Sh. Deepak Dahiya, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 5214/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86625 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

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.5214 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI DEEPAK DAHIYA, VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), A-219, G.F. TODAYS BLOSSOMS, NEW DELHI SECTOR 47, GURGAON GIR / PAN:AGKPD2390Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 21.06.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 3 GROUNDS OF AP PEAL BUT THE CRUX OF GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION MADE BY LD. CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.30,32,150/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN SAVI NG BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS,7,19,274/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN TW O ACCOUNTS BELONGING TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR DEPOSIT OF SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE A.O. AND ALSO DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.30,32,150/-. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 2 AGAINST CREDIT CARD FOR WHICH ALSO NO EXPLANATION W AS SUBMITTED, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,23,474/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDI T CARD PAYMENT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL; BEFORE LD . CIT(A) AND A LSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE46A OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) AFTER OBTAINI NG REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O., WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASS ESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSI TS. HOWEVER, REGARDING CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, HE REDUCED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F FACT THAT A.O. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD ADMITTED CERTAIN MISTAKES IN CALCUL ATION OF ADDITIONS. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AS CONTAINED IN PARA 6.2, TO 7.1 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DE AILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND GONE THROUGH THE R EMAND REPORT OF THE AO TOGETHER WITH THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO MADE AN ADD1TLON OF RS,30,32,150/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WERE FOUND UN-EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE' OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE A O FOR EXAMINATION. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AO'S REPORT TOGETHER WITH THE REJOIN DER FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPEL LANT HAS THREE LIMBS: (I) CASH GIFT OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM SMT. H.NO. 35D, PLTAMPURA, NEW DELHI, APPELLANT. KAMLA DEVI, R/O AP BLOCK, BEING THE MOTH ER OF THE APPELLANT. (II) APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM RENT AND BUSINESS AMO UNTING TO RS.8,00,000/- (III) GIFT OF RS.L0,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI AZ AD SINGH, THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT. LET US CONSIDER ALL THESE THREE EVIDENCE S ONE BY ONE: 6.3 AS REGARDS THE CASH GIFT FROM SMT. KAMLA DEVI, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED RS.2,00,000/- FROM HER. AS PER THE REPORT OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BRING ANY GIFT DEED ON RECORD. THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF SMT. KAMLA DEVL WAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED. TH E ONLY, EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT WAS THE BANK PASSBOOK OF SMT. KAMLA DEVI AS PER WHICH SHE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.L,80,000/- ON 05. 11.2008 OUT OF WHICH RS.48,000/- EACH WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ON TWO OCCASIONS I.E. ON 25.02.2009 AND 05.03.2009 TOTALING RS.96,000/-. IN ADDITION, VARIOUS AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN BY SMT. KAMLA DEVI TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH CHEQUES ON 05.05.2008, 05.06.2008, 05.05.20 09 AND 06.04.2010. THE ENTRIES GIVEN IN THE PASSBOOK DO NOT OFFER MUCH BY WAY OF EXPLANATION ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 3 WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,0 0,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE EVI DENCES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT, PARTICULARLY THE LACK OF ANY GIFT DEED A ND FAILURE TO PROVIDE COPY OF IT RETURN OF THE DONOR, THIS EXPLANATION REGARDI NG SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS NOT ACCEPTED. 6.4 AS REGARDS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT H E HAD DERIVED AN INCOME OF RS.8,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR FROM RENT A ND BUSINESS, THE AO SUBMITTED IN HIS REPORT THAT THE TOTAL INCOME FROM THESE SOURCES WAS ONLY RS.5,12,399/- AND NOT RS.8,00,000/-. OUT OF THIS, A DEDUCTION OF RS.L,00,000/- WAS CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. THIS MEANS THAT THE TOTAL INCOME REPORTED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM FOR MA KING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS ONLY RS.4,12,399/-. CONSIDERING THE HIGH COST OF LIVING AND THE NECESSITY TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN STANDARD OF LIVING, IT CAN EASILY BE INFERRED THAT HARDLY ANYTHING COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OVER AFTE R MAKING NECESSARY EXPENSES. HENCE, THE QUESTION OF SAVING SOME SURPLU S INCOME FROM THESE TWO SOURCES AND THEN DEPOSITING THE SAME INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT IS RULED OUT. 6.5 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN HIS TAXABLE INCOME INTO CONSIDERATION RATHER THAN THE GROSS INCOME WHICH WA S RS.8,00,000/- AND NOT RS 5,12,399/- DURING THE YEAR. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT TH IS EXPLANATION, WE HAVE TO EXCLUDE RS,L,00,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL GROSS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS TAX SAVING RESULTING IN A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.7,00,000/- ON WHICH TAX WILL HAVE TO BE PAID TO ARRIVE AT THE DIS POSABLE INCOME, AND TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT COULD SAVE RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF THIS DISPOSABLE AMOUNT IS BEREFT OF ANY SOUND LOGIC AND REASONING. HENCE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE COULD SAVE RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF HIS INCOME, WHICH WAS PUT INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF CASH, LACKS ANY SOUND REASONING AND THUS DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 6.6 AS REGARDS, GIFT OF RS.10,00,000/- FROM HIS FA THER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY GIFT DEED AS PER WHICH THIS GIFT AS GIVEN BY HIS FATHER. THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRODUCED THE COPY OF INCOME TAX R ETURN OF THE DONOR. IT IS EXTREMELY SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT A PERSON GIVING G IFT AS HIGH AS RS.10,00,000/- DID NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE COULD NOT PROD UCE H INCOME TAX RETURN OF SHRI AZAD SINGH. THE APPELLANT COULD MERELY PROD UCE AN AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY HIS FATHER ALONG WITH BANK RECORDS AS RETIREMENT PAPERS. ON A PERUSAL OF BANK PASSBOOKS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SHRI AZAD SINGH HAD GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 4 RS.34,000/- TO SHRI DEEPAK DAHLYA ON 22.11.2008 BY CHEQUE. NOWHERE IN THE PASSBOOK OF SHRI AZAD SINGH, THE ENTRY OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.10,00,000/- IS FOUND. SINCE THE EVIDENCE BY AY O F PASSBOOK HARDLY PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY GIFT DEED AND/OR COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF T HE DONOR, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE EXPLANATION BY WAY OF A GIFT OF RS.L0,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER LACKS ANY FORCE/LOGIC AND SOUND EVIDENCE AND THUS D ESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 6.7 HENCE, AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT' ORDER, THE DETAILED SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO COUPLED WITH THE APPELL ANT'S REJOINDER, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.30 ,32,150/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION IS M DE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.14,73,474/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT ENTRIES, WHERE AS THE TOTAL OF SUCH CREDIT ENTRIES AMOUNTS TO RS.7,19,274/-. THOUGH THE APPELL ANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THIS ISSUE, THE AO RECALCULA TED THE TOTAL CREDIT CARD EXPENSES AND FOUND THAT THE TOTAL ADDITION SHOULD H AVE BEEN RS.7,19,274/- INSTEAD OF RS.14,73,474/- AND ATTRIBUTED THE DIFFER ENCE TO A CLERICAL ERROR MADE BY HIM AT THE TIME OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). 7.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS A LONG WITH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS .7,54,200/- ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT AS PART OF IT WAS RECEIVED AS GIFTS FROM HIS PARENTS BUT THE A.O. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DONOR, REJECTED THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM PARENT S, NO OCCASION WAS REQUIRED AND NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO RECEIV E THE GIFTS. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE CASE LAW OF SHRI SURESH K UMAR KAKKAR, 324 ITR 231. IT ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 5 WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MOTHER HAD GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LACS AFTER WITHDRAWAL FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT AND FATHER HAD GIFTED AMOUNT OF RS.10 LACS OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY HIM ON HIS RETIREMENT AND IN THIS RESPE CT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 37. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT( A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE DESPITE EVIDENCE OF RETIREMENT FUNDS AS PE R PAPER BOOK PAGE 37, WAS BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT OF MOTHER HAVING DRAWN AMOUNT OF RS.1.80 LACS FROM BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN AFTER REDEPOSIT OF RS.0.96 LACS IN HER BANK AC COUNT STILL THERE WAS BALANCE OF RS.0.84 LACS BUT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW RELIEF FO R THE LEFT AMOUNT EVEN. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS PART OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS OF PARENTS ALONG WITH RETIREMENT PAPERS OF FATHER AND THEREFORE, PRIMARY ONUS WAS DISCHARGED AND THER EFORE, ONUS WAS ON A.O. TO DISLODGE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS HE HAD NOT EXAMIN ED THE DONORS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN RETAIL T RADING AND HAD DECLARED INCOME U/S 44AF AND A PART OF CASH SALES WAS ALSO UTILIZED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED ABOUT RS.8 LACS FROM BUSINESS AND RENT BUT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER IT AND OUT RIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT LEAST R S.20 LACS STOOD EXPLAINED. AS REGARDS CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS ONLY, THEREFORE, ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 5. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR, THEREFOR E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. IN THIS RESPECT RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) 2923 ITR 552 CIT VS ANIL KUMAR ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 6 II) 262 ITR 434 SAJAN DASS AND SONS VS CIT 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES MOTHER HAD WITHDRA WN RS.1.80 LACS ON 05.11.2008 AND HAD REDEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT RS.96,000/- IN TWO INSTALLMENTS OF RS.48,000/- EACH AS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A)S IN HIS ORDER PARA 6.3 . HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSMENT FOR BALANCE A MOUNT EVEN. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAD RETIRED AND HAD GOT RETI REMENT BENEFITS AMOUNTING TO RS.9,74,023/- AS PER COPY OF LETTER OF DY. CONTROLL ER OF ACCOUNTS AS PLACED ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 37. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT D ONOR FATHERS INCOME TAX RETURN WAS NOT FILED AND HE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.10 LACS IN HIS BANK AC COUNT. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING REGARDING RETIREMENT FUNDS AS TO WHERE IT WAS DEPOSITED AND WHETHER IT WAS WITHDRAWN FOR MAKING GIFT TO HIS SON . FROM THE RECORDS ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY BANK ACCOUNT OF FATHER WHERE THIS AMOU NT WAS CREDITED BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT HIS FATHER HAD RETIRED AND HAD RECEIVE D THIS AMOUNT AS IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 37 AND IN HIS AFFIDAVIT HE HAS CONF IRMED THAT GIFT WAS MADE OUT OF RETIREMENT FUNDS. THEREFORE, FACTS HVE NOT BEEN EX AMINED THOROUGHLY. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIO N OF ASSESSEE REGARDING SAVINGS FROM HIS EARNING FROM HIS BUSINESS AND RENTAL INCOM E AS PER COMPUTATION SHEET PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED INCOME OF RS.8 LACS CONSISTING OF RS. 5 LACS FROM RENT AND RS.3 LACS AS BUSINESS INCOME OUT OF WHICH, RS.1.50 LACS WAS USED FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF INTERES T AND RS.1 LAC FOR MAKING REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A CASH SURPLUS OF RS.5.5 LAC. AT LEAST A PART OF THIS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE LD. CIT(A) COULD HAVE REDUCED HOU SE HOLD EXPENSES FROM THIS SAVINGS ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER YEAR HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES BUT HE HAS HELD THAT ENTIRE ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 7 SAVINGS MUST HAVE BEEN SPENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATIONS OF ASSESSEE R EQUIRE FRESH EXAMINATION. SINCE, THESE EXPLANATIONS WERE NOT THERE BEFORE A.O. IN OR IGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE O FFICE OF A.O. FOR READJUDICATION. TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT OF THE GIFT FROM PARENTS, A.O . SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE THE PARENTS OF ASSESSEE. 7. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF C REDIT CARD PAYMENTS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT WH ETHER PAYMENTS FOR CREDIT CARD EXPENSES WAS MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNTS WHERE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AS IN THAT CASE, THIS ADDITION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADD ITION. HOWEVER, THIS FACT IS NOT COMING OUT FROM THE RECORDS NEITHER LD. A.R. BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE ANYTHING REGARDING THIS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CREDIT CARD PAY MENTS WERE MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WHERE CASH WAS DEPOSITED. SINCE, THIS FACT IS NOT COMING OUT FROM RECORDS, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS POINT SHOULD ALSO BE RELOOKED BY A.O. WHO SHOULD PASS ORD ER AFTER EXAMINATION OF THESE FACTS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVI DED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JAN., 2015. SD./- SD./- ( DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 30 TH JAN., 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- ITA NO.5214/DEL/2013 8 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). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 29/1 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29, 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 30/1/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30/1 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 30/1 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