Ram Niwas Asha Rani Lakhotia Trust, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 425/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3219 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 69; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2006-07) RAM NIWAS ASHA RANI LAKHOTIA TRUST S-228, GREATER KAILASH-II NEW DELHI AADTS5350E (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. P. C. YADAV, ADV RESPONDENT BY SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI IN A S MUCH AS THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJ ECTURES, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, ILLEGAL AND THUS, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED IN TO TO. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20,884/- HAS BEEN MADE WITHO UT ANY POSITIVE & COGENT EVIDENCE AND RATHER ON IRRELEVANT FACTS. DATE OF HEARING 03.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.03.2018 2 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE B Y THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, IL LEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 3. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN AERENS GRO UP OF CASES ON 17.08.2011, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 1 0.02.2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED ON 5.08.2013 AND THE JURIS DICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 W AS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 5.09.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) ON 11.09.2006 BE TREATE D AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A. SUBSEQUENTLY, STATUTOR Y NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION , DOCUMENTS, ACCOUNTS ETC. ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE RETURN FILED DECLARING NIL INCOME INCLUDED INCOME FROM INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.34,090/-, INTEREST FROM BANK ETC. OF RS.2,20,430/- AND DONATI ONS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,75,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT A S PER AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED IN FORM NO. 10B, AS AGAINST THIS INCOME RECEIVED DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED A SUM OF RS.4,14,997/- FOR CHARITABLE / RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA, WHICH INC LUDED A SUM OF RS.8,925/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INADMISSIBLE AND THEREFORE, DISALLO WED THE SAME AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT A SUM OF RS.10,000/- WAS DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD SUBS CRIPTION. SINCE, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAL LOWED THIS AMOUNT ALSO AND 3 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF AEZ GROUP, AN EXCEL SHEET IN THE FORM O F HARD DISK WAS FOUND AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF AEZ GROUP AT 301-303, BAKSHI HO USE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS SEIZED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-32. THE FILE NAME OF THE HARD DISK WAS D.P. CORRECTION SHEET.XLS. ON PERUS AL OF THE SAID DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.32,70,884/- FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT / SPACE / LAND WITH M/S INDIRAPURA M HABITAT CENTRE, A CONCERN OF AEZ GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THE OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.32,70,884/-, THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM O F RS.7,50,000/- BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEE T BUT NO DETAILS OF THE CASH PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.25,20,884/- WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION W AS ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT DENIAL OF THE CASH PAYMENT. SINCE T HE CASH PAYMENT WAS PROVED ON BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED, THE ASSESSING O FFICER OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ABOVE CASH PAYMENT OUT OF THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADDING BACK THE SAME, VIDE NOTICE DATED 5.02.2014, THE ASSESSING OF FICER GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A REPLY. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE SAM E EXCEL SHEET THE NAME OF ONE SH. I.E. SOOMAR, E-405, GREATER KAI LASH-LL, NEW DELHI ALSO APPEARED AT SI. NO. 39 WHO ADMITTED THAT THE CASH I NVESTMENT OF RS.6.64 CRORES BEING MADE IN THE SAID PROJECT, AND PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS .25,20,884/-. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE SURRENDER MADE BY SH. I.E. SOOMAR ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OPINED THAT THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.25,20,884/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE W AS OUT OF THE INCOME NOT DISCLOSED BY IT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.25,20,884/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF AN ORDER U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961 AT A TOTAL 4 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 INCOME OF RS.25,39,809/- AS AGAINST THE NIL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATER IAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 11.9.2006, THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF AEZ GROUP ON 17.08.2011. A SEARC H AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED WHERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND ON 10.02.2012. NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE FILED ITS ROI AS ORIGINALLY FILED ON 5.09.2013. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FROM BANK AND DONATION O F RS 1,75,000/-. ASSESSEE FILED ITS ROI DECLARING NIL ON 11.09.2006. THE SA ME WAS NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. ON 17.08.2011, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION HAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF AEZ GROUP DURING THIS SEARCH IT IS ALLE GED THAT IT HAS COME TO LIGHT (DETAILS OF THIS LIGHT IS NOT MENTIONED IN ASSESSME NT ORDER) THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS 25,39,809/- VIA CASH IN IN DARPURAM HABITAT CENTER. THEREAFTER, A SEARCH ACTION HAS ALSO BEEN UNDERTAKE N IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 22.10.2013. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CAS E OF REVENUE VIS-A- VIS INVESTMENT IN CASH IN NEHRU VIKASH MINAR HAS BEEN F OUND. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED A NYTHING IN THE ALLEGED PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE CONFESSION OF SOME I.E.SOOMAR MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. BESIDE THIS THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AND ADDITION OF RS 8,925/- WRONGLY ME NTIONED AS RS 18,925/-. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND THAT ADVE RTISEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER NO DOCUMENT RELATABLE TO THIS 5 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 DISALLOWANCE OF RS8,925/- HAS BEEN FOUND IN SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIA L HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE C IT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE SIMILAR MATTER NAMELY IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR A SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS 3,21,00,00 0/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AT AEZ GRO UP AND ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN INDRAPURAM HABITAT CENTER. IN THAT CASE ALSO TWO SEARCHES WERE CONDUCTED ONE AT AEZ GROUP ON 17.08.2011 AND ONE AT MR SUBHAS H KHATTAR ON 10.02.2012. THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMEN T IN INDRAPURAM HABITAT CENTER GZIABAD AND ON THE BASIS OF CONFESSION OF SHRI I.E.SOOMAR. THE APPEAL OF SUBHASH KHATTAR WHEN COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 902 OF 2015 HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CAN BE. MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND IN SEARCH. ITAT HAS ALSO NOTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE SOME THIRD PARTY HAS SURRENDERED SOME AMOUNT IN HIS HANDS THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH SURRENDER BINDS ALL OTHER INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES. TH E LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.06.2016.ITAT HAS RELIED ON CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA R EPORTED IN 380 ITR 573(DEL). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOW BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO 60 OF 2017. TH E LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR, TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER FRAMING THE QUESTION OF LAW . THEREFORE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT AND HENCE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE DECISION I N CASE OF SUBHASH KHATTAR. 6 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE CO-INVESTOR WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSE E (SUBHASH KHATTAR VS. ACIT A.Y. 2006-07 ITA NO. 902/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 30/06/2016). THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD IN PARA 8 AS UNDER: 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MAINLY ON THE B ASIS OF (I) THE DETAILS WRITTEN ON THE HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES AERENS GROUP, WHEREIN PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND CA SH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AGAINST THE NAME OF ASSESEE AT SR. NO. 32 ; SHRI I. E. SOOMAR APPEARING AT SR. NO. 39 OF THE SAID HARD DISC HAD A DMITTED THE CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.6.64 CRORES BEING MADE IN THE SAID PROJECT AND HAD PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME; (III) THE SAID HARD DISC CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN PART AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE BU T DENIED THE CASH PAYMENT SHOWN THEREIN ETC. IN OUR VIEW, A HUE ADDI TION OF RS.3,21,00,000/- CANNOT BE MADE IN A CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT HAVING CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. IT IS A PREVAILING PRACTICE IN THE DEALIN GS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES THAT CASH AMOUNT, IF ANY, OUT OF THE AGREED CONSIDE RATION IS PAID DURING THE COURSE OF EXECUTION/REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED A ND ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SALE DEED OR OTHER MODE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN EFFECTED. MERELY BECAUSE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING IN THE SA ID HARD DISC AND AMONGST OTHER INVESTORS ARE INVESTOR SHRI I. E. SOO MAR APPEARING IN THE SAID HARD DISC HAS ADMITTED PAYMENT OF CASH AMOUNT, CANN OT BE A BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION, IN ABSENCE OF CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,21,00,000/- IN CASH. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DEL HI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREM PRAKASH NAGPAL (SUPRA) WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE DOC UMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT A PLACE OF THIRD PARTY WHICH INDICATED THAT ASSE SSEEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT BY PAYING CONSIDERATION IN CASH, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT 7 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PROVE BY EVIDENCE T HAT SAID DOCUEMTNS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ANY ON MONEY TRAN SACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE DOCUMENTS AT THE BEST ONLY SHOWED TENTATIVE/PRO JECTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HELD THE HONBLE HIGH COUT. AGAIN, I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALPHA IMPACT PVT. LTD (SUPRA), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT ADDITION TO ASSESSEES INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN SALE OF LAND MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF EMAIL RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON AND THERE BEING NO INDEPENDENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITION, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. BESIDES, WE ALSO FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT ASSESSMENT U/S153A OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE O ABATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ON THE DATE OF SE ARCH, CANNOT BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS I NCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153A AND AUTHORITIES BELOW ERE ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A HARD DISC FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF AERENS GROUP WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON B OTH THE ABOVE ISSUES, I.E. ON VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S153A A ND THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ABOVE ISSUES A RE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT VIDE ORDER DATED 25/7/2017. THUS, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS ALREADY COVERED IN CO-INVESTORS CASE. 8 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST MARCH, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 1/03/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03/01/2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03/01/2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1.03.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1.03.2018 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. 9 ITA NO. 425/DEL/2015