ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Facor Power Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4300/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0269 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4300/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ITO, WARD 11(2), VS. M/S. FACOR POWER LTD., NEW DELHI 401, CORPORATE ONE, PLOT NO.5, JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110 044 GIR / PAN: AABCF0054B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K SAMPATH, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 01.0-6.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 14.05.2012. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN TREATING THE INTEREST INC OME OF RS.70,75,843/- RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSIT AS CAPITAL RECE IPT INSTEAD OF TREATING IT AS INCOME UNDER HEAD OTHER SOURCES AND THERE BY OVERLOOKING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TUTI CORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING TO ADJUST INTEREST INCOME AGAINST PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES, HOWEVER ASSESSEE HAD NO COMP ULSION FOR ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 2 MAKING FIXED DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK RATHER IT WAS SU RPLUS MONEY KEPT WITH THE BANK TO EARN INTEREST. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 24.08.2005 TO CARRY ON IN INDIA OR ELSEWHERE THE BUSINESS TO GENERATE, RECEIVE, PRODUCE, IMPROVE , BUY, SELL, ETC. IN ELECTRIC POWER BY ESTABLISHING THERMAL POWER PLANT, ACTIVE P OWER PLANTS ETC. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIE S WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROJECT WAS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT HE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.70,75,843/- FROM STATE BANK OF MYSORE AS INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF DETAILS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD REDUCED SUCH INTEREST FROM CAPITAL W.I.P., THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY INTEREST INCOME OF RS.70,75,8 13/- BE NOT TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESS EE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME FROM F DRS WHICH WERE PLACED WITH BANK AS MARGIN MONEY FOR PROCUREMENT OF VARIOU S CAPITAL GOODS REQUIRED FOR SETTING UP OF THE PROJECT. THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW OF BOKARO STEEL PLANT DECIDED BY HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT. THE A.O. HOWEVER HELD THAT THE CASE LAW OF BOKARO STEEL PLAN T WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THAT CASE, THE COMPANY HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOM E ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT ON TIME. THE A.O. ALSO DISTINGUISHED ANOTH ER CASE LAW OF LG ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. HOLDING THAT IN L G ELECTRONI CS PVT. LTD., THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE TEMPORARILY KEPT WITH THE BANK AS MAR GIN MONEY AGAINST LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUED FOR CREDITS FOR IMPORT OF CAPITAL GOODS AND BANK GUARANTEE. ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 3 THE A.O. HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH COM PULSION WAS THERE. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT THE FUNDS WER E KEPT FOR PROCUREMENT OF VARIOUS CAPITAL GOODS, THE A.O. HELD THAT CONTENTIO N OF ASSESSEE FAR AWAY FROM THE FACT AND HE REJECTED THIS CONTENTION BY HO LDING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE FDS WITH BANKS W ERE KEPT AS MARGIN FOR PROCUREMENT OF VARIOUS CAPITAL GOODS FOR SETTING UP THE PROJECT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FAR AWAY FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS PER THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS, THE MAJO R PORTION OF FIXED ASSETS WAS LAND WHICH COMPRISED 82% OF THE TOTAL AS SETS. THUS, OUT OF TOTAL ASSETS OF RS. 1.48 CRORES, LAND COST IS RS . 1.21 CRORES. REST OF THE ASSETS ARE OFFICE EQUIPMENTS, FURNITURE, VEHICL E AND COMPUTERS. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KEPT FDS WORTH RS. 1389 LAKHS TO ACQUIRE MEAGER CAPITAL GOODS OF JUST ABOUT RS. 20 LAKHS. SIMILARLY, IN THE LIST OF CAPIT AL-WORK-IN-PROGRESS, THERE IS NO SUCH CAPITAL ASSET AS HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS. 11.29 CRORES AGAINST CAPITA L CONTRACTS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO FUNDS IN ITS HANDS BUT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR IT TO PROCURE CAPITA L GOODS BY KEEPING ITS FDS AS MARGIN AGAINST PROCUREMENT OF SUCH CAPIT AL GOODS, HERE IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH C APITAL GOODS AND YET HAS GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS. 11.29 CRORES AS CAPITAL CO NTRACT. THERE ARISE NO QUESTION OF KEEPING THE FDS AS MARGIN MONE Y FOR PROCUREMENT OF CAPITAL GOODS IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CAPITAL GOODS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. THUS, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAR AWAY F ROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THEREFORE, THE A.O. AFTER RELYING UPON THE CASE LAW OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. VS CIT 227 ITR 172, MADE THE ADDITION OF R.70,75,843/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIE VED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ALSO TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE FAC TS OF THE CASE OF TUTICORIN WITH THAT OF ITSELF AND THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE NOTED IN LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AT ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 4 PARA 7.2. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITU RE INCLUDING CAPITAL ADVANCES WERE USED FROM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHI CH WERE TEMPORARILY PUT IN FIXED DEPOSITS AWAITING FOR THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE FOR AWARDING NEW CONTRACTS AND FOR FURTHER PAYMENTS OF EXISTING CONTRACT AND THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FUNDS PLACED IN FD WERE INEXTRIC ABLY LINKED WITH THE PROJECT AND IN THIS RESPECT, CASE LAW DECIDED BY HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD . VS ITO 315 ITR 255 WAS ALSO RELIED UPON. LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMIC ALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT CO MPANY WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP A POWER PROJECT IN ORISSA . FOR THAT APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED LAND IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND SPENT RS. 68. 62 LACS ON PURCHASE OF LAND ETC. DURING THE F.Y. 2008- 09, APP ELLANT COMPANY HAS TAKEN MONEY FROM SHARE HOLDERS AS ADDITIONAL SH ARE CAPITAL IN OCTOBER 2008 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CAPITAL A SSETS FOR SETTING OF THE POWER PLANT. THE MONEY SO RECEIVED WAS PUT IN F DRS FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS TILL THE ORDERS FOR MA CHINERY WERE PLACED. IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, APPELLANT AWARDED CONTRACT TO M/S THYSSAN KRUPP INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD FOR PURCHASE OF B OILER FOR RS. 7500 LACS. THE APPELLANT GAVE ADVANCE OF RS. 50,00,000/- TO SAID COMPANY. IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY THE APPELLANT GAVE ORDER FO R STG SET FOR RS. 3510 LACS AND PAID ADVANCE OF RS. 130 LACS TO M/S B HEL. IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2009, APPELLANT FURTHER GAVE CONTRACT TO M/S PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS FOR RS. 1017 LACS AND PAID ADVANCE O F RS. 10 LACS. THESE FACTS ESTABLISHED THAT AMOUNT RAISED AS ADDIT IONAL SHARE CAPITAL FROM SHARE HOLDERS AND PUT IN THE FDRS WAS INEXTRIC ABLY LINKED WITH ACQUISITION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE ADDITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL RAISED WAS FOR PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS WHICH WAS TEMPORARILY PUT IN THE FIXED DEPOS ITS. THE APPELLANT HAD SPENT SUBSTANTIAL MONEY IN ACQUISITION OF LAND IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IT HAS SPENT RS. 68.62 LACS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE FUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHARE HOLDERS WE RE NOT IDLE BUT THE ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 5 SAME WERE MEANT FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT FUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS. THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SUCH FUNDS WHICH WERE PUT IN FDRS FOR TEMPORARY PERIOD WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND SU CH RECEIPTS WAS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PREOPERATIVE EXP ENSES. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD. VS ITO [2009/315 ITR 0255 (DEL)INCOME OR CAPITAL--INTEREST--INTEREST EARNED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ON FUNDS BROUGHT IN BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE--IS CAPITAL RECEIPT--LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES--INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN PURSUANCE OF A JOINT VENTURE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND M OF JAPAN TO SET UP A POWER PROJECT. IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE T HE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE JOINT VENTURE WAS CONCEIVED, SHARE CAPITAL WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THESE TWO CORPORATIONS WHICH INCLUDED RS. 20 CRORES BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRE ATED THE INTEREST EARNED ON MONIES RECEIVED AS SHARE CAPITAL BY THE A SSESSEE TEMPORARILY PLACED IN A FIXED DEPOSIT AWAITING ACQU ISITION OF LAND WHICH HAD RUN INTO LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS ON ACCOUNT O F TITLE AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ACC EPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST WAS IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT WHICH WAS LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PRE-OPERATIV E EXPENSES. THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THIS ORDER. ON APPEAL : HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEALS THAT THE FUNDS IN THE FO RM OF SHARE CAPITAL WERE INFUSED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING LAND AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE. THEREFORE THE INTERE ST EARNED ON FUNDS PRIMARILY BROUGHT FOR INFUSION IN THE BUSINESS COUL D NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. SINCE THE INCOME WA S EARNED IN A PERIOD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAI NST PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. V. CIT [1997/ 227 ITR 172 (SC) DISTINGUISHED. ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 6 THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WERE DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WAS LINKED WITH ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS, THER EFORE, INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SUCH CAPITAL IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND S AME CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.70,75,843/- TREATING THE IN TEREST INCOME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IS DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD. D.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW OF TUTICORIN AS RELIED UPON BY A.O. WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FUR THER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO COMPULSION FOR MAKING FIXED DEPOSITS WITH TH E BANK AS THESE WERE NOT MADE AS MARGIN MONEY OR AGAINST LETTER OF CREDI T AND, THEREFORE, SHE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF A.O. 7. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AT PAGE 8 AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED D OWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACTS IN ASSESSEES CASE AND THAT OF TH E FACTS IN TUTICORIN AND ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD R AISED FUNDS BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL. MOREOVER, HE ARGUED THAT FUNDS WERE NOT SURPLUS FUNDS AS THE COST OF PROJECT WAS MORE THAN RS.500 CRORES AND DUR ING THE YEAR ONLY RS.24 CRORES WERE RECEIVED AND THESE WERE PLACED TEMPORAR ILY IN THE FORM OF BANK DEPOSITS. LD. A.R. HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY HIM. IN HER REJOINDER, LD. D.R. SUB MITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO COMPULSION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PL ACE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF BANK DEPOSITS. ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THAT IN THE CASE OF TUTICO RIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZES LTD., THE FUNDS WHICH WERE PLACED IN THE FORM OF FD WERE RAISED BY WAY OF LOAN WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD RAISED FUNDS THROUGH SHARE CAPITAL AND IN THAT CASE, THE QUESTIO N DECIDED WAS AS TO WHETHER THE INVESTMENT OF BORROWED FUNDS PRIOR TO C OMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS RESULT IN EARNING OF INTEREST BY THE ASSES SEE AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THAT AS CASE HAS HELD THAT IF A PERSON BOR ROWS MONEY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BUT UTILIZES THE MONEY TO EARN INTEREST, T HE INTEREST SO GENERATED WILL BE HIS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE FUNDS PLACED IN BANK DEPOSITS WERE NOT RAISED BY BORROWING FUNDS AN D RATHER THEY WERE RAISED THROUGH SHARE CAPITAL AS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDER. MOREOVER IN THE CASE LAW OF TUTICORIN ALKALIES, THE FUNDS WERE SURPLUS FUNDS WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FUNDS WERE NOT SUR PLUS FUNDS AS THE FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH WERE MADE FROM OCTOBER ONWARDS WERE REDEEMED TILL APRIL 2009 AND FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR CONTRACT PAYMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED COPY OF CONTRACT AWARDED DURING JULY 2008 TO JUNE 2009 AND IT HAD DE MONSTRATED THAT FUNDS WHICH WERE KEPT TEMPORARILY IN THE FORM OF FIXED DE POSITS WERE LINKED WITH THE SETTING UP OF PROJECT AND CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS SURPLUS FUNDS. IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LT D., HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN HAS HELD AS UNDER: IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI C HEMICALS (SUPRA) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR OPINION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FINDING OF FACT RETURNED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE FUN DS INFUSED IN THE ASSESSEE BY THE JOINT VENTURE PARTNER WERE INEXTRIC ABLY LINKED WITH THE ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 8 SETTING UP OF THE PLANT, THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE A LSO SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD . (SUPRA). IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY JOINT VENTURE PAR TNER BY RAISING SHARE CAPITAL AND FUNDS WERE DIRECTLY LINKED WITH SETTING UP OF PROJECT. LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE A CLEAR FINDING WITH RESPECT TO LINKAGE OF FUNDS AS NOTED AT PAGE 10 OF HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2015. SD./- SD/- ( DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 10.06.2015 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). ITA NO.4300/DEL/2012 9 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2/6 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3/6 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 10/6/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 10/6 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 10/6 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