DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI V. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

ITA 551/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the dispute concerning the tax treatment of the income received from the sale of shares of M/s Trivector Origio Scientific Pvt. Ltd. (TOSPL) by Sangeeta Dilip Patil. The Revenue contended that the income should be classified under 'profit and gains of the business' as per section 28(ii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the assessee argued for its classification as 'capital gains'. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sided with the assessee, a decision which was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous ruling in a similar case involving the assessee's husband and a relevant CBDT circular advocating for the consistent treatment of such income as capital gains.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123593 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd, CIT Vs F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt Ltd., CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd, CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co, West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT, Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT, Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT, ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT, CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar, CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Capital Gains
• Section: 28; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 551/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT-41(2)(1), Room No. 623, 6 th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Vs. Sangeeta Dilip Patil, 111, Marathon Max Mulund Goregoan Link Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. PAN No. AATPP 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, AR Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25/04/2023 Date of pronouncement : 27/04/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that sale consideration received on account of sale of shares of M/ Trivector Origio Scientific Pvt. Ltd. (TOSPL) amounting to Rs.11,03,10,171/ business income as per provision of section u/s 28(il)(a) of the Act, 1961, holding that the income received only sale of shares without appreciating the fact that when the assessee sold entire share held by herself, the managerial control itself terminated and the assessee no more part of the management of the said company." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has not received any income for termination of her management control in the ongoing com appreciating the fact that consideration received includes the income received on termination of her management control as she has sold entire shares held by her." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in Circular F.No.225/12/2016/ITA.I| dated 02.05.2016." 2. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the case, dispute is regarding gain on sale of the shares Origio Scientific Pvt. Ltd. (TOSPL) amounting to Rs.11,03,10,171/ whether it has to be taxed under the head ‘capital gain’ as claimed by the assessee or under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ u/s 28(ii)(a) of the Income by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee following his own finding in assessment year 2015 finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.11 Further it is seen that the appellant's own case for the A.Y 2015 Rs.11,03,10,171/-is capital gain only and not ess income as per provision of section u/s 28(il)(a) of the Act, 1961, holding that the income received only sale of shares without appreciating the fact that when the assessee sold entire share held by herself, the managerial control itself terminated and the assessee no more part of the management of the said company." "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has not received any income for termination of her management control in the ongoing company without appreciating the fact that consideration received includes the income received on termination of her management control as she has sold entire shares held by her." "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the CBDT Circular F.No.225/12/2016/ITA.I| dated 02.05.2016." We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the case, dispute is regarding gain on sale of the shares of M/s Trivector Origio Scientific Pvt. Ltd. (TOSPL) amounting to Rs.11,03,10,171/ whether it has to be taxed under the head ‘capital gain’ as claimed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ u/s 28(ii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as held by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee following his own finding in assessment year 2015-16. The relevant CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.11 Further it is seen that the appellant's own case for the A.Y 2015-16, the CIT(A) has passed the order in favor Sangeeta Dilip Patil 2 ITA No. 551/M/2023 is capital gain only and not ess income as per provision of section u/s 28(il)(a) of the Act, 1961, holding that the income received only sale of shares without appreciating the fact that when the assessee sold entire share held by herself, the managerial control itself terminated and the assessee no more part of the management of the "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has not received any income for termination of her pany without appreciating the fact that consideration received includes the income received on termination of her management control as she has sold entire shares "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case not appreciating the CBDT Circular F.No.225/12/2016/ITA.I| dated We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. In the case, of M/s Trivector Origio Scientific Pvt. Ltd. (TOSPL) amounting to Rs.11,03,10,171/- whether it has to be taxed under the head ‘capital gain’ as claimed under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ t, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as held by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee 16. The relevant 5.11 Further it is seen that the appellant's own case for 16, the CIT(A) has passed the order in favor of the appelant on similar issue. I find that the issue has been discussed threadbare in AY 2015 extract of the order is reproduced as under: "Thus, the appellant has rightly offered the LTCG for taxation, which is supported by the CBDT circular F. No. 225/12/2016/ITA.Il dated 02/05/2016 where in it was clarified that in case of sale of unlisted sh procedure of taxation should be adopted to maintain consistency thereby taxing the profits on sale of shares as capital gain. The above said circular vide para 2 clearly stated that "for determining the tax treatment of income arising from no formal market exists for trading, a need has been felt to have a consistent view in assessments pertaining to such income. It has been accordingly decided that the income arising from transfer of unlisted shares wou considered under the head 'capital gain, irrespective of period of holding, with a view to avoid disputes / litigation and to maintain uniform approach". Therefore, keeping in view of the various submissions made by the appellant and following the ra the case laws mentioned supra and also the CBDT circular as mentioned above. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition made treating the sale consideration received on account of sale of shares of TOSPL which was offered by the appe term capital gain, treated by the assessing officer as business income us. 28()(a) of the I. T Act. Therefore A. O. is directed to treat the same as consideration received on sale of shares under the head 'capital gain." 5.12 It is fur the case of appellant's husband for A.Y.2015 the appellant's husband got relief from the Ld.CIT(A) who held that the offering of long and correct and the provisions of sect I.T. Act are not at all attracted. I find that the issue is therefore covered by the decision of CIT(A) in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2015 following the order in assessee's own case for AY 2015 16, the AO is direc treating the sale consideration received on account of of the appelant on similar issue. I find that the issue has been discussed threadbare in AY 2015-16. Releva extract of the order is reproduced as under: "Thus, the appellant has rightly offered the LTCG for taxation, which is supported by the CBDT circular F. No. 225/12/2016/ITA.Il dated 02/05/2016 where in it was clarified that in case of sale of unlisted shares, following procedure of taxation should be adopted to maintain consistency thereby taxing the profits on sale of shares as capital gain. The above said circular vide para 2 clearly stated that "for determining the tax treatment of income arising from transfer of unlisted shares for which no formal market exists for trading, a need has been felt to have a consistent view in assessments pertaining to such income. It has been accordingly decided that the income arising from transfer of unlisted shares wou considered under the head 'capital gain, irrespective of period of holding, with a view to avoid disputes / litigation and to maintain uniform approach". Therefore, keeping in view of the various submissions made by the appellant and following the ratios held in the case laws mentioned supra and also the CBDT circular as mentioned above. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition made treating the sale consideration received on account of sale of shares of TOSPL which was offered by the appellant to tax as long term capital gain, treated by the assessing officer as business income us. 28()(a) of the I. T Act. Therefore A. O. is directed to treat the same as consideration received on sale of shares under the head 'capital gain." 5.12 It is further noted that similar issue also came up in the case of appellant's husband for A.Y.2015-16, where the appellant's husband got relief from the Ld.CIT(A) who held that the offering of long-term capital gain is proper and correct and the provisions of section 28(il)(a) of the I.T. Act are not at all attracted. I find that the issue is therefore covered by the decision of CIT(A) in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, following the order in assessee's own case for AY 2015 16, the AO is directed to delete the addition made treating the sale consideration received on account of Sangeeta Dilip Patil 3 ITA No. 551/M/2023 of the appelant on similar issue. I find that the issue has 16. Relevant "Thus, the appellant has rightly offered the LTCG for taxation, which is supported by the CBDT circular F. No. 225/12/2016/ITA.Il dated 02/05/2016 where in it was ares, following procedure of taxation should be adopted to maintain consistency thereby taxing the profits on sale of shares as capital gain. The above said circular vide para 2 clearly stated that "for determining the tax treatment of transfer of unlisted shares for which no formal market exists for trading, a need has been felt to have a consistent view in assessments pertaining to such income. It has been accordingly decided that the income arising from transfer of unlisted shares would be considered under the head 'capital gain, irrespective of period of holding, with a view to avoid disputes / Therefore, keeping in view of the various submissions tios held in the case laws mentioned supra and also the CBDT circular as mentioned above. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition made treating the sale consideration received on account of sale of shares of llant to tax as long- term capital gain, treated by the assessing officer as business income us. 28()(a) of the I. T Act. Therefore A. O. is directed to treat the same as consideration received on ther noted that similar issue also came up in 16, where the appellant's husband got relief from the Ld.CIT(A) who term capital gain is proper ion 28(il)(a) of the I.T. Act are not at all attracted. I find that the issue is therefore covered by the decision of CIT(A) in the 16. Therefore, following the order in assessee's own case for AY 2015- ted to delete the addition made treating the sale consideration received on account of sale of shares of TOSPL as business income u/s 28(i)(a) of the IT.Act 1961. The AO is directed to treat the same as consideration received on sale of shares. The ground of appeal on this ground no 1 is therefore allowed. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019 for assessment year 2015 the case of the assessee has upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue observing as under: “6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The issue before us, is whether the gain arising from sale of shares of M/s Trivector Origio ‘capital gain’ or under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ u/s 28(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal (supra) in the case of the husband of the assessee on identical issue has held as under: 9. determine the character of the receipts to be assessed under the head business under section 28(ii)(a) of the Act. 10. This is established position of law that any such receipt which is described in section 28(i)(a) is duly covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On such type of receipt being asset first charge on assessee will be under the head capital gain only. If assessee is not offering such receipt under the head capital gains, then only it is chargeable to ta Chargeability of such type of receipt under sec. 28(i)(a) was introduced with a motive to cover the loopholes where income is neither chargeable to tax under the head capital gains nor in any other head. Whereas such type of transactio act 1997 i.e., with effect from A Y 1998 55(2)(a). 11. From the transactions and covenants of agreement observed, it clearly emanates that the business was sale of shares of TOSPL as business income u/s 28(i)(a) of the IT.Act 1961. The AO is directed to treat the same as consideration received on sale of shares. The ground of appeal on this ground no 1 is therefore allowed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019 for assessment year 2015 the case of the assessee has upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and ed the appeal of the Revenue observing as under: We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The issue before us, is whether the gain arising from sale of shares of M/s Trivector Origio India Pvt. Ltd. is taxable under the head ‘capital gain’ or under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ u/s 28(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal (supra) in the case of the husband of the assessee on identical issue has held as under: We have analysed the nature of transaction to determine the character of the receipts to be assessed under the head business under section 28(ii)(a) of the 10. This is established position of law that any such receipt which is described in section 28(i)(a) is duly covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On such type of receipt being asset first charge on assessee will be under the head capital gain only. If assessee is not offering such receipt under the head capital gains, then only it is chargeable to tax under sec 28()(a). Chargeability of such type of receipt under sec. 28(i)(a) was introduced with a motive to cover the loopholes where income is neither chargeable to tax under the head capital gains nor in any other head. Whereas such type of transactions categorically covered by the finance act 1997 i.e., with effect from A Y 1998-99 through sec, 55(2)(a). 11. From the transactions and covenants of agreement observed, it clearly emanates that the business was Sangeeta Dilip Patil 4 ITA No. 551/M/2023 sale of shares of TOSPL as business income u/s 28(i)(a) of the IT.Act 1961. The AO is directed to treat the same as consideration received on sale of shares. The ground of appeal on this ground no 1 is therefore allowed.” Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 in the case of the assessee has upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and ed the appeal of the Revenue observing as under: We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The issue before us, is whether the gain arising from sale of shares of M/s India Pvt. Ltd. is taxable under the head ‘capital gain’ or under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ u/s 28(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal (supra) in the case of the husband of the assessee on identical issue has d the nature of transaction to determine the character of the receipts to be assessed under the head business under section 28(ii)(a) of the 10. This is established position of law that any such receipt which is described in section 28(i)(a) is duly covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On such type of receipt being asset first charge on assessee will be under the head capital gain only. If assessee is not offering such receipt under the head capital gains, x under sec 28()(a). Chargeability of such type of receipt under sec. 28(i)(a) was introduced with a motive to cover the loopholes where income is neither chargeable to tax under the head capital gains nor in any other head. Whereas such ns categorically covered by the finance 99 through sec, 11. From the transactions and covenants of agreement observed, it clearly emanates that the business was being carried out by M/s. TOPL and assessee simply a shareholder and not directly into the business so it can be affirmed that the transactions of assessee with M/s. Ori M/s Origio A/S Denmark was transfer of shares and not of business itself. In this regard we relied upon the decisions ofGrania Court/Apex Court. i. CIT Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd 122 IT 633 (Mum.) ii. SIN) CIT Vs F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt Ltd. 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) iii. CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 ITR 135 (S.C) iv. CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangu (S.C) v. West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) vi. Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) vii. Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) viii. ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 ix. Rohitasava Chand x. CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi. CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as under"Admittedl agreement no consideration was assigned towards non compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement after mutually settling the price of shares. This clause clearly shows that in the purchase price of sha was embedded. Admittedly, assessee on her own was not carrying on business and it was the company in which she was shareholder was carrying on the business, ... Thus, section 28 would be attracted where the asses carrying on business and not where assessee only had right to carry on business in the form ofcapital asset." 13. In view of the above facts, pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court and jurisdictional ITAT, we are of the considered view tha being carried out by M/s. TOPL and assessee simply a shareholder and not directly into the business so it can be affirmed that the transactions of assessee with M/s. Ori M/s Origio A/S Denmark was transfer of shares and not of business itself. In this regard we relied upon the decisions ofGranialowing Hon'ble High Court/Apex Court. CIT Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd 122 IT 633 (Mum.) SIN) CIT Vs F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt Ltd. 184 ITR 461 (Ker.) CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd 46 ITR 135 (S.C) CIT Vs Mugni Ram Bangur and Co 57 ITR 299 (S.C) West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as under"Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement after mutually settling the price of shares. This clause clearly shows that in the purchase price of shares, consideration towards Restraint Clause was embedded. Admittedly, assessee on her own was not carrying on business and it was the company in which she was shareholder was carrying on the business, ... Thus, section 28 would be attracted where the asses carrying on business and not where assessee only had right to carry on business in the form ofcapital asset." 13. In view of the above facts, pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court and jurisdictional ITAT, we are of the considered view that the assessee had rightly Sangeeta Dilip Patil 5 ITA No. 551/M/2023 being carried out by M/s. TOPL and assessee was simply a shareholder and not directly into the business so it can be affirmed that the transactions of assessee with M/s. Ori M/s Origio A/S Denmark was transfer of shares and not of business itself. In this regard we lowing Hon'ble High CIT Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd 122 IT SIN) CIT Vs F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt CIT Vs West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd r and Co 57 ITR 299 West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd Vs CIT Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 [TR 681 (Kar.) Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, y, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non- compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement after mutually settling the price of shares. This clause clearly shows that in the purchase res, consideration towards Restraint Clause was embedded. Admittedly, assessee on her own was not carrying on business and it was the company in which she was shareholder was carrying on the business, ... Thus, section 28 would be attracted where the assessee was carrying on business and not where assessee only had right to carry on business in the form ofcapital asset." 13. In view of the above facts, pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court and jurisdictional ITAT, we are of the ee had rightly declaredincome under the head Capital gains. No portion of considerations can 28 hence we confirm the findings of ld. dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 6.1 As identica company is involved in the case of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 3.1 Since, the finding of the Ld. CIT( in confirmation with the order of the Tribunal (supra) and therefore we do not find any error in the same and accordingly we uph same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/04/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// income under the head Capital gains. No portion of considerations can be attributated for the purposes of sec. 28 hence we confirm the findings of ld. dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. As identical issue of the sale of the shares of the same company is involved in the case of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.” Since, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in confirmation with the order of the Tribunal (supra) and therefore we do not find any error in the same and accordingly we uph same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly he appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/04/2023. Sd/- Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sangeeta Dilip Patil 6 ITA No. 551/M/2023 income under the head Capital gains. No portion of for the purposes of sec. 28 hence we confirm the findings of ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.” l issue of the sale of the shares of the same company is involved in the case of the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) the A) on the issue-in-dispute is in confirmation with the order of the Tribunal (supra) and therefore we do not find any error in the same and accordingly we uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly he appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 04/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: 2. Draft placed before author: 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at Draft dictated on: 25.04.2023 Draft placed before author: 26.04.2023 Draft proposed & placed before the Draft discussed/approved by Second Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Order pronounced on: File sent to the Bench Clerk: Date on which file goes to the Head Date on which file goes to AR Sangeeta Dilip Patil 7 ITA No. 551/M/2023 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS JM/AM JM/AM Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS