DDIT, Dehradun V. M/s. Rolv Berg Drive AS, Mumbai

ITA 4621/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2610 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PALLAVI ADVS; SALIL KAPOOR SIDHARTH KR
• Keywords: Presumptive income; Business income; Double taxation relief; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 142(1); 234B

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 ( A .Y 2010-11) DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) VS ROLV BERG DRIVE AS C/O. M/S. ANIL KHANNA & ASSOCIATES, C. AS, 307, OBEROI SPLENDOR, TOWER-C, JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK ROAD (JVLR), OPP. MAJAS BAS DEPOT, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI AACCR6772K (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. SALIL KAPOOR, SIDHARTH KR. & MS. PALLAVI, ADVS. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 6/6/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-I1, DEHRADUN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE 23(4) OF INDIA - NORWAY DOUBL E TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT ('DTAA'). 1.1.WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HIS INTERPR ETATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23(4) OF THE DTAA WHICH ARE A PPLICABLE ONLY TO PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF 'TRANSPORTATION OF S UPPLIES OR PERSONNEL' AND DATE OF HEARING 22.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.06.2019 2 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 OPERATION OF OTHER VESSELS 'AUXILIARY TO SUCH ACTIV ITIES'. 1.2. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED 'ANCHOR HANDLING SERVI CES' WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SERVICES CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICL E 23(4) OF THE DTAA AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT THE SAID ART ICLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED U/S 44BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( 'THE ACT') 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE TAX WO ULD NOT FORM PART OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PROPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS UNDER THE PRESUMPTIVE PROVISIONS OF U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. 2.1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB ARE A SELF-CONTAINED COD E PROVIDING FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL THE DEDUCTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT ONCE THE RECEIPTS ARE HELD AS ASSESSABLE U/S 4488 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFITS ON GROSS BASIS, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR COMPUTING OR RE- COMPUTING THE PROFITS BY EXCLUDING ANY ELEMENT OF T HE RECEIPTS FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO DEFEATING THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR A SCHEME OF SIMPLER MODE OF COMPUTATI ON OF PROFITS U/S 44BB OF THE ACT AND OBVIATING THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTING FOR I NDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ETC. 2.3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DDIT V/S TECHNIP OFFSHORE CONTR ACTING, [29 SOT 33 DEL] AND THE RULING OF HON'BLE AAR IN THE CASE OF SIEM O FFSHORE [337 ITR 207], WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SERVICE TAX RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF ITS GROSS RECEIPT FOR THE PUR POSE OF PRESUMPTIVE DETERMINATION OF PROFIT. 2.4. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING T HE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P) LTD (8 2 ITR 542, SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SALES TAX COLLECTED BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS FORMS PART O F ITS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. OWING TO THE INHERENT SIMILARITY IN THE NATURE OF T HE SALES TAX AND SERVICE TAX, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE SAID CASE IS DIREC TLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/S 2348 OF THE ACT AND IN OBSERVING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN 3 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION IN THE CASE OF M /S MAERSK [334 ITR 79, UK] 3.1. WHETHER THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT A PPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CASE OF M/S MAERSK WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WHEREIN THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE DESPITE THE SPECIFIC MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT STIPULATING THE EMPLOYER BEING LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE SALARY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE, THEREBY HOLDING THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS N OT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX ON SALARY. 3.2. WHETHER THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID CASE DOES NOT LAY DOWN A GENERAL PROPOSITI ON OF LAW THAT INTEREST U/S 2348 IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN ALL CASES, PARTICULARLY I N CASES WHERE THE NON- RESIDENT ASSESSEE/PAYEE/DEDUCTEE HAS PLAYED A ROLE IN INDUCING NON- DEDUCTION OR SHORT-DEDUCTION ON THE PART OF THE PAY ER/DEDUCTOR. 3.3. WHETHER THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FAILI NG TO TAKE NOTE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S MITSUBISHI [330 ITR 578, DEL] THAT THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE/PAYEE/DEDUC TEE IN SHORT-DEDUCTION OR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED BEFORE CLAIM REGARDING NON- LIABILITY TO INTEREST U/S 2348 OF THE ACT IS ACCEPT ED, A PROPOSITION AFFIRMED SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE CASE OF M/S ALCATEL LUCENT (JUD GMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 7 11.2013 IN ITA NO. 327 & ORS OF 2012) AND F OLLOWED BY 1TAT DELHI IN THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 IN THE CASE OF NORTEL N ETWORK INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC [ITA NO. 4766/DEL/20I 1] 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MOD IFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF T HE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A NON RESIDENT COMPANY I NCORPORATED UNDER THE LAW OF NORWAY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO T HE CONTRACT WITH GUJRAT STATE PETROLEUM LTD. VIDE CONTRACT DATED 12/12/2007 FOR OFF SHORE SUPPLY VESSEL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR OFF SHORE DRILLING. R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY ON 30/09/2010 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 2,72,78,810/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 21/9/2011. FURTHER, NOTICE U/ S 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 4/4/2012 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. FURTHER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 7/11/2012 WAS ISSUED AND AN OTHER NOTICE ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 30/11/2012 WAS ISSUED. THE CA AND AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBM ITTED WRITTEN REPLIES. A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/144C(1) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS 4 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 PASSED ON 15/3/2013 THEREBY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,82,96,710/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 36,37,1 7,501/- IN RESPECT OF RECEIPTS OFFERED AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,92 ,49,636/- TOWARDS SERVICE TAX RECEIPTS AS WELL AS MADE ADDITION AS TO TOTAL I NCOME U/S 44BB TOWARDS RS. 3,82,96,714/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS INCORR ECT IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXABLE UNDE R ARTICLE 23(4) OF THE INDIA- NORWAY DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA). THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. AR RELIED UP ON THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING ITA NO. 3427/DEL/2011 ORDER DATED 14.02.2013. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT FOR A.Y. 2005 -06, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HELD AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS THE FACTS EMERGES, IT REMAINED UNDISPUTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED A VESSEL I.E. TUGBOATS FOR ONGC WORK. ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A VERY RESTRICTED MEANING OF ARTICLE 23(4) BY IGNORIN G THE SECOND OF THE TWO LIMBS OF THE ARTICLE. IT AMPLY COVERS THE TUGBOATS SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONGC. IN OUR VIEW CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CO NSIDERED THE ISSUE ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE UPHOL D. 6. IN RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS IDENTI CAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 2005-06. THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT ARTICLE 23(4) OF THE N ORWAY DTAA SPEAKS OF A CASE 5 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 WHEREBY TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONNEL OR MATERIALS TO AN OIL DRILLING SITE WOULD ATTRACT LESSER RATES OF TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ISOLATED CLAUSE (D) OF THE CONTRACT WITH M/S GSPC T O DENY THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE B EEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HE FAILED TO DO SO. THE REFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS WELL, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SERVICE TAX WOULD NOT FORM PART OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS UNDER THE PRESUMP TIVE PROVISIONS U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB ARE A SELF-CONTAINED CODE PROVIDING FOR COMPUT ATION OF PROFITS AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AL L THE DEDUCTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLO WED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE RECEIPTS ARE HELD AS ASSESSABLE U/S 44BB OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFITS O N GROSS BASIS, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR COMPUTING OR RE-COMPUTING THE PROFITS BY EXCLUDING ANY ELEMENT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS THE SAME WO ULD AMOUNT TO DEFEATING THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR A SCHEME OF SIMPLER M ODE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS U/S 44BB OF THE ACT AND OBVIATING THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTING FOR INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ETC. THE LD. DR RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF DDIT VS. TECHNIP OFFSHORE CONTR ACTING (29 SOT 33 DEL.) AND RULING OF AAR IN CASE OF SIEM OFFSHORE (337 ITR 207). THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF ONGC VS. CIT 376 ITR 306. 9. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITIONS. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DIT VS. MITCHELL DRILLING INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. 3 80 ITR 130. 6 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N CASE OF MITCHELL DRILLING INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 17. THE COURT ACCORDINGLY HOLDS THAT FOR THE PURPO SES OF COMPUTING THE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOS ES OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT, THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON T HE AMOUNT PAID TO IT FOR RENDERING SERVICES IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GRO SS RECEIPTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 44BB(2) READ WITH SECTION 44BB(1). THE SERV ICE TAX IS NOT AN AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE, OR RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY COLLE CTING THE SERVICE TAX FOR PASSING IT ON TO THE GOVERNMENT. THUS, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HEL D THAT PURPOSE OF SECTION 44BB OF THE ACT, THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNT PAID TO IT FOR RENDERING SERVICES IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 44BB(2) READ WITH SECT ION 44BB(1). BESIDES THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE ISSUE IS COVED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE CASES OF M/S SEDCO FOREX 139 ITD 188 (DEL) AND THER EAFTER FOLLOWED BY THE CASE OF PRECISION ENERGY SERVICE LTD. (ITA NO. 5609/DEL/ 2012) AND ALLOWED THIS GROUND WITH DIRECTION TO EXCLUDE SERVICE TAX FROM T HE PURVIEW OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S 44BB OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT RELIED BY THE LD. DR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. GRO UND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY I NTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT AND IN OBSERVING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION 7 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 IN CASE OF M/S MAERSK 334 ITR 79, UK. THE LD. DR RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DIT (IT) VS. AL CATEL LUCENT USA, INC. 264 CTR 240 (DEL.): 223 TAXMAN 176. 12. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) RIGHTLY DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DIT VS. MAERSK CO. LTD. 334 ITR 79. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT T HE HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MAERSK CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UN DER: 24. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LAIBLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX UNDER SECTION 208 OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS THE TAX AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE PERSON RE SPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 192 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ONLY BECAME LI ABLE TO PAY THE TAX DIRECTLY UNDER SECTION 191 OF THE ACT SINCE IT WAS NOT DEDUC TED AT SOURCE. THE STAGE FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF TAX COULD ONLY ARISE AT THE S TAGE OF SELF-ASSESSMENT WHICH IS TO BE MADE IN A LATER ASSESSMENT YEAR AS I S CLEAR FROM SECTION 190 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS ADVANCE TAX IS LIABLE TO BE PAID I N A FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY AND NOT THEREAFTER. WE ARE CONSEQUENTLY OF THE VIEW THA T IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE WHILE PAYING ANY INCOME CH ARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES, WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF INT EREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABL E TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT SINCE HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX UNDER SECTION 208 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MAERSK CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 14. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JUNE, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 18/06/2019 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO. 4621/DEL/2014 DATE OF DICTATION 2 2 . 0 5 . 2 0 1 9 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 2 9 . 0 5 . 2 0 1 9 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. PS/PS 1 8 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 8 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 8 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER