Sh. Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 268/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6447 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJANA SENIOR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: '[SMC-1]':] NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.268/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 RAJESHKUMAR, F 90 A/S-1 DILSHAD COLONY, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RANGE-34, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SANJEEV SAPRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. P DAM KANUNJANA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING 22/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 31 ST OF OCTOBER 2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX VII, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT 2009-10 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE PENALTY OF RS. 8, 71, 200/-AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, I S ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND ILLEGAL ON VARIOUS FACTS AND LEGAL GROUN DS. 2.THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS IN TERMS HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND CONSEQUEN TLY, THE PENALTIES IMPOSED WAS WHOLLY ILLEGAL. 3.THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF TH E LD. CIT (A) TO CONFIRM IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 8, 71,200/-UND ER SECTION OF 271D OF I. T. ACT. ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 2 VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS ARE EITHER INCORRECT OR ARE LEGAL LY UNTENABLE. FACTS STATED AND SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE APPELLA NT HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AM END/MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2, 61, 518/-. IN THE SCRUTI NY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAK EN LOANS IN CASH FROM FIVE PERSONS AS FOLLOWS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT): SERIAL NUMBER AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH 1. SH. BANWER SINGH RS. 2,00,000/- 2. SH. GOPAL RS.1, 06, 200/- 3. MRS ANJANA SINHA RS.1, 75, 000/- 4. M/S POOJA BUILDERS RS.2, 60, 000/- 5. THE COMMITTEE RS.3, 40, 000/- TOTAL RS.10, 81, 200/- 2.2 DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE JOINT CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT HE WAS UNAWA RE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND LOANS IN CASH WERE TAKEN FROM CLOSE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EXISTING TAXPAYER FROM LAST MANY YEARS AND N O EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT CASH LOANS RECEIVED WERE FROM CLOSE RELATIVES, THUS, HE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10, 81, 200/-UNDER SECTION THAT 271D OF THE ACT ON 25 -6-2012. 2.3 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS PLEADINGS MADE BEFORE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOANS IN CASH WERE TAKEN DUE TO BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF PURCHASING A PROPERTY ON 29- 9-2008 AND PAYMENT ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 3 OF STAMP DUTY OF RUPEES 2, 10, 000/-AND CASH PAYMEN T TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL S ACCEPTED IN PART THE CONTENTION OF HAVING A REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER S ECTION 273B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 2, 10, 000 FROM THE COMM ITTEE AND PAID TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND DELETED THE PENALTY OF RS. 2, 10, 00 0/-. BUT HE CONFIRMED THE BALANCE PENALTY OF RS. 8,71,200/-. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF SUSTAINING OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF RS. 8,71,200 BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). 4.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMIT TED AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE CASH LOANS IN REFERENCE WERE RECEIVED FRO M THE FIVE PERSONS ON VARIOUS DATES, DETAILS OF WHICH WERE PLA CED ON PAGES 5 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (II) THAT THE LOANS IN CASH WERE RECEIVED FROM RELATIVE S AND FRIENDS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT PROHIBITING ACCEPTANCE OF LOANS EX CEEDING RS. 20,000 IN CASH. (III) THAT THE LOANS IN CASH WERE TAKEN FOR PAYMENTS OF LAND PURCHASED AT GHAZIABAD ON 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 AND PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY, A COPY OF LEASE DEED IN SUPPORT THER EOF WAS FILED AT PAGES 27 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (IV) THAT FOR PURCHASE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY, A LO AN OF RS. 20 LAKH WAS OBTAINED FROM STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND PAYMENT OF RS. 10 LACS WAS MADE IN CASH TO THE SELLER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE LEASE DEED. (V) AS ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE SELLER OF THE P ROPERTY THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT BANK BALANCE, WHICH IS EVIDENCED F ROM THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS FILED FROM PAGES 125 TO 130 OF THE PAPER. (VI) ALL THE CASH LOANS TAKEN WERE BONA FIDE AND GENUIN E LOANS TRANSACTION AND THE SAME WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 4 AND THERE WERE NO CHARGES OF INTRODUCING OWN MONEY THROUGH THE CREDITORS AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 69SS OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE INVOKED. (VII) THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE 1 ST TIME ENTERED INTO THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WORK AND DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCIES FUNDS WERE TAPPED FROM RELATIVE S AND FRIENDS AND ALSO JOINED A PRIVATE COMMITTEE FORAGING FUNDS. 