Shreenath Commercial & Financial Pvt. Ltd, Udaipur V. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 181/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Shreenath Commercial & Financial Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of certain cash payments and interest expenses by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 40A(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The AO had disallowed cash payments over Rs. 20,000 made in a single day to a single party and added the amounts to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the nature of the payments and the availability of banking facilities, as well as the financial interconnections regarding interest-free loans and advances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Basu Distributor (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, Smt. Sangeeta Verma vs. CIT, CIT vs. R L Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3); 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.181/AHD/2019 नधा रणवष /Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shreenath Commercial & Financial Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 302, Krishna Ritu Apartments, 27, Sarvarity Vilas, Udaipur-313001 PAN: AAFCS6806A Vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B. R. Popat, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R स ु नवाईक तार ख/Date of Hearing : 11/10/2022 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 04/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R 1. The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7,Ahmedabad dated 02/02/2017 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Confirming the aggregate addition to the extent of Rs.24,66,700/- originally made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 2. In not expressly allowing the deduction in respect of interest expenditure aggregating to Rs. 12,95,695/-.” 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 24,66,700/- under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2 4. The assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of Development &Sale of Residential Units. The assessee for the year under consideration declared income at NIL. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee was making cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act with respect to certain expenses such as salary, labour expenses, materials purchases and land purchases. The AO, accordingly, proposed to disallow the amount of cash payment over Rs. 20,000/- to a single party in a day aggregating to Rs. 31,64,040/- only. 5. The assessee in response thereto submitted that majority of cash payment over Rs. 20,000/- in a day to a single party was made to labour/ labour contractor who were uneducated/unorganized and not maintaining bank accounts. Furthermore, in the construction line of business, the assessee is required to make payment in cash in the case of the supplier of petty construction materials and laborers as most of them do not maintain bank accounts. The assessee also submitted that the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act will not attract on the payment made against purchases of land. 6. However, the AO found that the submission of the assessee is general in nature. As such, the assessee during the year has made cash payment above Rs. 20,000/- against salary expenses, labour charges, bricks purchase and land purchase which aggregates to Rs. 31,64,040/- only. The AO held that payment against expensesexceeding Rs. 20,000/-to a single party in a single day by any mode other than by account payee cheque or draft is notallowable except the exclusion provided under rule 6DD of Income Tax Rule. However, the assessee failed to establish that payment made by it falls under the exception provided or the day payment made, the bank was closed or the banking facility was not available. The AO further held that the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are attracted on the incurrence of expenses as well as the purchase of construction materials and purchase of land as the same is part of stock-in-trade. The AO, in ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 3 holding so, placed reliance on several case laws which are incorporated in his order. Thus, the AO disallowed the cash payment of Rs. 31,64,040/- against salary expenses, labour expenses, material purchases and land purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 8. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) furnished additional documents including cash book and detailed bifurcation of alleged cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- or above aggregating to Rs. 31,64,040/- only. The assessee submitted that impugned amount includes two entries of Rs. 40,000/- and 1,50,000/- made in the name of Shri Mahesh Rangwani and Shri Girsih Shrimali respectively which are in the nature of rectification entry w.r.t. error committed in earlier year. There was no actual cash payment made. Hence, the provision of section 40A(3) is not applicable. 9. The assessee further submitted that next set of cash payment includes10 installments of Rs. 20,000/- each on different date paid to Shri Hira S/o Bhopaji Chapri against purchase of land property. The provisions of section 40A(3) prohibit cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- whereas in the case on hand, cash payment was not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a day to the said party. Hence, the provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable on this payment aggregating to Rs. 2 lakh only. 9.1 Likewise, the assessee submitted that the next set of payment includes cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- which aggregates to Rs. 13,03,000/- made to different farmersagainst purchase of land property. Such payment exceeding Rs. 20000/- in a single day to a single party covered under exception clause provided under rule 6DD(g) of the income tax rule 1962, where it was provided that the provision of section 40A(3) will not be made applicable in case of cash payment to a person who residesin a village or town which is not served by the ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 4 banking facility. The assessee also furnished affidavit from the farmers stating that they were not having bank accounts. 10. With regard to cash payment aggregating to Rs. 7.2 lakh against director salary, it was submitted that such party is very much identifiable and filling return of income. Therefore, considering the intention behind introduction of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act i.e. to ensure that payment exceeding specified limit to be made through banking channel so that the revenue authority can easily identify the recipient and can make examination with regard to genuineness of such transaction,in the given case, the director to whom the payment was made is clearly identifiable. Further, the payment shown to the director in the book of accounts are on ad-hoc basis. As such the director was having control and possession over cash of the assessee company and they on need basis utilized the cash for personal use. On the settlement date, the cash utilized by the particular director for their personal use on different occasion adjusted against their salary. Hence, it is not known whether cash payment/utilization to or by the director exceed Rs. 20,000/- in a single day. Therefore, no disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act should be made on the said payment of Rs. 7.2 lakh. 11. The assessee with regard to cash payment of Rs. 27,000/- and 26,700/- made against purchase of bricks submitted that the supplier was not having banking facilities. Hence, no adverse inference should be drawn against the assessee. 12. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the submission of the assessee along the documentary evidences to the AO for remand report. The AO vide letter 13-10- 2106 furnished detailed remand report. 13. The AO in the remand report submitted that the claim of the assessee regarding rectification of entry in cash book for Rs. 1,90,000/- in the name of two parties namely Shri Mahesh Rangwani and Shri Girsih Shrimali was not supported ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 5 by the documentary evidences. The narration in cash book clearly written as “payment”. The assessee also failed to establish that such payment is not debited in the profit and loss account. 13.1 The AO with regard to payment of Rs. 2 lakh in 10 equal installments of 20,000/- each made to the vendor of land at Chapri found that vendor residing 75KM away from the assessee’s premises located at Udaipur. Thus, it is very strange that the vendor came to collect sales proceeds of Rs. 2 lakh 10 times from such distance and that too after a gap one or two days. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee made payment of Rs. 2 lakh in cash but intentionally staggered the payment in 10 equal installment in cash book. Likewise, with regard to cash payment of Rs. 13,03,000/- made against purchase of land to different farmers, the AO found that the assessee has not furnished the supporting evidence that there was no banking facility available at the time of payment made in cash. 14. With regard to the cash payment of Rs. 7.2 lakh towards director salary and payment against supply of bricks, the AO found that the assessee cannot be held outside the purview of section 40A(3) merely on reasoning that the party is identifiable. As such the assessee has to establish that there was unavoidable situation in which cash payment was made. 15. The assessee in rejoinder to remand report made similar submissions. 16. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality confirmed the finding of the AO except cash payment aggregating to Rs. 6,97,340/- as no claim wasmade in the profit and loss account by observing as under: “A careful perusal of the assessment order, the submission of the appellant and the evidences and detailed chart produced by the appellant shows that the various payments in cash totaling to Rs.31,64,040/- pertained different types of payments. (i) It is seen that the appellant has contended that an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- paid to Shri Mahesh Rangwani and Shri Girish Shrimali is on account of rectification of an error committed in the earlier year which is mentioned in the cash book. However, this claim of the appellant cannot be accepted, because, firstly the appellant itself is not aware of the purpose of the said payments because the same has not been clarified in its ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 6 submissions. Secondly, the claim of the appellant is not supported by any evidence to prove that the entry in the cash book was in respect of rectification of wrong entry made in earlier years since the cash book clearly mentions the work “payment” in respect of these two entries. Therefore, the AO’s action in making addition of this amount is confirmed. (ii) Out of the total amount of disallowance made, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- pertains to payments made to "Hira, son of Bhopaji Chapri" for purchase of land, A No. 335/67. It is seen from the submissions made that this payment of Rs.2 lakhs has been made for purchase of piece of land at Chapri. The appellant is a dealer in real estate and land purchased by it is in stock-in-trade. Thus, payment made for the purchase of land would constitute business expenditure of the appellant and will attract the provisions of Section 40A(3). It is very clear that the land has been purchased from one person for the amount of Rs.2 lakhs and the payment for the same has been staggered in such a way that each payment does not exceed Rs.20,000/-to circumvent the provisions of Section 40A(3), The agreement in respect of the transaction of this property does not mention that the payment has to he made in 10 installments of Rs.20,000/- each, but states that the sale consideration is Rs.2 lakhs. The appellant has not given any reason as to why the payments were made in 10 installments, An affidavit by the seller of the land stating that he has no bank account is merely a self-serving document and does not hold any evidentiary value. Therefore, it is clear that this arrangement of payment of Rs.2 lakhs by cash by breaking it into smaller amounts has only been made to avoid the provisions of Section 40A[3) and the therefore the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed. (iii) The amount of Rs,6,97,340/- paid in cash pertains to labour charges paid to various persons. It has been claimed by the appellant that these payments have directly been debited to the accounts of the parties concerned for labor work done and were not claimed separately as labour expenses. It has been submitted that since there is no cash payment involved, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted. A perusal of the profit and loss account submitted by the appellant shows that no labour expenses have been debited to the same and therefore the appellant's contention in respect of the amount of Rs.6,97,340/- is accepted and addition to this extent is deleted. (iv) The amount of Rs.13,03,000/- pertains to those cash payments which, as per the appellant's submission, were made to various parties who did not have bank accounts. However, the contention of the appellant is not supported by any documentary evidences. As has been noted by the AO during assessment proceedings, the areas that have mentioned in the agreement and affidavits are those areas which are adequately covered by banking networks. It is also seen that the appellant has merely furnished affidavits from the parties concerned stating that they had no bank accounts. However, not having bank account does not mean that the areas pertaining to these parties were not covered by banking networks. Thus, the appellant does not fall under the exemptions provided by Rule 6DD(g) of the I.T. Rules. Moreover, no business expediency has also been given by the appellant in respect of these payments. The disallowance made by the AO to this extent is confirmed. (v) The amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- comprises of those payments which, as per the appellant’s own admission, are above Rs.20,000/- each. However, it has been stated that the parties to which these payments have been made are identifiable. The fact that the parties are identifiable cannot be a reason to violate the provisions of Section 40A(3) and make cash payment above the prescribed amount. It is seen that all the other parties to whom payments in excess of Rs.20,000/- have been made are also identifiable. However, if one goes by the logic of the appellant in respect of the amount of Rs.7,20,000/-, then it naturally follows that all the other parties to whom payments have been made by it are not ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 7 identifiable and should automatically be disallowed. Thus, this argument of the appellant holds no merit and the disallowance to this extent is also confirmed. (vi) The payment amounting to Rs.53,700/- is, by the appellant’s own submission, in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) and the disallowance to this extent is confirmed.” 17. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before me. 18. The learned AR before us filed two paper books running from pages 1 to 44 and 1 to 13 and submitted that the payment against the purchase of the land was less than Rs. 20,000 on different dates and therefore, the same cannot be subject to the disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 18.1 The learned AR further with respect to the purchase of other parcels of lands submitted that the vendors of such pieces of land were not holding the bank account during the relevant point of time. The learned AR to this effect have filed the affidavit of the vendors. 18.2 It was also contended by the learned AR that there was rectification entry made for 1,90,000 in the books of accounts but the same does not represent any cash payment in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 18.3 The learned AR with respect to the salary to the directors submitted that the genuineness of the transactions has not been doubted by the authorities below. Therefore, the same cannot be subject matter of disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 19. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 20. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, it is noted that there were certain payments reflecting in the cash book exceeding Rs.20,000.00 per day ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 8 to a single person which was in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. These payments can be categorized in the manner as detailed below: i. Rectification entry of I1,90,000/- ii. Payment for the purchase of land of Rs. 2 Lacs +13,03,000/- iii. Payments towards the director’s salaries amounting to I7,20,000/- only iv. Payment towards supply of bricks amounting to Rs. 53,700/- 20.1 With respect to the rectification entry, it was contended before me that the assessee has shown excess receipt of Rs.1,90,000/- from two parties namely Shri Mahesh Rangwani and Shri Girsih Shrimali against the sale of plots in the financial year 2010-11. In other words, the excess receipt from the above parties have been rectified in the year under consideration by showing the payments to the same parties. In this regard, the cash book for the year under consideration as well as the relevant pages of the cash book of the earlier year has been placed on pages 36 to 38 of the paper book. On perusal of the cash book of the earlier year, I find that the assessee has shown receipt of cash from the parties as discussed above and likewise the payment has been shown in the cash book in the year under consideration with the narration that the rectification entry has been passed. Admittedly, the provisions of section 40A(3) is applicable with respect to the expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of which the cash payment has been made exceeding I20,000/- in a single day to a party. Thus the question arises whether the rectification entry passed by the assessee represents the expenses claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account in the given facts and circumstances. The answer certainly stands in negative. However, the onus lies upon the assessee to establish his submission based on the documents. In other words, if the assessee has shown excess receipts from the parties in the earlier year, then such excess receipt must be reflecting in the balance sheet of the assessee as liability. However, for this purpose, we have referred the balance sheet of the assessee for the year under consideration which was containing the financial data of the earlier year as well. Indeed, the assessee has shown liabilities ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 9 in its balance sheet of the earlier year as on 31 st of March 2011 but the grouping of the same is not available on record. In the absence of such grouping or individual ledgers of the respective parties, I am unable to give specific finding. Therefore, Iam inclined to set aside this issue to the file of the AO for the limited purpose to verify from the documentary evidence whether the assessee has shown liability in earlier year in the name of the parties as discussed above. The assessee is also directed to produce the necessary evidences to justify its stand. Besides the above the assessee shall also justify based on the documentary evidence that there was no deduction claimed by it in the profit and loss account qua such cash payment as discussed above. 20.2 With respect to the cash payment for the purchase of land for Rs. 2 lacs, I note that the genuineness of the expenses has nowhere been doubted by the authorities below. Furthermore, I have referred the assessment order and find that payment was of Rs.20,000/- only made in a single day which implies that there was no excess payment over and above Rs.20,000 in a single day. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has made the payment in contravention to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act as applicable during the relevant point of time. Admittedly, it is hard to believe that the assessee will make the payment for the purchase of land over a period of time in the instalment of Rs.20,000/- only in the given facts and circumstances as the seller of the land stays far away from the place of the assessee. However, the onus lies upon the revenue to justify that the payment was made by the assessee over and above Rs.20,000/- by conducting necessary enquiries from the concern party. But no such enquiry has been conducted by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, I am not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. 20.3 With respect to the cash payment for the purchase of land for Rs. 13.03 lacs, it is noted that there is affidavit available on record of the vendor of the land stating that he was not holding any bank account during the relevant point of time. Thus in such a situation, the assessee cannot be held guilty for the ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 10 violationof the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. As such, the case of the assessee falls under the exception provided under rule 6DD(g) of the income tax rule 1962. 20.4 With respect to the cash payment for the salary to the directors for Rs. 7.20 lacs, I note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Basu Distributor (P) Ltd. reported in 19 taxmann.com 111 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing that the identity of the person to whom the cash payment was made and genuineness of such payment was not doubted. Likewise, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Sangeeta Verma vs. CIT reported in 133 taxmann.com 97 where it was held as under: There is no finding to that effect in any of the orders leading to this appeal. The sale deeds are also admitted to be registered documents and there is no other material as may be considered adverse to the claim set up by the assessee. In view of the undisputed facts of the present case we find no good ground to distinguish the law laid down by this Court in Chaudhary & Co. (supra) that has held the field for more than 26 years now. Accordingly, question no. (iii) is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 20.5 Coming to the case on hand, I note that the salary paid to the directors has nowhere been doubted by the authorities below. Furthermore, it is the directors who were managing the affairs of the company and they were acting as the custodian of the cash belonging to the assesse. As such the directors of the company closely connected with each other. Thus any salary paid to them by way of making any adjustment of the salary cannot be made subject to the disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 20.6 With respect to the payment of Rs. 53,700towards the purchase of bricks, we find that there was no argument advanced by the learned AR for the assesseeat the time of hearing. Accordingly, we hold that such payment has been made inviolation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore the same has to be disallowed. Hence the ground of appeal of the assesse is hereby partly allowed. ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 11 21. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-Aerred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.12,95,000/- on account of interest not charged on the interest-free loans and advances given to the parties. 22. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee on one hand has incurred interest expenses amounting to Rs.16,85,348/- on the borrowed fund and on the other hand, it has made interest-free loans and advances amounting to Rs.63,68,000/- and Rs.28,84,604/- aggregating to Rs. 92,52,604/- only. Thus the AO computed the amount of interest at Rs. 12,95,695/- being 14% on the interest-free loans and advances provided by the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. 23. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A, who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: “7.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order, facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. A perusal of the same shows that the appellant has not given any nexus to show that the advances were made from its own funds. However, the appellant has given a working stating that while the AO has disallowed Rs.12,95,695/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the appellant itself had added the entire expenses on account of interest amounting to Rs.16,85,348/- which include the impugned amount disallowed by the AO to its closing stock as on 31.32012, which in effect meant that its income had increased to this extent already. Thus, it was claimed that the addition made by the AO amounted to double taxation. I am of the view that this is a matter of verification by the AO. The AO is directed to verify the computation given by the appellant and allow the same if found correct. Ground of appeal No. 3 is allowed, subject to verification by the AO.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before me. 25. The learned AR before me inter-alia contended that the own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of loans and advances given to the parties without charging any interest. As per the learned AR, the own fund of the assessee stands at Rs.110.14 Lacs including share capital, reserves and unsecured loan i.e. 15.01 lakhs +.42 lakhs +94.71 lakhs respectively which is far excess than the amount of interest free loans and advances amounting to Rs.92.53 Lacs. Therefore, no addition on account of interest can be made in the given facts and circumstances. ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 12 26. On the other hand the learner DR, vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 27. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the own fund of the assessee including the interest-free loans and advances exceeds the amount of interest free loans and advances provided by the assessee and therefore a presumption can be drawn that owned fund which is interest-free available with the assessee has been utilized for making such advances. In holding so,I draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT vs. R L Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P.) Ltd. reported in 33 taxmann.com 14, where it was held as under: “6. It is well established proposition that when the Revenue fails to establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the funds diverted/lent, any denial of allowances of interest under Section 36[1](iii) is not permissible. In the instant case, as both the authorities have held concurrently on the basis of material available that sufficient amount of interest-free funds were available with the assessee-respondent and therefore also, there is no justification in interfering with the decision of both these authorities. Resultantly, the question of law proposed is answered accordingly.” 28. In view of the above and after considering facts in totality, I find that the disallowances of interest expenditure in the given facts & circumstances where the assessee was having sufficient interest free fund is not justified. Therefore, I hereby setaside the order of the ld. CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 04/01/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 04/01/2023 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेशक त ल प!े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. ITA No.181/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 13 आदेशान ु सार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपील यअ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation :23/12/2021(Dictatedin his own laptop) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 23/12/2022 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - 03/01/2023 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement .................... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.. : 04/01/2023 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... Date of Despatch of the Order.................. 3. संबं धतआयकरआय ु त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. !वभागीय $त$न ध, आयकरअपील यअ धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड&फाईल / Guard file.