ACIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 2619/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87179 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Valuation report
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT/ DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2620/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ACIT, CC-2, VS. SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI 240, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE III, NEW DELHI. GIR / PAN:AACPA4448E I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) ACIT, CC-2, VS. SUNITA AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI 240, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE III, NEW DELHI. GIR/PAN:AAAPA4413D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ADESH KUMAR JAIN,CA SHRI AKSHAT JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BRR KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FIELD BY REVENUE AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) BOT H DATED 27.03.2012. IN I.T.A. NO. 2619/DEL/2012, THE A.O. HAD MADE ADDITIO N ON PROTECTIVE BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY U/S 69 OF THE A CT WHEREAS THE SAME ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHAILENDER AGGARWAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2620/DEL/2012. BESIDES THE ABOVE SUBSTANTIVE ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 2 ADDITION, FURTHER ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR RS.20 LACS BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON MARRIAGE OF HIS SON. BO TH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE, COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 2. LD. D.R. WHILE ARGUING APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2620 /DEL/2012, TOOK US TO ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE, HUGE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND WAS FOUND FORM THE HOUSE AND LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAD DETERMIN ED THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY AT RS.1,00,23,165/- AND AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.58 LACS DECLARED DURING THE YEAR THE ADDITION WA S MADE FOR REMAINING UNEXPLAINED VALUE OF RS.42,23,165 AND THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 2.1 REGARDING 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL, LD .D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDI TION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SHARAD C HAUDHARY, A RELATIVE OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN HE HAD STATED THAT ON THE OCCASIO N OF MARRIAGE OF SHRI GAURAV AGGARWAL SON OF SHRI SHAILENDER KR. AGGARWAL , HE ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAD RECEIVED GIFTS WORTH RS.20,000/- TO RS.30,000/- EACH AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE A DDITION OF RS.20 LACS WHICH WAS MADE TO MEET OUT THE EXPENSES ON GIFTS AND RELA TED EXPENSES, ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE. 3. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF JEWELLELRY AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN AND AS FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION AND THEREFORE, THE RE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS ARBITRARILY TAK EN VALUE OF RS.18,000/- PER CT. AND THAT IS WHY HE HAS ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY WHICH WAS BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES ONLY. LD. A.R. TOOK US TO ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 3 THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS RIGHTLY DE LETED THE ADDITION. 3.1 IN RESPECT OF 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SHARAD CHAUDARY AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAD CL AIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFTS ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY CREDIT IN RESPECT OF CASH RECEIPTS AS GIFTS TO EXPLAIN CASH FOUND FORM THEIR RESIDENCE AND LOCKERS OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY EVID ENCE. LD. A.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUB MITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS UNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE ISSUE IN ITS RIGHT PERSPEC TIVE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TION WAS CARRIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H AND SEIZURE OPERATION, JEWELLERY, AND DIAMONDS INCLUDING CASH WAS FOUND FR OM THE RESIDENCE AND LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION HO LDING THAT THE JEWELLERY ETC. FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE HOUSE/LOCKERS OF ASS ESSEE WERE NOT SOLITAIRE BUT STUDDED PENDANTS, MANGALSUTRA ETC. AND HE HAD T AKEN A HIGHER RATE PER CT FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMONDS AND COMPARED WITH THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AS DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RE TURN OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE AFTER GIVING CREDIT OFRS.58 LACS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. WE FIN D THAT RATES TAKEN BY A.O. WAS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND LD. CI T(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4. FINDING ON GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 4 UPON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IT IS EV IDENT THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN CREDIT TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE JEWELRY AND DIAMOND ITEMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BASED ON THE TOT AL WEIGHT OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND ITEMS DECLARED IN THE WE ALTH TAX AND VALUATION REPORTS AS WELL AS THE ITEMS WHICH HAVE B EEN PURCHASED DURING FY 2008-09 OUT OF THE DECLARED SOURCE OR INC OME BY THESE TWO ASSESSEE'S. THUS IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT NO ITE M WISE TALLYING OF THE DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THIS LEAVES THE ISSUE TO BE EXAMINED ON TWO PLANES. FIRSTLY, THE FA CT THAT THE TOTAL VALUATION OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND ITEMS A S PER THE VARIOUS ANNEXURES PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BAS ED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER, IS F OR RS. 2,86,28,988/- WHICH INCLUDES JEWELLERY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 28,72, 547/- (493.5 GRAMS) WHICH BELONGS TO SRNT. NISHA AGGARWAL ,THE DAUGHTER -IN -LAW OF THE APPELLANT. ON THIS ISSUE THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THIS JEWELLERY IS EXPLAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. NISHA AGGARWAL ,BEING MARRIED LADY, AS PER INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994 ISSUED BY CBDT. THE APPELLANT ARGUES THAT AS AGAINST THIS THE TOTAL DECLARATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUNITA AGGARWAL IS RESPECTIVELY FOR RS. 25,83,849/- AND RS. 1,88,73,6421- IN THEIR WEAL TH TAX RETURNS FOR A Y 2008-09. FURTHER TO THIS THE APPELL ANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUNITA AGGARWAL HAVE PURCHASED JEWELLERY AMOUN TING TO RS. 41,56,4701- AND RS. 16,55,996/- RESPECTIVELY DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.08 TO 14.01.09 AND THAT APART FROM THIS THE A PPELLANT HAS ALSO DECLARED ADDITIONAL. INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY FOR RS . 58 LACS IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR A Y 2009-10, WHICH WAS ACQUIR ED OUT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.80 CRORES DECLARED IN RE TURN OF INCOME FOR A Y 2009- 10. IN NUT- SHELL THE SUBMISSION OF THE A PPELLANT VEERS AROUND THE PROPOSITION THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWE LLERY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUNITA AGGARWAL THU S COMES TO RS. 3,30,69,957/- WHILE TOTAL JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 2 ,86,28,988/- ONLY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED JEWELLERY OF THE VALUE WHICH IS MORE THAN THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO CASE FOR FURTHER ADDITION TO INCOME IN HIS CASE ON THIS ACCO UNT. THUS, IF ONE WERE TO GO ONLY BY THE TOTAL VALUATION ASPECT OF TH E JEWELLERY INCLUDING DIAMOND ITEMS FOUND FROM THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF TH E APPELLANT WHEN COMPARED TO THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY AS DECLARE D IN THE WEALTH TAX ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 5 RETURNS FOR A Y 2009-10 OF THE TWO ASSESSEE TAKEN T OGETHER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE ACCEPTABL E FOR THE REASON THAT EVEN WHILE INCLUDING THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY BE LONGING TO SMT. NISHA AGGARWAL (VALUED AT RS. 28,72,547/-) THE TOTA L JEWELLERY FOUND IS ONLY FOR RS. 2,86,28,988/- WHILE THE TOTAL VALUE OF GOLD JEWELRY INCLUDING DIAMOND ITEMS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE COMES TO RS. 3,30,69,957/- (INCLUSIVE OF THE ADDITIONAL I NVESTMENT OF RS. 58 LACS MADE OUT OF THE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 1.80 CR ORES) WHICH IS AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY FOUND AND THEREFORE NO FURTHER ADDITION TO INCOME CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF COMPARISON BETWEEN THE VALUATION ASPECT OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMO ND ITEMS. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE ISSUE CAN BE VIEWED FROM THE OTH ER PERSPECTIVE OF THE COMPARISON OF TOTAL WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY AND DIA MOND ITEMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND ITEMS AS DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUNITA AGGARWAL FOR A Y 2003-04 O NWARDS AND INCLUDING THEREIN THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLER Y AND DIAMOND ITEMS PURCHASED BY THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THEIR ACCOU NTED SOURCES OF INCOME AND DECLARED IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR R ESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. APPARENTLY, THIS EXERCISE HAS ALS O BEEN CARRIED OUT BOTH BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBM ISSIONS MADE. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED BY ME VIS-A-VIS TH E COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND VALUATION REPORTS DATED 3L.3 .2003 AS WELL AS COPIES OF BILLS FOR PURCHASES MADE THEREAFTER BY THE APPEL LANT AND HIS WIFE AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY WORKED OU T THE DIFFERENCE THAT IS EXCESS OF 73 3 .116 GRAM OF GOLD AND 116.40 CARAT OF DIAMOND. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THIS DIFFERENCE IN THIS SUBMISSION BUT HAS HOWEVER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS DIFFERENCE I N JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND IS EXPLAINED BY THE FACT OF INVESTMENT OF R S. 58 LACS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR A.Y . 2009-10, WHICH IN TURN IS INVESTED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1.80 CRORES DECLARED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE ISSUE WHICH R EMAINS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING AVERAGE RATE PER CARAT OF DIAMOND AND THEN EXTRAPOLATING THE SAME FO R VALUING THE EXCESS CARATS OF DIAMOND ITEMS FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE SAME IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ENTIRE VALUATION HAS APPARENTLY BEEN CA RRIED OUT BY DEPARTMENTALLY APPROVED VALUERS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD WHEREAS THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE A.O. IS BASED ON A MATHEMATICAL ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 6 EXERCISE WHICH MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN VALUATION OF DIAMONDS WHICH IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF TH ESE FACTS TOO THE ADDITION TO INCOME MADE FOR RS. 42,23,165/- MADE BY THE A.O., AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN UNEXPLAINE D JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND ITEMS FROM THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED F OR RS. 1.80 CRORES, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND T HAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER CAREFULLY EXAMINING THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS FINDINGS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY HO LDING AS UNDER: 8. FINDING ON GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT A ND THE FINDING OF THE A.O. ON THE ABOVE ADDITION TO INCOME IN ASSESSM ENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS . 20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RETURN GIFT ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE SON'S OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SH ARAD CHAUDHARY RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPER ATION. THERE IS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE ALLEGED GIFT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF SH RI SHARAD CHAUDHARY, HE HAS STATED THAT HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN CLUDING HIS FATHER AND MOTHER HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS. 20,000/- TO RS .30,000/- . HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY CREDIT IN RESPEC T OF CASH RECEIVED A GIFT WHILE EXPLAINING THE CASH FOUND FROM THEIR R ESIDENCE AND LOCKERS EITHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT IN RESPECT OF CA H GIFT RECEIVED BY SHRI SHARAD CHAUDHARY AND HIS MOTH ER AND FATHER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENTS IN THEIR CASES. THUS THE AO HAS PARTIALLY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHARAD CHAUDHARY WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO REVENUE AND AT THE SAME TIME THE SAID STATEMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 7 WHEN THE SAME IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE. I ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS MADE GIFT OF RS 20,000/- TO 30,000/- TO SHRI SHARAD CHAUDHARY AN D HIS FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING HIS PARENTS IS CONSIDERED AS TRUE , THE SAID GIFT OF RS.20,000/- TO 30,000/- COULD AS WELL HAVE BEEN MAD E OUT FROM THE AMOUNT OF RS 39, 82,362/- WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLAN T FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SON. IN FACT THE AO HAS HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAID FACT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HOLDING THAT THE AP PELLANT HAS WITHDRAWN RS 39,82,362/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAG E OF HIS SON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ESTIMATED ADDITION FOR RS 20,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON RETURN GIFTS AND RELATED EXPENSES ON MA RRIAGE OF SON OF THE APPELLANT MADE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATION APART FROM THE UN- CONFRONTED STATEMENT OF SH. SHARAD CHAUDHARY, IS BA D IN LAW AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 8. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AN D HAS PASSED A SPEAKING AND WELL REASONED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) H AS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT A.O. HIMSELF HAD HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD W ITHDRAWN RS/.39,82,362/- FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SON AND FURTHER THE STATEME NT OF SH. SHARAD CHAUDARY WAS WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 2620/DEL/2012 IS DISMISSED. 9. IN I.T.A. NO. 2619/DEL/2012, THE ADDITION WAS MA DE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS ONLY ;AND SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS ADDITION IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PROTECTI VE ASSESSMENT MADE BY A.O. DOES NOT SURVIVE AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FI LED BY REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 2619/DEL/2012 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.2620/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 2619/DEL/2012 8 10. IN NUTSHELL, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 31.03.2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26,30, SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 31/3 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31/3 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 31/3 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER