CONCERNED WHETHER YOU HAVE ACTUALLY MADE ONE. THE TPO HAS TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. T HAT IS WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE. 14. THIS OFFICE THEREFORE CONCLUDES THAT IN A FACT PAT TERN LIKE YOUR CASE, NO INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD HAVE MADE A PA YMENT OF THIS KIND. THEREFORE, IT IS PROPOSED TO REDUCE THE AL P OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO NIL THE PROPOSED ADJUST MENT U/S 92CA IS RS.19,800,000 15. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR REPLY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF RECE IPT OF THIS LETTER AND IN NO CASE LATER THAN 10 DECEMBER 2014. IN CASE YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE MATTER WILL BE DECIDED BASED ON MATERIAL BASED ON RECORD. 6. ASSESSEE FILED A POINT WISE REPLY TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO TREATING TH E PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST AS AN INTERNATIONAL. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST IS N OT AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THIS OBJECTION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TPO WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THA T EXPLANATION 8 TO SECTION 92B2 CLEARLY HOLDS THE IMPUGNED TRANSACT ION AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE TPO QUESTIONED THE BENCHMARKING OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST THE TPO WAS OF THE O PINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF THE TRA NSFER PRICE OF RS.1.98 CRORES AND FURTHER FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE BA SIS OF 5% MARK UP THAT THE AE HAS CHARGED IT. 7. THE TPO FINALLY CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ANY BENCHMARKING PROCESS IN THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT C OST OF RS.1.98 CRORES AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O PROVIDE ANY BASIS OF THE SETTING OF THE TRANSFER PRICE OF RS.1. 98 CORRES FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST AND THE 5% MARK UP CHAR GED BY THE AE. 8. HAVING OBSERVED AS ABOVE, THE ALP OF THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT C OST WAS TAKEN AT NIL AND ACCORDINGLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS EN HANCED BY RS.1.98 CRORES. 9. ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED THE ADJUSTMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED B Y THE CIT(A) AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER :- 3.3 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTE R AND FIND THAT BOTH THE TPO AND A.O HAVE HELD THAT THE INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST SHOULD BE NIL WHICH MEANS THE SAID PAYMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MA DE 9 BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS OVERSEA ASSOCIATED ENTERPRIS ES. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNT HAS NEITHER BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE NOR THE SAME HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED SO THA T CLAIMING DEPRECIATION OVER IT. THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E BY THE A.O IN THE YEAR CONSIDERATION ARE FUTURISTIC IN NAT URE AND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SECTI ON 246A OF INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES THE ORDERS WHICH ARE APPEALABLE IN INCOME TAX APPEALS AND THE RELEVANT CL AUSE IS 246A(I)(A) WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT THE ORDER WHERE THE APPELLANT IS AGREEVIED WITH THE INCOME ASSESSED OR A MOUNT OF TAX DETERMINED OR AMOUNT OF LOSS COMPUTED OR THE S TATUS UNDER WHICH HE IS ASSESSED IS APPEALABLE . THE ORDER W HICH IS INTENDED TO BE APPEALED AGAINST SHOULD HAVE ANYONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONSEQUENCE ONLY THEN SU CH ORDER BECOMES APPEALABLE. THIS PROVISIONS IS IN-COR PORATED BECAUSE IN ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE MAY BE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O WHICH MAY NOT BE OF AN Y CONSEQUENCES BUT APPELLANT MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH THO SE OBSERVATIONS. IF SUCH ORDER ARE MADE APPEALABLE THEN A NUMBER OF INFRUCTOUS LITIGATION WOULD ARISE WHICH IS AVOIDABLE. THE PROVISIONS OF ACT ARE VERY CLEAR WIT H THE INCOME ASSESSED, TAX DEMANDED, LOSS COMPUTED OR STATU S OF ASSESSMENT AND IF NONE OF THESE EXISTS, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O HAS OBSERVE D THAT DEPRECIATION WOULD BE DISALLOWED IN FUTURE AS AND WHEN THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THE SAME. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINT AINABLE AGAINST ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A. O. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10 10. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENT LY STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE ALP WITH PROPER DOCUMENTATION MAINTA INED BY IT IN TERMS OF SECTION 92D OF THE ACT R.W RULE 10D OF THE RULES. THE COUNSEL EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT TNMM IS THE MOST A PPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF THE PAYMENT OF DE VELOPING COST. THE COUNSEL CONTINUED BY STATING THAT THE AP PEAL WAS VERY MUCH MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND HE HAS WRON GLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 246 OF THE AC T. 11. PER CONTRA THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDIN GS OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST OF RS.1.98 CRORES AS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE TH AT THE TPO PROCEEDED BY TREATING THE SAME AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND DETERMINED THE ALP AS NIL AND ENHANCED THE INCO ME OF THE TAXPAYER BY RS.1.98 CRORES. 13. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ENHANCEMENT OF ITS INCOME BY ALP ADJUSTMENT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS OF T HE CASE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HA VE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PL AY WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A ) IS DIRECTED TO 11 DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE QUARREL AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.2019. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [N.K. B ILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 OCTOBER , 2019 *NEHA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CITI 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 10.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 14.10.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.1 0.2019 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER