The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. Omkar Overseas Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2252/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 225220514 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K S PANDYA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 355/AHD/2005 & 2252/AHD/2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2002-03 ASST. C.I.T., CIRCLE 5, AHMEDABAD V/S . OMKAR OVERSEAS LTD., 212, NEW CLOTH MARKET, OPP. RAIPUR GATE, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AAACO1827C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI B.K.S. PANDYA, CIT. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI GAURAV NAHTA, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 22.10.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.12.2012 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA N OS. 355/AHD/05 & 2520/AHD/05, WHICH HAVE EMANATED FROM THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 19.11.2004 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & 10.0 8.2005 FOR A.Y. 2002- 03 RESPECTIVELY. THESE TWO APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF BOTH APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF ITA NO.355/AHD/2005 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.19,63,435/-. ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 2 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT DESPITE OF DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE SAME. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDEN CE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RUL ES, 1962. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE INTEREST, DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AMOUNTING TO R S. 47,20,980/-. GROUNDS OF ITA NO.2252/AHD/2005 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING , THE ADDITION OF RS.25,33,505/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOT CHARGING INTERE ST ON LOANS ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,8 5,15,000/-. 2. THE CO-ORDINATE B BENCH, AHMADABAD, VIDE ITA N OS. 355/AHD/2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & ITA NO. 2252/AHD/2005 FOR A.Y. 2 002-03, ORDER DATED 04.02.2009, HAD DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE AS TAX EFFECT WAS LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS AS PER CBDT CIRCULA R (CIR.NO.2 OF 2005), F.NO.279/MISC.-64/05-ITJ DATED 24-10-2005, WHICH W AS APPLIED BY THE BENCH AND ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS OTHER JUDGMENTS AS ITA T RAJKOT BENCH IN CASE OF ACIT V/Z. RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD. [2006] 100 ITD 555 [ RAJ.] IN IT APPEAL NO. 1290 (RJT.) OF 2005. & IN CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. BHAGWAN CLOTH STORES [2002] (170 TAXATION 503) [M.P.] & ITAT KOLKATA SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF JCIT VS. PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LTD. [2006] (103 ITD 349) [KOL. ] (SB) AND HELD THAT WHERE ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 3 TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LACS, APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN CASE OF LOSS ALSO. THE REVENUE PR EFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN COMBINED ORDER IN TAX APPEAL NOS. 1601, 1603, 1604 & 1592 OF 2009, HAS SET ASIDE THE ITAT DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE CBDT INSTRUCTIO N NO.5 OF 2008, DATED MAY 15, 2008 AND OBSERVED THAT NOTIONAL TAX WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOVE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME FOR PRESE NTATION OF SUCH APPEAL. IN ALL THESE CASES, IT IS STATED THAT THE NOTIONAL TAX EFFECT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD IN DIFFERENT CIRC ULARS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DISMISSING THE R EVENUES APPEAL AS BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE MAY RECORD THAT NONE OF THE A PPEAL CAME TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON MERIT. IN RESULT, ALL TAX APPEA LS ARE ALLOWED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER CHALLENGED IN RESPECT TO APPE ALS, ARE SET ASIDE. ALL PROCEEDINGS ARE REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR ENTERT AINING THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ARISING IN SUCH APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ISSUING NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FIRST THREE GROUNDS IN A.Y. 01-02, ARE INTER LINKED WITH DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.19,63,435. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF T HE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 01-02 ON 31 .10.2001 SHOWING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.5,24,29,120/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1), ACCEPTING THE RETURNED LOSS. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 21.10.2002. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENG AGED IN EXPORT OF TEXTILE GOODS I.E. MADE UPS AND FABRICS. EXPORT OF BED LINEN WERE MOSTLY TO ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 4 THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES I.E. TO GERMANY, FRANCE, ITA LY, NORWAY, IRELAND, FINLAND, SWEDEN, DENMARK AND TO ISRAEL ETC. EXPORT S OF FABRICS WERE MADE TO HONGKONG AND U.A.E. ETC. THE COMPANY HAD ITS STITC HING AND PACKING UNIT SITUATED AT GOPI COMPOUND, VATVA ROAD, NAROL, AHMAD ABAD. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE EXPENS ES RELATING TO REBATE AND DISCOUNT. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BRO UGHT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,40,34,332/- TO P&L ACCOUNT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERIFIED BY HIM AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,63,435/- ON THE LAST DATE OF THE ACCOUNTING Y EAR THAT IS 31.3.2001 AS PROVISION FOR EXPENSES RELATING TO 2000-01, HOWEVER , NO DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDI TION OF RS.19,63,435/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON BY ACCEPTING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS SUBMITTED THAT REBATE AND DISCOUNT OF RS.19,63,435/- WERE ACTUALLY INCURR ED AND IT WAS NOT A PROVISION. HE ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPELLANT FOLLOWED THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM ON ACCOUNT . ACCORDINGLY, HE DEBITED THE EXPENSES IN P&L ACCOUNT. 5. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. D.R. VEHEMENT LY ARGUED THAT NO DETAILS WERE GIVEN TO THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT. LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE DETAILS WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT ACT. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MA Y PLEASE BE SET ASIDE. AT HE ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 5 OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THA T IT WAS THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN IN THE BOOKS AS PROVISION BUT THIS WAS AN EXP ENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT FOR WHICH DETAILS HAVE BEEN FUR NISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER ARGUED THE CIT(A) HAS CO-TERMINUS POWER WITH A.O. HE, HIMSELF CAN DECIDE THE ISSUE U/S.250 (4) OF THE IT ACT. T HEREFORE, NO NECESSITY TO SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE A.O. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NOS. 5 & 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ARGUED THAT THE EXPENDITU RE SHOWN UNDER THIS HEAD ARE RELATED TO SALARY AND WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES, T ELEPHONE EXPENSES, POSTAGE AND TELEGRAM EXPENSES, AUDITORS REMUNERATI ON AND OTHER CARTAGE, PACKING CHARGES, CONVEYANCE ETC. WHICH WERE ACTUALL Y INCURRED AND CLAIMED IN P&L ACCOUNT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED IN PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE CIT(A), REVEAL THAT THE NATURE OF EXPENSES IS DAY-TO-DAY EX PENSES AS MENTIONED IN PAGE NOS. 5 & 6 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIM ED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF EXPENSES REALLY INCURRED. THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE EXPENSES. THUS, CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. T HEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE INTEREST OF RS. 47,20,98 0/- IN A.Y. 01-02. THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE SCHED ULE K OF THE MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENSES, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.1,12,16,435/- AS INTEREST PAYABLE ON OLD DRAFT AS WORKING CAPITAL BORROWED FROM THE BANK AS ON 31.03.2001. THE TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 6 BORROWING FROM THE BANK STOOD AT RS.8,29,36,741/-. FROM THE SCHEDULE E OF THE CURRENT ASSETS AT B LOAN AND ADVANCES, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE TOTAL LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE RS.6,43,69,8 22/-. OUT OF THEM, LOAN AND ADVANCES OF RS.3,49,09,680/-, NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. 8. IN A.Y. 02-03, THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,33,505/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOT CHARGING INTEREST ON LOANS ADVANCES TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES. THE APPELLA NT HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 91,89,858/- WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN PA YABLE AS ON 31.03.2012. THE APPELLANT BORROWED THE FUND FROM T HE BANK AT RS.6,71,60,481/- AND ADVANCES TOTAL LOAN AT RS.2,24 ,48,020/- OUT OF WHICH RS.1,85,15,000/- WERE INTEREST FREE LOANS. THE A.O . GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REPLIES BEFORE THE A.O., BUT HIS REPLIES WERE NOT FOUND CONVINCING TO HIM. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 47,20,980/ - FOR A.Y. 01-02 & RS.25,33,505/- UNDER THIS HEAD. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDIT ION IN A.Y. 01-02, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. I HAVE ALSO G ONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT CORRELATING THE INTERES T FREE LOANS TO THE BORROWED FUNDS NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. IF THE LOANS ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 7 WERE GIVEN OUT OF THE COMPANYS OWN FUNDS IN EARLIE R YEARS, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN LOANS IN THE EARL IER YEARS OUT OF ITS OWNED FUND AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT EXCEPT IN A.Y. 98-99. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SIMILAR IS SUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1998-99 WHEREI N THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- XI/CIR.7(5)/460/2000-01 DATED 17.02.2003 DECIDED TH E APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 98-99. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THERE IS N O JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.47,20,980/- IS, THEREFORE, DEL ETED. SIMILAR FINDINGS FOR A.Y. 02-03 WERE GIVEN BY THE C IT(A), WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3. I HAVE EXAMINED / VERIFIED THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE APPELLANT RAISED THROUGH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BORROWED FROM THE BANK AND PAID INTEREST. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ADVANCED CERTAIN LOANS AND ON WHICH NO INTERESTS HAVE BEEN CHARGED. IT IS FURTHE R SEEN THAT THE LOANS/ADVANCES ARE NOT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO SE EN THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN AMOUNTS BORROWED AND AMOUNT ADVANCED. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT BEIN G A BUSINESS MAN WOULD HAVE VARIOUS BUSINESS CONSIDERATION IN AD VANCING THE MONEY TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH SOME TIMES GIVE IMMEDIATE BENEFITS AND SOME TIMES DELAYED BENEFITS. THEREFOR E, THE BUSINESS EXPENSES EXPEDIENCY OF THE APPELLANT CANNO T BE DIRECTED BY THE OTHERS. FURTHER THE BUSINESS MAN C ANNOT BE TOLD ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 8 HOW THE BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED. THEREFORE, TH E OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IF THE APPELLANT HAD CHARGED INTEREST ON AMOUNTS ADVANCED, THE LOSS OF THE APPELLANT WOUL D HAVE BEEN REDUCED, CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE HAVING CON SIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALL OWANCE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 10. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. CIT DR VEHEM ENTLY ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ON WHICH NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED. THE RATE OF INTEREST WAS ALSO APPLIED FOR DISALLOWANCE BY THE A.O. REASONABLE. AS PER WORKING OF THE A.O., THERE IS N O INTEREST FREE FUND WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT AND PREVALENT LEGA L DECISION OF THIS ISSUE. THESE LOANS AND ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY THE APPELLAN T IN EARLIER YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SURPLUS FUND. THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT BORROWED ANY AMOUNT TO GIVE INTEREST FREE LOAN. THE APPELLANT H AD INTEREST FREE OWN FUND ABOUT RS.8.85 CRORE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE A.O. THUS, HE CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN FR OM INTEREST BEARING FUND. LOAN ADVANCES IN THE NAME OF OMKAR EXPORTS WAS GIVE N FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS, PAR TICULARLY, IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., 313 ITR 440 , IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT WHEN INTEREST FREE LOAN ADVA NCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND ASSESSEE ALSO HAS INTEREST FREE FUND, IT IS PRESUMED THAT INTEREST FREE LOAN AND ADVANCES ARE GIVEN FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUND. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 9 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, PERUSE D THE ORDERS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAW CI TED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE A.O. HAS NOT ESTABLISHED NEXUS BE TWEEN INTEREST BEARING LOAN TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. HE SIMPLY PRESUMED THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN FROM THE INTEREST BE ARING FUND. THE APPELLANT HAD CAPITAL AND RESERVE AT RS.8.85 CRORE. HOWEVER, AS PER A.OS. FINDING, THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE RS.3.49 CRORE. BY FOLL OWING THE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & PO WER LTD. (SUPRA), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THESE GROUNDS. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR BOTH A SSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.12.2012 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ; ITA NOS. 355/AHD/05 & 2252/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 & 02-03 PAGE 10 STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 14 & 18.12.2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 18.12.2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION ,, ,, 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 21.12.2012 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON ,, ,, 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 21.12.2012