Maya Sheel Construction, New Delhi V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3695/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0727 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N MEENA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 40(b); 133A; 139(1); 13; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NO. 3695/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13] M/S MAYASHEEL CONSTRUCTION VS. THE DY. C.I.T C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV CIRCLE - 1 F 26/124, SECTOR 7 GHAZIABAD ROHINI, DELHI PAN: AAPFM 5854 R (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAPIL GO EL, ADV DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.N. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS], GHAZIABAD DAT ED 18.05.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON CAPITAL AN D REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS FROM THE ASSESSED INCOME. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE ON 11.09.2014. IN THE AFTERMATH OF SURVEY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET PROFIT @ 8% OF GROSS TURNOVER, OVER AND ABOVE T HE RETURNED INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED ON 30.09.2012. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED RECONCILIATION ST ATEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN EXHIBITED AT PAGES 3 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, AND THROUGH THIS RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, EXPLAINED THE CASH E XPENSES OF RS. 10.39 LAKHS BEING BELOW THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF RS. 20,0 00/- AND FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT CASH ENTRIES ARE, IN FACT, IMPREST A CCOUNTS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION SITES. 3 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AS WELL AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRO CEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY ADOPTING 8% OF GROSS TURNOVER AS NET PROFIT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,22,56,154/-. 6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND CLAIMED INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION PAID T O PARTNERS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE WAS DENIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE PR OFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED ON GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER SURVEY U/S 133A O F THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY FURTHER DEDUCTION. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHE MENTLY STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERAT ION TO PARTNERS IS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40B OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 164/HYD/2013, 713 TO 715/VIZ/2013 AND 4 30/AHD/2011. 4 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED T O THE RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND SUPPLEMENTARY PA RTNERSHIP DEED, WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS ALSO BEEN P ROVIDED, WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 9 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FI NDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THA T ONCE PROFIT IS ESTIMATED , ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE DEEMED TO BE ALL OWED AND, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED T O THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT PARTNERSHIP DEED D ATED 01.05.2008 AT CLAUSE 8 CONTAINS PROVISION FOR INTEREST ON CAPITAL @ 12% PER ANNUM AND CLAUSE 17 PROVIDES FOR REMUNERATION TO WHOLE TI ME WORKING PARTNERS AND METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF REMUNERATION IS ALSO PROVIDED. 12. VIDE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED DATED 01.04.2010, MANNE R OF PAYING REMUNERATION TO WHOLE TIME WORKING PARTNERS HAVE BE EN REVISED. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12, T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS, WHICH 5 ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLACE D IN THE PAPER BOOK. 13. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS 213 CTR 105 HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSI DER AN APPEAL WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND BEST J UDGMENT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT READ AS UNDER: THE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT IN A MATTER WH ERE VOLUNTARY RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 139(1) IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER SECTION 143(3) WHEREAS PROCEDURE FOR GIVING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 144 . MERELY BECAUSE THE PROCEDURES FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT HAVE BEE N SEPARATELY PROVIDED IN THE AFORESAID TWO SECTIONS R ELATING TO AN ASSESSEE WHERE THE VOLUNTARY RETURN HAS NOT BEEN FOUND AS ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHERE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND BEST JUDGMENT ASSESS MENT HAS BEEN MADE, IT WOULD NOT IN ITSELF BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE: AVAIL ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WH O HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, UNLESS, OF COURSE, ANY RULE OR PROVISION O F THE ACT 6 EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THE BENEFIT OF STATUTORY DEDUCTI ONS TO SUCH AN ASSESSEE.. IF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY T HE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED OR, FOR ANY OTH ER REASON, WHATSOEVER, BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, THAT WOULD ENTAIL PENALTY OR ADVERSE CIVIL CONSEQUENCES OF DEPRIVING THE ASSESSEE FROM HAVING THE STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO HIM, IN CASE HIS VOLUNTARY RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED OR REGULAR PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WERE TAKEN. THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD LEAD TO AN ANOMALO US SITUATION, BESIDES THE SAME DOES NOT FLOW FROM THE SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT. IT IS ONLY THE METHOD OF ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH EITHER HAS TO BE DONE BY ACCEPTING THE VOLUNTARY RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OR IT HAS TO BE REGULARLY ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 144 . THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM CALLS FOR CONSEQUEN TIAL IMPOSITION OF TAX AND REALISATION THEREOF. THE STAT UTORY DEDUCTIONS THUS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR SNATCHED AWAY FROM THE FIRM MERELY BECAUSE THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED A ND BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE. 7 SALARY AND INTEREST, WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE PARTNERS IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE SAID AMOUNT SHIFTS UPON THE PARTNERS AND CANNOT BE TAKEN AS TAX LIABILITY OF THE FIRM. THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 28(V) CANNOT BE EXCLUDED IN THE MATTER OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSEE FIRM. IT WAS THE SPECIFIC C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THEY W ERE REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND WERE HAVING REGISTE RED PARTNERSHIP DEED. IT WAS ALSO THE SPECIFIC CASE THA T THESE PARTNERS WERE WORKING PARTNERS AND THEY WERE ENTITL ED TO SALARY AND INTEREST, AS PER TERMS OF THE DEED IN AC CORDANCE WITH SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL HAVING BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE IN REBUTTAL AND MORE SO WHEN NO SUCH PLEA WAS EVER TAKEN OR RAISED IN THE APPEAL , AS ALSO NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THIS REGARD, THE AFORESAID PLEA IS BOUND TO FAIL. 14. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S B. DUR GA REDDY & CO. IN ITA NOS. 713 TO 715/VIZ/2013 ALSO HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER SIMILAR ISSUE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH READ AS UNDER: 12. THE NEXT ISSUE EMANATED FROM THE REVENUE APPEA L IS DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERA TION TO PARTNERS. THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW THE DEDUCTIONS TOW ARDS 8 REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ONCE NET PROF IT IS ESTIMATED, NO SEPARATE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS A LLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE INTERES T ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS ARE NOT ALLOWA BLE IN A CASE, WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED AND PROFIT IS ESTIMATED. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT EVEN NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS, IN THE CASE OF PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, DEDUCTION TOWARDS REMUNERATION T O PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON CAPITAL IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST ON CAP ITAL AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF M/S. K. VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY IN ITA NO S.370 & 409/VIZAG/2012 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SRIVALLI SHI PPING & TRANSPORTS IN ITA NOS.79 TO 95/VIZAG/2013. THEREFOR E, REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A.O. HAS NOT ALLOWED SEPAR ATE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL AC COUNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINI ON THAT WHEN NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED BY REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SEPARATE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST ON PARTNERS C APITAL 9 ACCOUNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS CANNOT BE ALLO WED. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN PROFIT IS ESTIMATED, SEPARATE DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM, TOWARDS INTEREST AND REMUNERA TION TO PARTNERS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE STATUTE ITSELF U/S 44AD OF THE ACT, PROVIDES FOR SEPARATE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST O N PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTN ERS, WHEN NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 14. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SRIVALLI SHIPPING & TRANSP ORTS IN ITA NOS.79 TO 95/VIZAG/2013 HELD THAT SEPARATE DEDUCTIO NS TOWARDS INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNER SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHEN NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REP RODUCED HEREUNDER: 24. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CAPITA L EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, B UT THE DETERIORATION IN THEIR VALUE IS ALLOWED AS DEDU CTION WITH THE NAME DEPRECIATION. HENCE, IT IS CALLED N ON- CASH EXPENDITURE AND ALSO CALLED STATUTORY DEDUCTIO N. WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME, THE TRADING 17 I.T.A. NOS.79 TO 85/VIZ/2013 I.T.A. NOS.89 TO 95/VIZ/2013 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004- 05 TO 2010-2011 SRIVALLI SHIPPING TRANSPORT RESULTS ONLY ARE ESTIMATED ON TH E BASIS OF SALES/GROSS RECEIPTS, MEANING THEREBY, WHA T IS ESTIMATED IS ONLY THE NET PROFIT BEFORE ALLOWING AN Y NON- CASH EXPENDITURE/STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS. FURTHER, THE QUANTUM OF DEPRECIATION WOULD ALSO DEPEND UPON THE VALUE OF ASSETS. FOR EXAMPLE, A BUSINESS MAN HAVING LOWER VERSION OF CAR OR AIR CONDITIONER WOULD BE EN TITLED TO CLAIM LOWER AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, SINCE THE CO ST OF THE LOWER VERSION OF CAR AND AIR CONDITIONER WILL B E LESS. WHEREAS ANOTHER BUSINESS MAN HAVING HIGHER VERSION OF CAR AND AIR CONDITIONER WOULD GET HIGHER AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, SINCE THE COST OF THOSE ASSETS SHALL BE HIGHER. HENCE, EVEN IF THE LEVEL OF OPERATIONS AND OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL BETWEEN THE TWO, THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT WILL BE DIFFERENT DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN T HE VALUE OF ASSETS. HENCE THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL ALSO RESULT IN DIFFERENT FIGURES BETWEEN THE TWO BUSINESS MEN. THE ABOVE SAID ILLUSTRATION WOULD SUPPORT THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWE D SEPARATELY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY US IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. 11 15. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE COORDINATE BENCH D ECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF M/S. K. VENKATA RAJU, RAJAHMUNDRY IN ITA NOS.370 & 409/VIZAG/2012. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPIT AL ACCOUNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION S WHEN NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPROD UCED HEREUNDER: TAXPUNDIT.ORG ITA NOS.713 TO 715 & 721 T O 723/VIZAG/2013 M/S. B. DURGA REDDY & CO., VISAKHAPA TNAM 17 17. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF T HIS TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DEPRECIATION I S A ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, EVEN AFTER ESTIMATION OF NET P ROFIT FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE INCOME ESTIMATED FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, THE STATUTE ITSELF IN SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, ALLOWED SEPARATE DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS INTEREST ON CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS, AFTER ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS. T HE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW 12 REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (A), HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 16. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DE CISION IN THE CASE OF SRIVALLI SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCO UNT AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS EV EN AFTER ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS . THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW REMUNE RATION TO PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR IN THE CIT(A) ORDER, HENCE, WE INCLIN ED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD [SUPRA] AND THAT OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS AND INTEREST ON CAPITAL AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 13 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO. 3695/DEL/2016 IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.12. 2019. SD/- SD/- [SUSHMA CHOWLA ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD DECEMBER, 2019 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 14 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER