Dr Sarojini Pradhan, Cuttack V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITA 523/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65162 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SETHMOHIT SHETH ARS
• Keywords: Notional interest
• Section: 144; 142(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DR. SAROJINI PRADHAN, TELENGA BAZAR, CUTTACK. PAN: AARFS 1231 J - - - VERSUS - ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI D.K.SETH/MOHIT SHETH, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / S MT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING: 20.11.20 12 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.11.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE SOLITARY ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT AS HAS BEEN MADE U/S.144 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 WAS ARBITRARY , UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER FAILED TO COMPLY TO THE NOTICES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALWAYS COOPERATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE ERRED IN REPRODUCING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S.144 WAS ONLY FOR CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS WAS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5) WAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED AFTER DI LIGENT SCRUTINY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING OF IRON ORES FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME OF 1,72,93,800 WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OWNING MINES WHEN LATE DR. SAROJINI PRADHAN EXPIRED AND WA S TAKEN OVER BY HER RELATIVES IN THE SAME NAME. THE I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 2 ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) BY ITO, WARD 1, BALASORE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 4.9.2009. NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 8.7.2010 WHEN DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED IN THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER PRODUCING ALL THE DETAILS AS WERE REQUIRED BY THE NOTICE U/S.142(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CHOSE TO PASS THE ORDER U/S.144 WITHOUT ALERTING THE ASSESSEE THAT AFTER HAVING VERIFIED THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM WHETHER COULD RESULT FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.43B AND NOTIONAL INTEREST TO BE DISALLOWED CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHEN THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN PAID TO THE PARTNERS WITHOUT CHARGING IN TEREST. DONATIONS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE DISALLOWED AND HIRING CHARGES WERE DISALLOWED INSOFAR AS THEY WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 37(1) AND 40(A)(IA). ALONG WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS THE ASSESSEE APP EALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES WHEN THE ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE LEGAL GROUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF NOTICE U/S.142(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHT TO PROCEED TO PASS BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SALARY AND INTEREST TO THEE PARTNERS TOTALING 75,66,784. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY DELETED THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES BUT CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO PARTNERS IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN MADE U/S.144 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5). 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY FOLLOWED UP THE CASE FROM ITS INCEPTION OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.43(2) WHICH WAS FROM ITO, WARD 1,BALASORE. THE INCUMBENT ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HAD ISSUED NOTICE IN JULY, 2010 WHEN DURING THE MONTHS JULY TO NOVEMBER, THE DETAILS AS CALLED I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 3 FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURNISHED AND GIVEN FOR WHICH PURPOSE HE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK WHEN THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ON22.8.2010, 24.9.2010 AND 21.10.2010. THE CAS E WAS ADJOURNED TO 3 RD OF DECEMBER AND IN THE MEANWHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B). THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE UP HIS MIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE MADE U/S .1433) INSOFAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) HAD RIPENED VIDE ORDER DT.10.6.2011 WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PENALTY HAD TO BE LEVIED FOR NONCOMPLIANCE AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) IN JULY, 2010. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE NOT REASONED OUT THE BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 JUST BECAUSE THE SALARY AND INTEREST TO PARTNERS WERE TO BE DISALLOWED BY INVOKING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5). HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT WHEN THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS AS INTEREST FREE WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE TO BE ASSESSED AS SUCH. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE WITHOUT REASONING OUT HAS MATERIALLY REPRODUCED THE REQUIREMENT U/S.142(1) WITHOUT GIVING AN IOTA OF ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM DID NOT REQUIRE ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH IT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE U/S.144 WHEN THE ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN FORMULATED U/S.143(3). THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WISDOM HAS NOT CONTESTED THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES PARTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EMPHAS IZE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 4 ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT O N RECORD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE U/S.144 DUE TO NON - COOPERATION WHEN IN CONSEQUENT THERETO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO I NVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5). THE INCOME OF THE PARTNERS ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND INTEREST HAS TO BE TAXED UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(V ) WHICH INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN RENDER ED TO TAX BY THE PARTNERS THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DISTURBED INSOFA R AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE DOUBLY TAXED ONCE BY REND ER ING ON INCOME AND THE OTHER BY SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE THEREOF. HE ARGUED THAT THE PROVISION TO SECTION 184(5) CAN ONLY BE INVOKED WHEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM DOES NOT FURNISH THE DET AILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ORDER IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S.143(2) WHICH NOTICE STOOD ALREADY ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 1, BALASORE. THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CANNOT PASS AN ORDER U/S.144 INSOFAR AS ISSUE OF NOTICE U /SD.142(1) HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THE DETAILS REQUIRE D COULD MAKE NO SENSE OF RESORTING TO BEST JUDGMENT INSOFAR AS ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE PRIMARILY ON THE LEGAL PROPOSI TION THAT ANY FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED U/S.144 WOULD ONLY RESORT TO DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS THEREFORE GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES INSOFAR AS THEIR NON - APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FURNISHING OF T HE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR PASSING THE ORDER U/S.144. IN ANY CASE, THE BEST JUDGMENT ORDER U/S.14 4 HAS BEEN HELD PASSED U/S.143(3) BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AFTER REPRODUCING THE REQUIREMENT AS PER SECTION 142(1) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO RESORT TO SECTION 144 EVEN AFTER ALL THE COMPLIANCES WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.142(1). HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED TO ALLOW THE SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO THE I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 5 PARTNERS ON HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF A FIRM AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW PROVIDES THAT IN CONSEQUENCE TO AN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S.144, THE SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS ARE TO BE DISALLOWED , HAVE BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO FIND JUSTIFICATION IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE PREDECESSOR ITO ON 4.9.2009 WHEN ON TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFIC ER CHOSE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.142 (1 ) ON 8.7.2010 WITHOUT ISSUING A FRESH NOTICE U/S.143(2). THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS IN THE NOTICE ON THE DATES MENTIONED ABOVE WHEN THE LONG L IST OF REQUIREMENTS WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT WAS NOT AN ISSUE OF NOTICE ON 26.11.2010 FOR GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S.144 DUE TO NON - COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S.143(2)BY THE PREDECESSOR ITO OR THE PRESET ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.142(1) ON 8.7.2010. IN OTHER WORDS THE PRODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED MADE BY THE HEAD OFFICE AND BRANCH OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE STO OD ALREADY COMPLIED WITH INSOFAR AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED AND THE DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN GIVEN WHEN NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THEM TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS AN ORDER U/S.144. THE LEARNED CI T(A) THEREFORE MERELY REPRODUCED THE REQUIREMENT AS PER SECTION 142(1) NOTIFIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.11.2010 I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 6 WHEN THE COMPLIANCE THERETO HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER AS PER THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR COMPLIANCE WHEN NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE FAILED TO INTER CONNECT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 144 WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE ON A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSM ENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED HIS INTENTION OF HIS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE REQUISITION WAS MADE U/S.142(1) ON 26.11.2010 AND WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 29.11.2010 WHEN T HE COMPLIANCE WAS MADE ON 3.12.20 10 WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT INSOFAR AS HE REQUIRED THOSE VERY DOCUMENTS AGAIN WHICH STOOD FILED WITH HIM PRIOR TO THAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DEVOT E ANY TIME TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PART DELETIONS AND DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS S TOOD CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN AN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S.143(3 ) (I). IN THE CASE OF CST V. H.M.ESUFALI H.M.ABDULALI (90 ITR 271), HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS AND THOSE MADE O N BEST JUDGMENT BASIS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS. HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUBARAK TRADING CO. V. CIT (1 74 TAXMAN 339), HAS STATED THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 THAT FAILURE OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (C) OF SECTION 144(1) NEED NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144. FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN ASSESSEE FA ILS TO FILE RETURN IN TIME, BUT HE I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 7 PRODUCES ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, STILL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED BASED ON THE BOOK RESULTS AND SUCH ASSESSMENT IS CERTAINLY NOT A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 144. A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IS CALLED FOR ONLY WHEN THERE IS CUMULATIVE FAILURE OF ALL CONDITIONS INCLUDING FAILURE TO FURNISH HIS DETAILS OF INCOME AND PROVE SAME THROUGH HIS ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE ON HAND, UNDISPUTEDLY IN COMPL IANCE TO NOTICE U/S.142(1), THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AS SUCH, THE SAID ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A BEST JUDGME NT ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 144 OF THE I.T.ACT. ON THE ASSESSEE HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO MAKE SPECIFIC ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S.143(3). THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO PARTNERS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO DISALLOW SALARY AND INTEREST TO THE PA RTNERS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED U/S.144. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGREED TO THE PROVISION THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE WILL BE THE DISALLOWING OF EXPENDITURE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S.28(V).HAVING MADE THAT OBSERVATION THE LEAR NED CIT(A) THEREFORE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) WHEN THE SECOND P ROVISO HAS BEEN MISINTERPRETED BY HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN A CASE WHEN THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) HAS B EEN ISSUED PRIOR TO MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT SECTION . HE HAS FAILED TO LINK THE SECOND PROVISO WITH THE SUB - CLAUSE (B) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 144 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INDICATED THAT THE COMPLIANCE TO NO TICE I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 8 U/S.142 ( 1 ) ISSUED O N 8.7.2010 STOOD DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPLIANCE IS NOT ADEQUATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE FAILED TO LINK THE REQUIREMENT AS PER SECTION 142(1 ) ON 26.11.2010 WITH THE REQUIREMENTS U/S.142 ( 1) DT.8.7.2010 WHEN DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHED RESULTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNITY WHETHER THE ORDER WAS TO BE PASSED U/S.143 ( 3) OR SECTION 144. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE LEGAL ISSUE ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE U/S.143(3)(I). THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ENTIRETY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN NEVER BE SAID TO BE A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 144 AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST AND SALARY TO PARTNERS ALONE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S.144 WITHOUT FINDING ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS LEADING TO PASSING OF ORDER U/S.144. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW SALARY AND INTEREST TOTALING 75,66,784 PAID TO PARTNERS. 6. IN THE R ESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 23.11.2012 ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 523/CTK/2011 9 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT : DR. SAROJINI PRADHAN, TELENGA BAZAR, CUTTACK. 2 / THE RESPON DENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 20.11. 2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.11.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 23.11.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..