M/s. M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Noida V. Addl. CIT(TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 3001/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2761 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD KAPOOR
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 M & B FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. D-32, SECTOR-59 NOIDA VS. ACIT (TDS) GHAZIABAD (PAN: AAACM6383R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. PRAMOD KAPOOR, CA REVENUE BY SH. S.R.SENAPATI , SR. DR ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, NOIDA DATED 31.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF PENALTY HAS FAILED TO COMPRE HEND AND APPRECIATE THAT ON THE DATE OF THE PASSING OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)THERE WAS NO DEFAULT OF SHORT DEDUCTION. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID SO AS TO END DISPUTE WITH DATE OF HEARING 14 .0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 .0 3 .2018 ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 2 REVENUE AND THERE WAS NO CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271C. 4. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C PASSED BY THE A DDL. CIT(TDS) IS BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, WHIMS AND FANCIES, CONJE CTURES, SURMISES, PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND INCORRECT APPLICATION OF L AW AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ADDL. CIT(TDS) AND UPHELD BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE HELD TO BE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY SO LE VIED BE KINDLY DELETED AND APPAL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BE KINDLY ALLOWED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SURVEY U/S 133(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT.) W AS CONDUCTED ON 10.11.2009 TO CHECK THE CORRECT APPLICABILITY OF TDS PROVISIONS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IT WAS O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR TDS ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO PROVOGUE IND IA LIMITED 105-106, DRAM SQUARE OFF LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY . THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER :- F.Y. 2007-08 S. NO. DATE OF CREDIT BILL AMOUNT INCLUDING SERVICE TAX AMOUNT OF ROYALTY STATUS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 1. 2.8.2007 2,58,654/- 2,30,941/- NIL 2. 15.11.2007 5,99,356/- 5,35,140/- NIL 3. 15.3.2008 14,98,988/- 13,38,382/- NIL 4. 31.3.2008 10,84,045/- 9,67,897/- NIL TOTAL RS. 34,41,043/- RS. 30,72,360/- NIL F.Y. 2008-2009 S.NO, DATE OF CREDIT BILL AMOUNT INCLUDING AMOUNT OF ROYALTY. 1 22.9.2008 11,55,903/ - 10,30,973/ - NIL 2. 5.12.2008 29,54,981/ - 2,35,608/ - NIL 3. 13.2.2009 26,42,025/ - 23,56,476/ - NIL 4. 31.3.2009 25,65,011/ - 23,3,249/ - NIL TOTAL RS.93,17,920/ - RS.83,26,306/- NIL ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 3 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF ROYALTY A T THE RATE OF 2% ON SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH TDS WAS TO BE DEDUCTE D AS PER THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THEM. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SYNOPSIS IT WAS CONSIDERED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED ON 22 JANUARY, 2010. THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TDS AMOUNT ALONG WITH I NTEREST ON 7.1.2010 AND HE ALSO FILED TDS RETURN ON 30 . 01.2010 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 010270200303952 WITH NSDL. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U /S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) A ND IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS, NOIDA) AND THE LD. ACIT (TDS, GHAZIABAD) PASSED PENALTY ORDER ON 14.7.2011 AND IMPOSED PENAL TY OF RS. 1,46,028/-. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY HE APPEALED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEING AGGRIEVED BY TH E IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED A W RITTEN SYNOPSIS WHICH IS AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF FOOTWEAR. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 10.11.2009 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. TDS ON PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO M/S PROVOGUE (INDIA) LIMITED FOR USE OF BRAND NAME WAS NOT DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (T DS), NOIDA PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT ON 22 .01.2010 AND DETERMINED F.Y. 2009-2010 S.NO, DATE OF CREDIT AMOUNT OF TDS + INTEREST PAID ON 1 26.8.2009 14,60,281/ - 146028/ - + 5841 = 7.1.2010 2. 31.12.2009 11,40,119/ - 1,14,012/ - 7.1.2010 3. TOTAL RS.26,00,400/- RS.2,65,881/- ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 4 THE TDS LIABILITY OF RS.1,46,028/- PLUS INTEREST AM OUNTING TO RS.5,841/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL, 2009 TO 26.08.2009. THE ASSESSE COMPANY HAD DEPOSITED THE TDS ON 7.01.2 010 VIDE CHALLAN SERIAL NO.00290 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THE TOTAL TDS D EPOSITED VIDE THIS CHALLAN ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT TO PROVOGUE ( INDIA) LTD FORTHE PERIOD UPTO DECEMBER, 2009 WAS RS.3,23,115/- WHICH INCLUDE S THE PAYMENT OF TDS ABILITY UPTO THE PERIOD 26.08.2009 OF RS.1,51,869/- INCLUDING INTEREST OF RS.5,841/-.THE FACT OF DEPOSIT PS OF RS.1,51 869/- ON 7 Q1.2010 IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ORDER PASSED ON 22.01.2010 UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) NOIDA. ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSE COMPANY IN NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO PROVOGUE (IN DIA) LTD. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED BY DEPOSITING THE TDS ON 7.01.20 10 BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) WAS P ASSED BY THE ACIT (TDS) NOIDA ON 22.01.2010.THE ASSESSE HAD DEDUCTED AND PA ID THE TAXES IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSE COMPANY THAT NO PENALTY WAS ORDINARILY LEVIABLE UND ER SECTION 271C JUST BECAUSE IT WAS LAWFUL TO DO SO, UNLESS THE PARTY OB LIGED, EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT, CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DIS REGARD OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRE CT TAXES DECIDED IN THE PAST THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 221 AND 271C OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY NOT TO BE INITIATED IN THE CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER VOLUNTARILY CAME FORWARD AND PAID THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER SECTION 192 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A). IN OUR CASE AS ON THE DATE OF THE PASSING OF THE OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) THERE WAS NO DEFAULT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AT ALL AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271C ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE T DS RETURN IN FORM N0.26Q IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY PAYMENT TO PROVOGUE (I NDIA) LTD WAS ALSO FILED ON 13.01.2010 BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 22.01.2010. THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1C COULD BE LEVIED ONLY IF THERE WAS A FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AND SINCE IN OURCASE NO DEMAND WAS RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 271C WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS IN OUR CASE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE COMPANY VO LUNTARILY FILED THE RETURN AND DEPOSITED THE SHORT DEDUCTED TAX ON ITS OWN AND THEREFORE THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE WAS NOT TO VIOLATE THE LAW INTENTIONALL Y OR DELIBERATELY BUT ON THE CONTRARY LOOKING TO THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE BY THE A SSESSEE IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE BELIEF WHICH RESULTED INTO SH ORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND THE SAME COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE CAUSE AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS SMS INDIA L TD BY THE HONBLE ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 5 ITAT MUMBAI. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID SO AS TO END DISPUTE WITH REVENUE. THERE WAS NO CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO STUBBORNLY OR WILFUL DIS OBEDIENCE TO THE AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSE E WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME HE IMMEDIATELY ACTED AND R ECTIFIED THE SAME. THEREFORE WE SUBMIT THAT BONA FIDE BELIEF IN SORT DEDUCTION O F TAX COUPLED WITH VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE IN THE TERM OF DEPOSITING THE SAME IMMED IATELY ON COMING TO KNOW THE SAME WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT THE MOMENT A PER SON COMES TO KNOW THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE AND BEING A PERSON OF REASO NABLE INTELLIGENCE AND ORDINARY PRUDENCE IF HE TAKES THE CORRECTIVE MEASUR ES TO RECTIFY THE SAME IMMEDIATELY, THEN IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT HE ACTED DELIBERATELY WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO LAW. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF LEVYING OF PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF CIT-XVIII DELHI VS. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1704 OF 2008 DECIDED ON 7.01.2016 WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HE LD AS UNDER:- '11..WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH COLLECTION OF TAX UNDER SEC TION 201(1) OR COMPENSATORY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A). THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID SO AS TO END D ISPUTE WITH REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT APPEALS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH LEVY OF P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C FOR WHICH IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE W AS CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR F ACTS HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE DELETED LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1C IN THE CASE OF M/S ITOCHU CORPORATION, REPORTED IN 268 ITR 172(DEL) AN D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MITSUI & CO LTD REPORTED IN 272ITR 545. RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LTD, WE AL LOW THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AND CANCEL THE PENALTY AS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271C .' PRAYER WE VERY HUMBLY PRAY BEFORE YOUR HONOUR THAT SINCE W E DEPOSITED THE TAX ON 7.01.2010 BEFORE THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) ON 22.01.2010 AND THUS AS ON THE DAT E OF PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) THERE WAS NO DEFAULT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AT ALL AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271C AR E NOT ATTRACTED. 6. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS HE ALS O RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT :- 1. CIT VS. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA [2016] 66 TAXMANN. C OM 175(SC) 2. M/S. M.D.S. UNIVERSITY VS. ACIT ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 6 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-DEDUCTING THE TDS. AS PER THE AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND PAYEE, THERE WAS EXPLICIT CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE TDS PROVISIONS TO BE COMPLIED. IN SPITE OF THAT HE DID NOT DEDUCT TDS EVEN IN THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS. 8. HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SURVEYED, HE WOULD HAV E GONE ESCAPED FROM THE NON DEDUCTING OF TDS. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, AND PERUSING THE M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR TDS UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO THE PAYEE U/S 194(J). ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS. AFTER PERUSING THE DOCUMENTS IT WAS F OUND THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) / 201(1A ) ON 22.01.2010 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE ENTIRE TDS AND INTEREST AMOUN T ON 07.01.2010, I.E., BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER WITH THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CHALLEN NO. 00290 WHICH IS ON PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FIL ED TDS RETURN WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY DEPOSITS LTD. ON DATED 13.01.2010 WHICH TO O IS BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE APPLIC ABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- THE SHORT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271-C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE RESPONDENT TOOK UP THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 2. THE MATTER WAS PURSUED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2006 ENTERED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: '11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH COLLECTION OF TAX U/S 201(1) OR CO MPENSATORY INTEREST U/S 201(1 A). ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 7 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID SO AS TO END DISPUTE WITH REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT APPEALS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271-C FOR WHICH IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH TH AT THERE WAS CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILA R FACTS HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE DELETED LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271-C IN THE CASE OF ITOCHU CORPORATION 268 ITR 172 (DEL) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITSUI & COMPANY LTD. 272 ITR 545. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LTD., WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AND CANCEL THE PENALTY AS LEVIED U/S 271-C. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE TOOK UP THE MATTER BE FORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE APPEAL ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE MATTER. 4. ON FACTS, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW, THE FACTS AND LAW HAVING PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY BEEN AS SESSED AND APPROACHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THUS, WE SEE NO MERITS IN THE APPEAL AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF HO NBLE SUPREME COURT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.03.2018 . SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27.03.2018 *BINITA* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GU ARD FILE BY ORDER ITA NO. 3001/DEL./2016 8 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.03.2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.03.2018 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 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON .03.2018 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .03.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.