Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7068 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-01-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
07-01-2019
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
10-04-2017
Judgement Text
PAGE | 1 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 183 & 526/ASR./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 & 2013-14) CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CENTRAL MILL, OLD RAILWAY ROAD, JALANDHAR VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR PAN AABCH6356A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI NIRMAL MAHAJAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VED PAL SINGH, D.R DATE OF HEARING: 07.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.01.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR FOR A.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14, DATED 08.02.2017 & 21.06.2017, RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T. ACT), DATED 23.03.2015 AND 04.03.2016. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS, HENCE THE SAME ARE BEING TAKEN UP AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATE ORDER. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012- 13. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: PAGE | 2 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1. (A) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FELL INTO GRAVE ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS BAD IN LAW FOR NON ISSUE AND NON SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 1432(2) BY THE A.O HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE. (B) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FELL INTO GRAVE ERROR BY HOLDING THAT ISSUE OF JURISDICTION GETS RECTIFIED UNDER SEC. 292B. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME.. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS RUNNING A HOTEL AND A CLUB HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ON 30.09.2012, DECLARING LOSS OF (-) RS.2,71,65,718/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 23.09.2013 BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR (PAGE 19) OF THE ASSESSES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB). THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS REPLY DATED 24.10.2013 FILED WITH THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, OBJECTED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LATTER UNDER SEC. 143(2). IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM WAS DEVOID OF ANY FORCE OF LAW AND WAS LIABLE TO BE FILED. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JURISDICTION IN ITS CASE REMAINED WITH THE A.O, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC.142(1), DATED 15.04.2014 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.142(1) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION IN HIS CASE REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O THAT IT HAD EARLIER IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 IN ITS REPLY TO THE NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR HAD OBJECTED TO THE INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY HIS OFFICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER WAS IN RECEIPT OF ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), DATED 25.05.2014 FROM THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE BY HIS REPLY DATED 17.05.2014 (PAGE 25 OF APB) OBJECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED NOTICE IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. FINALLY, A NOTICE PAGE | 3 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SEC. 143(2), DATED 28.05.2014 WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR, WHEREIN THE LATTER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN POINTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y. 2012-13. (PAGE 28 OF APB). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3), DATED 23.03.2015 FRAMED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC.143(3), ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS PASSED WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) BY THE A.O HAVING JURISDICTION IN ITS CASE I.E. A.O, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE NOTICES UNDER SEC. 143(2) UP TO 30.09.2013 WERE ISSUED BY THE A.O, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 23.03.2015 IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED LATEST BY 30.09.2013 BY THE JURISDICTIONAL A.O, WAS THUS INVALID AND NOTHING BETTER THAN NULLITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL A.O ONLY AS ON 28.05.2014 I.E ALMOST AFTER EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ABOUT 8 MONTHS FROM THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS CONTENTION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED, RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HOWEVER NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VESTED WITH HIM. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THROUGH CASS I.E COMPUTER ASSISTED SCRUTINY SELECTION AND THE SCRUTINY NOTICES WERE GENERATED THROUGH THE COMPUTERISED SYSTEM. THE CIT(A) FURTHER PAGE | 4 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OBSERVED THAT THE SYSTEM GENERATED JURISDICTION CHART OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REVEALED THAT AS PER THE ITD DATA BASE THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE SINCE 27.04.2010 WAS VESTED WITH THE DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT NO INFIRMITY DID EMERGE FROM THE NOTICE THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR UNDER SEC.143(2) WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD. INSOFAR, THE SUPPORT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT-CIRCLE-IV IN ITS CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT PURSUANT TO THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT PURSUANT TO TAKING UP OF THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE RECORDS WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS WITH THE A.O. APART THEREFROM, THE CIT(A) HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B OF THE I.T. ACT WOULD PROVIDE A CUSHION TO THE A.O FOR SUCH INSTANCES. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O WERE REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). STILL FURTHER, THE CIT(A) DELIBERATED ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS, AND NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED, THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O VIZ. DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), HAS RESULTED INTO AN INVALID ASSESSMENT WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND WAS THUS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THAT NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, PAGE | 5 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR WHO WAS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.143(3), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.03.2015, TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF HIS PAPER BOOK. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O FOR THE FIRST TIME AS ON 28.05.2014. THE LD. A.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.143(2) BY THE JURISDICTIONAL A.O NO VALID ASSESSMENT COULD BE FRAMED UNDER SEC.143(3), RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: SR. NO. PARTICULARS 1. M/S LAJWANTI COTTON GINING VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITA NO.395/ASR/2014 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PARVINDAR VIR HANS ITA NO. 88/ASR/2011 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. NVS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3729/DEL/2012 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CEBON INDIA LTD. (2012)347 ITR 583 (PH) 5. M/S MICRO SPACEMATRIX SOLUTION P. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITA NO. 669/DEL/2012 6. UMACHARAN SHAW & BROS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O FOR FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. ADMITTEDLY, ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2), DATED 23.09.2013 AND NOTICE U/S 143(2), DATED 28.05.2015 WERE ISSUED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. APART THEREFROM, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PAGE | 6 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTICES HAD OBJECTED TO VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O AND HAD CATEGORICALLY BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE JURISDICTION IN ITS CASE WAS VESTED WITH THE A.O RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR. IT WAS ONLY AS ON 28.05.2014, THAT A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR. WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y. 2012-13 WITH THE A.O (WARD/CIRCLE)-RANGE-IV, VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 507534501300912 ON 30.09.2012. APART THEREFROM, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WAS ALSO FRAMED U/SS. 143(3) AND 115WE (3) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY THE ACIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR. THE CIT(A) REBUTTING THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD OBSERVED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT-CIRCLE-IV(1) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WAS OF NO RELEVANCE, AS PURSUANT TO THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF FILING OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VESTED WITH THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR, AND OBSERVED THAT THE SAME MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT THE STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD RAISED THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE. 9. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O FOR FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3), IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO CULL OUT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATING THE VESTING OF JURISDICTION WITH AN A.O. AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) TO SEC.120 OF THE I.T ACT, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES SHALL EXERCISE ALL OR ANY OF THE POWERS AND PERFORM ALL OR ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE ASSIGNED TO SUCH AUTHORITIES BY OR UNDER THE I.T ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS AS THE CBDT MAY ISSUE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY ALL OR ANY OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. IT IS BY VIRTUE OF THE AFORESAID MANDATE THAT AN A.O AS PER SUB- SECTION (1) TO SEC.124 ASSUMES JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR IS RESIDING WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA. AS PAGE | 7 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PER SUB-SECTION (3) TO SEC.124 AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN A.O, SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS CARVED OUT IN THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. HOWEVER, WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD VALIDLY CALLED IN QUESTION THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY AN A.O, THEN AS PER SUB- SECTION (4) TO SEC.124 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, OBLIGATED TO REFER THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC.124. APART THEREFROM, THE POWER TO TRANSFER CASES IS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC.127 OF THE I.T. ACT. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO SEC.127, IT TRANSPIRES THAT A CASE CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER, SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF TWIN CONDITIONS VIZ. (I) THE ASSESSEE IS AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO; AND (II) THE REASONS FOR TRANSFER OF THE CASE HAVE TO BE RECORDED AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY, AS PER SUB-SECTION (3) TO SEC.127 THE REQUIREMENT OF GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE OFFICE OF THE SAID OFFICERS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE, HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH. HOWEVER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR TRANSFER OF THE CASE, BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER OF TRANSFER HAS NOT BEEN DISPENSED WITH BY THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ENVISAGED IN SUB-SECTION (2) TO SEC.127 TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR AFFECTING THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER. 10. WE SHALL NOW IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, ADVERT TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2006-07 WAS FRAMED BY THE DCIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) AND 115WE(3), DATED 15.12.2008. APART THEREFROM, THE ASSESSEE HAD E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y. 2012-13 WITH THE A.O, RANGE IV, JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2), DATED 23.09.2013, FROM THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, HAD BY HIS LETTER PAGE | 8 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 24.10.2013 OBJECTED TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY HIM. THUS, THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD ENVISAGED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC.124 OF THE I.T. ACT. AS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE WAS NOT VESTED WITH HIM BUT REMAINED WITH THE A.O, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR, THEREFORE, AS PER SUB- SECTION (4) TO SEC. 124 OF THE I.T ACT, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON HIS PART TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED IN SUB-SECTION (2) TO SEC.124, WHICH WE ARE AFRAID HE HAD FAILED TO DO. RATHER, AS HAD BEEN OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, DESPITE A SPECIFIC OBJECTION HAVING BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE, NOTICES UNDER SEC. 143(2)/142(1) WERE THEREAFTER RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR. NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2), DATED 28.05.2014 WAS ISSUED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR, WHO THEREAFTER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.143(3), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.03.2015. WE FIND THAT NEITHER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD CHALLENGED THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE OBJECTION THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-I, JALANDHAR IN ITS CASE. RATHER, THE CIT(A) HAD BRUSHED ASIDE THE CHALLENGE THROWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O, OBSERVING THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VESTED WITH THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. THE CIT(A) HAD FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER THE ITD DATA BASE THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE 27.04.2010 WAS VESTED WITH THE DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT AT THE STANCE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE, THAT THE SAME DURING THE SAID INTERVENING PERIOD WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B WOULD PROVIDE A CUSHION TO THE A.O, AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY HIM COULD ALSO NOT BE FAULTED WITH ON THE SAID COUNT. PAGE | 9 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR, SUFFERS FROM CERTAIN SERIOUS INFIRMITIES VIZ. (I) THAT NO ORDER ISSUED BY THE CBDT UNDER SEC.124(1) R.W.S. 120(1) VESTING JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR IS EITHER DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, NOR ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT THEREOF HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL; (II) THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINING WELL WITHIN THE REALM OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SEC.124 HAD OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, HOWEVER, THE A.O HAD GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW BY NOT REFERRING THE DETERMINING OF THE JURISDICTION AS PER THE MANDATE OF SUB- SECTION (2) TO SEC.124 TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER; (III) THAT AS STANDS ESTABLISHED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC.143(3) AND 115WE(3), DATED 15.12.2008 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE JURISDICTION OVER ITS CASE WAS VESTED DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD WITH THE ACIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR; (IV) THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON OUR RECORDS WHICH WOULD REVEAL AS TO HOW THE JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR; (V) THAT EVEN IF IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION [AS INFERRED BY THE CIT(A)] FROM THE ACIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT/ACIT, RANGE-1, JALANDHAR, THEN THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR TRANSFERRING THE CASE BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) TO SEC. 127, PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE ORDER ALSO IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS; AND (IV) THAT AS TO HOW THE JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2)/142(1) BY THE DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR WAS THEREAFTER MOST CASUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR, WHO HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2), DATED 28.05.2014 HAS NEITHER BEEN EXPLAINED NOR IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE PAGE | 10 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RECORDS. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID SERIOUS INFIRMITIES AS REGARDS THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012-13, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND OURSELVES AS BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE DY. CIT, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SEC.143(2)/142(1) BY THE DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR IS WELL IN ORDER. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR TO ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, AND VICE VERSA CANNOT BE SUMMARILY ACCEPTED AT THE VERY FACE OF IT. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, EVEN IF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WAS FROM 27.04.2010 TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT/ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR IS ACCEPTED, EVEN THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR SUCH TRANSFER AS ENVISAGED UNDER SEC.127(2)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE SAID CLAIM OF THE A.O CANNOT BE SUBSCRIBED TO AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH. INSOFAR, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT EVEN IF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE DY. CIT/ACIT SUFFERS FROM ANY INFIRMITY, THE SAME BEING A CURABLE DEFECT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 292B WOULD NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE A.O IS AN ABSOLUTELY MISCONCEIVED VIEW ARRIVED AT BY THE SAID APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SEC.292B WOULD COME INTO PLAY IN A CASE WHERE THE NOTICE ISSUED OR ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS ONLY SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS THAT A NOTICE OR AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION HAD CREPT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED OR THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US BOTH THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.143(2) AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT THEREAFTER FRAMED UNDER SEC.143(3) SUFFERS FROM A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, THUS PAGE | 11 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE SAME CAN IN NO WAY BE CURED BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B OF THE I.T. ACT. 12. WE SHALL IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS NOW ADVERT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. ADMITTEDLY, THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2), DATED 23.09.2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR, WHO AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE WAS NOT THE A.O VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. APART THEREFROM, ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), DATED 20.05.2014 WAS ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR, WHO TOO AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE WAS NOT THE A.O VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE DY. CIT CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR I.E. THE AO VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2), DATED 28.05.2014. HOWEVER, AS THE AFORESAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DY. CIT CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS BEYOND THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC.143(2), HENCE THE SAME HAD NO EXISTENCE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THERE WAS NO VALID TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ACIT, RANGEIV, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-I JALANDHAR, THEREFORE, NO VALID NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE LATTER UNDER SEC.143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. APART THEREFROM, IF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WAS FROM 27.04.2010 TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-IV, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT/ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR IS ACCEPTED, EVEN THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM DY. CIT/ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR TO DY. CIT-IV, JALANDHAR, AS REQUIRED AS PER THE MANDATE OF SEC..127(2)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, CANNOT BE SUBSCRIBED TO AND MERIT ACCEPTANCE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE A.O EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY HIM UNDER SEC.143 (3), DATED 23.03.2015 SAN ISSUANCE OF THE AFORESAID NOTICE IS ABSOLUTELY BEREFT OF ANY FORCE OF LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW THAT A VALID ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) PAGE | 12 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PRESUPPOSES ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANR. VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAD OBSERVED THAT THE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) CANNOT BE HELD TO BE MERELY A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, AS THE SAME GOES TO THE VERY VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O AND IS NOT CURABLE. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE A.O EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD, THUS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC.143(3) BY HIM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. WE THUS NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3), THUS SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND QUASH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O ON THE GROUND OF WANT OF JURISDICTION, THUS WE REFRAIN FROM ADVERTING TO AND THEREIN ADJUDICATING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 13. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. A.Y 2013-14 ITA NO. 526/ASR/2017 14. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. (A) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FELL INTO GRAVE ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS BAD IN LAW FOR NON ISSUE AND NON SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 1432(2) BY THE A.O HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE. (B) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FELL INTO GRAVE ERROR BY HOLDING THAT ISSUE OF JURISDICTION GETS RECTIFIED UNDER SEC. 292B.. PAGE | 13 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON 30.09.2013, DECLARING LOSS OF (-)RS.1,60,76,480/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR. THE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 04.03.2016 ASSESSED THE LOSS AT (-) RS. 1,10,76,480/-. 16. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 17. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE DCIT, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR, HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 08.04.2015 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ABOUT 7 MONTHS FROM THE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE I.T ACT. AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REMAINS THE SAME AS WERE THERE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 183/ASR/2017, THEREFORE, OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 18. THAT BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2012-13 AND A.Y 2013-14 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.01.2019 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: JALANDHAR; DATE: 15 .01.2019 PS. ROHIT PAGE | 14 ITA NO.183 & 526/ASR./2017 A.YS. 2012-12 & 2013-14 CABBANA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , / DR, ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR. 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) /ITAT,CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR. SR.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 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 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.1.19 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER
Mehul