4.2 FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. A /R ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE COURTS: (I) CIT V/S SAINI MEDICAL STORE (P& H HIGH COURT) 2 77 ITR 420 (II) CIT V/S LUXMI TRUST COMPANY (MADRAS HIGH COURT ) 303 ITR 99 4.3 FURTHER THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GRADUATE IN BACHELOR OF ARTS AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE TECHNICALIT IES OF INCOME TAX LAW AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TAX AUDIT, HE ENGAGED SERVICES OF PART TIME ACCOUNTANT FOR MAINTAINING HI S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FOR FILING OF RETURNS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T LOANS WERE ACCEPTED IN CASH DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AND WIT HOUT KNOWING THE STRINGENT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH LOANS IN CASH. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF C ONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD V/S SMT.NIRMAL DEVI (SC) 118 ITR 5 07 AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS LISTED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 4.4 ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LOAN O F RS. 1,75,000 RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES WIFE MRS ANJANA SINHA WAS NOT LIABL E FOR PENALTY IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) CIT VERSUS NATWARLAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH ( GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT) 303 ITR 5 (II) CIT VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR GOEL ( P & H HIGH COURT ) 315 ITR 163 (III) CIT VERSUS SMT. M YESODHA ( MADRAS HIGH COURT ) 351 ITR 265 (IV) ASHWINI KUMAR VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITAT DELHI) 309 ITR (AT) 69 ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 5 4.5 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BALANCE LOAN OF RS. 1,30,000 RECEIVED FROM A PRIVATE COMMITTEE CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AS IT WAS A ACCEPTED BUSINESS PRACTICE THAT PRIVATE COMMITTEES FORMED BY LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO CONTRIB UTES A PREDETERMINED SUM TO THE COMMITTEE EVERY MONTH AND THROUGH A DRAW OF CHITS, A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ALL THE CONTRIBUTED FUND FROM ITS MEMBERS FOR SUCH MONTH AND THESE TRANSACTI ONS ARE ALWAYS IN CASH, HENCE THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR REC EIVING BE 3,40,000 IN CASH FROM THE PRIVATE COMMITTEE, OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,10,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CI T (APPEAL) ON THE REASON OF BUSINESS EXIGENCIES FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. 4.6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THA T THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LEADED CIT(APPEAL) MIGHT BE UPHELD AS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PERSONS AS RELAT IVES AND FRIENDS EXCEPT ONE CASE OF SMT. ANJANA SINHA, WERE FILED. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ALREADY CONS IDERED THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY PAYMENT OF RS. 2,10,000 TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AS REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS ALREADY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 2,10,000 OUT OF T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX. 5.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE FACT THA T LOANS ARE RECEIVED IN CASH, WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS AND LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 270 1D OF THE ACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY IS SUBJECT TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRO VE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE OF COMPLYIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY MAY NOT BE L EVIED. THUS WE HAVE TO EXAMINE, WHETHER THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR C ONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE ACT EXIST IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT TH E LD AR PLEADED THREE MAIN REASONS FOR EXISTENCE OF A REASONABLE CA USE AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE LOANS IN REFERENCE WERE RECEIVED DUE T O BUSINESS EXIGENCIES OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS. 30 LACS, WHE RE RS. 10 ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 6 LACS WERE PAID IN CASH AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 2,10,0 00/- WAS PAID IN CASH TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. THE LD CIT( A) ALREADY DELETED PENALTY OF RS. 2,10,000/- FOR PAYMENT OF ST AMP DUTY HOLDING AS ONE OF THE REASONABLE CAUSE. (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TAX EXPERT AND COULD NOT GET ADVICE FROM HIS ACCOUNTANTS (III) THE LOAN IN REFERENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM RELAT IVE AND FRIENDS AND A PRIVATE CHIT FUND COMMITTEE, WHERE ENTIRE TRA NSACTIONS WERE DONE IN CASH. 5.2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SAINI MEDICAL STORE ( SUP RA), THE HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT BONAFIDE BELIEF COUPLED WI TH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD CONSTITUTE A R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS LUXMI TRUST COMPANY (SUPRA), THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THERE WAS GENUINE AND BONAFI DE TRANSACTIONS AND THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT GET A LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DEMAND DRAFT FOR SOME BONAFIDE REASONS, THE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCR ETION NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. ONCE WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIN D THAT ALL THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOANS WERE HAVIN G BANK ACCOUNTS AND ON PREVIOUS OCCASION LOANS HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SAME PERSONS, W HICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAGES 9 TO 18 OF THE ASSESSEES PA PER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN TAKING LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, BECAUSE , THE LOANS WERE TAKEN MUCH BEFORE ACTUAL PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY AND WITHIN THAT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE GOT THE PAYMENT TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS ALSO, THUS THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE BONAFIDE REASON FOR ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN SUPPORT OF HIS C LAIM OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 269SS OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 7 5.3 IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO LT D VERSUS SMT. NIRMALA DEVI (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN BY THE ME MBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION MAY SOMETIMES BE WRONG EVEN AS PRONOUNCEMENT ON QUESTIONS OF LAW BY COURTS ARE SOM ETIMES WRONG. AN AMOUNT OF LATITUDE IS EXPECTED IN SUCH CA SES FOR, TO ERR IS HUMAN AND LAYMEN, AS LITIGANTS ARE, MAY LEGI TIMATELY LEAN ON EXPERT COUNSEL IN LEGAL AS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS, WITHOUT PROBING THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OF THE ADVICE. THE COURT MUST, OF COURSE, SEE WHETHER, IN SUCH CASES THERE I S ANY TAINT OF MALA FIDES OR ELEMENT OF RECKLESSNESS OR RUSE. IF N EITHER IS PRESENT, LEGAL ADVICE HONESTLY SOUGHT AND ACTUALLY GIVEN, MUST BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHEN AN APPLICATION UNDER S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT IS BEING CONSIDERED. THE STATE H AS NOT ACTED IMPROPERLY IN RELYING ON ITS LEGAL ADVISERS.' 5.4 AS WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND E XAMINE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE CITED JUDGEMENT AND OTHER JU DGEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING ITS RETURNS OF INCOME-TAX AND PAYING TAXES FOR LAST MANY YEARS, TH US, HE CANT BE SAID TO BE IGNORANT WITH INCOME-TAX AND FURTHER, IT IS SETTLED THAT THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AS ONE OF THE EXCUSE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENC ES THAT HE OBTAINED ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE WRO NG OR MISLEADING AND THUS THE EXCUSE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS IS NOT TENABLE IN THE E YE OF THE LAW. 5.5 AS REGARDS TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT LOANS FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS SHOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY FOR DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURTS AND DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY HIM, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT LOANS FROM SMT ANJANA SINHA, OTHER LOANS ARE NOT FROM RELATI VES AND FRIENDS AND NO EVIDENCES IN THIS RESPECT WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S NATWARLAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) (SUPRA) AND OTHER CASES IT IS HELD THAT ACCE PTING LOANS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 269SS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS IN NEED OF ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 8 HOURS CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE, ACCORDINGLY, F OLLOWING THE JUDGEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LD AR ON THE ISSUE, WE D ELETE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT CORRESPONDING TO THE LOAN OF RS. 1,75,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SMT. ANJANA SINHA, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.6 WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR T HAT THE THAT THE PENALTY CORRESPONDING TO THE LOAN OF RS. 3, 40,000 RECEIVE D FROM THE COMMITTEE MAY BE DELETED AS ALL THE TRANSACTION OF THE COMMITTEE WERE IN CASH, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FI LE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ITS JUSTIFICATION FOR RECEIV ING LOAN IN CASH FROM THE COMMITTEE, THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT A REASONABLE CAUSE EXIST IN RECEIVING LOAN OF RS. 3, 40,000 FROM THE COMMITTEE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT OUT OF THE SAID LOAN OF RS. 3, 40,000, THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE P ENALTY OF RS. 2,10,000/-. 5.7 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016. BINITA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA NO. 268/DEL/2014 SH RAJESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI 9 SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION (HAND WRITTEN ) 01.03.2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 02.03.2016 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 4. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 5. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 6. FINAL ORDER RECEIVED AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER