M/s. Verizon Communication India (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5567/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 556720114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N VENKATRAM
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Difference of opinion
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI AD JAIN, JM ITA NO: 5567/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : - 2006-07 M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA P.LTD. VS. DCIT A WING, 3 RD FLOOR, RADISSON COMMERCIAL CIRCLE 17(1) PLAZA, N.H. 8 NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: : AACW 3738 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.VENKATRAM, SR.ADV.& MS.SHIKHA GUPTA, SRI ROHIT TIWARI, SHRI S.PURI, SHRI RISHABH JAIN, CAS RESPONDENT BY : DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DT. 2.9.2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, WHER EIN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.30,72,108/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS 2 COMPLETED U/S 142(3) ON 26.2.2010 AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS. (A) TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT RS.82,77,528/-; (B) DISALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT FEE OF RS.39 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL ON THESE ADDI TIONS. THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE PROPOSING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF T HE ACT ON 5.8.2010. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION SUBMITTING TH AT: (A) AS REGARDS MANAGEMENT FEE DISALLOWANCE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EMPLOYEE FOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN INDIA. THAT IN ORDER TO MANAGE ITS BUSINESS IN IND IA AND TO CARRY ON SALES, MARKETING AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVIT Y WHICH ARE INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT SERVICES AG REEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH VIPL FOR A FIXED FEE OF RS.3,25,0 00/- PER MONTH. THE COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO I N THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (B) THAT VIPL HAD RENDERED SERVICES AND HAD OFFERED THI S INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES, A COPY OF MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE CUSTOMERS AND EMAILS EXC HANGED BY THE EMPLOYEES IN INDIA WITH VARIOUS CUSTOMERS, WERE S UBMITTED ON SAMPLE BASIS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS COMMERCIAL NEE D AND DIRECT NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE BY VCIPL WITH THE BUSINESS OPERATIO NS OF VIPL. (C) ON DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT RESIDUAL PROFITS SPLIT METHOD WAS APPLIED AND THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT 3 AND RULES WERE COMPLIED WITH. THAT SINCE MORE THAN ONE COMPARABLE PRICE WAS AVAILABLE, THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN (AM) WA S COMPUTED AND THAT VARIATION OF 5% FROM THE AFORESAID AM WAS COMPUTED AND THE RESULTANT REQUISITE AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED AS ARMS LENGTH PRIC E. 3. THE A.O. CONSIDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND HAS H ELD AS FOLLOWS:- I) IT IS WELL SETTLED, AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AZTEK SOFT WARE & TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. VS. ACIT (2007) 294 ITR AT 32 BANGALO RE (SB), USE OF CURRENT YEAR DATA IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE, UNLESS THE E XCEPTION TO THE RULE IS APPLICABLE. II) THAT THREE COMPARABLES WERE CHOSEN BY THE TPO FOR DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE TPOS ORDER. 4. ON DISALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT FEE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS BY WAY OF EMAILS ETC. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER CONVINCING AND SATISFA CTORY REPLY, BACKED BY EVIDENCE TO ANSWER THE BASIC QUESTIONS RAISED BY T HE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY A FTER REFERRING TO CERTAIN CASE LAWS. 5. ON APPEAL THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE I SSUE OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS HELD THAT BY SELECTING WRONG SE T OF COMPARABLES THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND JUSTIFY ITS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. HE HEL D THAT THIS WAS A CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO REJECTED 5 4 COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSE, AND HENCE IT H AS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF INCURRING OF MANAGEMENT FEE HE H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY BONAFIDE EXPLANATION FOR THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THIS CASE WAS HEARD ALONG WITH ITA NO.5566/DEL/1 1 IN THE CASE OF M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA P.LTD. (VCIPL) FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. MR. N. VENKATA RAMAN THE LD.SR.ADVOCATE ARGUED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, LD.SR.D.R. REPRESENTED THE REVENUE . BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE CASE OF VCIPL (SUPRA). IN ADDITION MR. N. VENKATA RAMAN SUBMITTED THAT THE DI SALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT FEE DOES NOT WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S .271(1)(C). THE LD.SR.D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DU RING THE ASSESSEEMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS FURNISHED EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY PAYMENT OF MANAGEMENT FEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AS REGARDS PENA LTY LEVIED ON THE ITEM OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, IN OUR ORDER O F EVEN DATE IN THE CASE OF VCIPL IN ITA NO.5566/DEL/11 AT PARA 5 TO PARA9 WE HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION STATED BY T HE LD.SR.ADVOCATE MR.N.VENKATRAMAN THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE LEV IED IN CASES 5 WHERE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER TRANSFER PRI CING PROVISIONS I.E. SECTION 92A(4). WHAT HAS TO BE SE EN, IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN A BONAFIDE EXER CISE FOR COMPUTING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE QUESTION WHE THER PENALTY IS ATTRACTED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR NOT IS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. NO GENERAL PROPOSITIO N OF LAW CAN BE LAID DOWN THAT IN ALL CASES OF TRANSFER PRIC ING ADJUSTEMENTS, WHERE SOME COMPARABLES, REFERRED TO A S SAMPLES BY THE LD.SR.COUNSEL, ARE REJECTED AND C ERTAIN OTHER COMPARABLES ARE ADDED, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE LEVIED. THE POSITIO N OF LAW IS THAT, WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESS ED INCOME AND THE RETURNED INCOME, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR BOTH, AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE DIFFERENCE. THE A.O. WOULD THEN CONSIDER AS TO WHE THER THIS EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THEREAFTER APPLY THE LA W BASED ON VARIOUS TESTS AND INTERPRETATIONS LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS AND THEN COME TO A CONCLUSION EITHER TO LEVY A PENA LTY OR TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THERE CAN NOT BE ANY DISPUTE ON THE BROAD PROPOS ITIONS OF LAW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, AS THES E ARE SUPPORTED BY CASE LAWS. THE PROPOSITIONS ARE, A) JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE TRANSFER PRI CING ADJUSTMENT, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED; B) NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED WHEN THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION IS BONAFIDE; C) PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED WHEN THERE ARE TWO POSSIBL E VIEWS; D) PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED WHEN THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS DEBATABLE. 7. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON HAND, THESE PROPOSITI ONS CAN BE APPLIED. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS USED MULTIP LE YEAR DATA IN COMPUTING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) HAVE HELD THAT, SUCH ACTION BY THE ASSESS EE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND THUS IT TANTAMOUNTS TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A ZTEK SOFTWARE & TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. VS ACIT (2007) 294 ITR AT 32 BANGALORE(SB) AS WELL AS THE CASE OF MENTOR G RAPHICS P.LTD. (2007) 109 ITD 10. 6 8. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT BOTH THESE DECISIONS WERE DELIVERED AFTER JULY, 2007. PRIOR TO THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL DEBATE AS TO WHETHER MULTIPLE YEAR DATA CAN BE USED OR THE CURRE NT YEAR DATA HAS TO BE USED. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE CAN BE FOUND IN THESE DECISIONS. THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR IN QUESTION IS 2006-07. IN THE YEAR 2006, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, THIS DEBATE WAS VERY MUCH ALIVE. THUS WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, THIS BEING A DEBATABLE ISS UE AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTING MULTIPLE YEAR DATA FOR ARRIVING A T ARMS LENGTH PRICE IS A BONAFIDE EXERCISE. THUS PENALTY LEVIED ON THAT COUNT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE LAW ON THIS IS SUE WAS EVOLVING. 9. COMING TO THE COMPARABLES BEING ADDED AND SOME BEING DELETED FROM THE T.P. REPORT, WHILE ADJUDICA TING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE FOLLOWING COMPAN IES AS COMPARABLES:- A) TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD. B) ENGINEERS INDIA LTD. C) RIGHTS LTD. D) WATER AND POWER CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 10. THUS DELETION OF THESE COMPARABLES CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS FAR AS SELECTION OF BESANT RAJ I NTERNATIONAL LTD. IS CONCERNED AS A COMPARABLE, THE TPO HAS ACCE PTED THE SAME IN THE EARLIER AYS. BE AS IT MAY, SELECTION OF COMPARABLES IS A SUBJECTIVE EXERCISE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SERIOUS LY CONTESTED THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE TPO ON SELECTION OF CO MPARABLES FOR BENCH MARKING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ANOTHER MATTER THAT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO CARRY THE ISSUE IN APPEAL THE REASONS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. THAT BY ITSE LF DOES NOT WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE ACTED IN THE BONAFIDE MANNER IN CONDUCTING ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY AND ARRIVING AT AN ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEVY OF PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT WARRAN TED. 7 9. AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN THIS CASE ALSO, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A BONAFIDE EXERCISE FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH P RICE AND THE VARIATIONS MADE BY THE T.P.O. TO THE ARMS LENGTH P RICE, ARE A GENUINE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, WHICH ARE DEBATABLE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)( C) ON ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS. 10. COMING TO THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE DISALLOWANC E, AT PARA 6.3 TO 6.5 AT PAGE 4 THE AO IN HIS ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OBS ERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6.3. IN THIS CASE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) IS FOUND TO BE LEVIABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL T HE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE ARGUME NT AND THE CONTENTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND UNEXPLA INED OR WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. IN THIS CASE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT B EEN PROVED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCU SSIONS, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE CLEARLY BEEN DEALT BY THE TPO WHILE PASSING HER ORDER. FURTHER, MALAFIDE INTENTI ON ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE ;ESTABLISHED ANY MORE. THE ON US WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE WITH EVIDENCES TO THE SATISFACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY HIM D URING THE CORUSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CASTE UPON HIM. 6.4. AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF BA BALASUBRAMANYAM BROS & CO. VS. CIT 1 999 (236) ITR 997 SC, WHEREVER THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E RETURNED AND ASSESSED INCOME THERE IS INFERENCE OF CONCEALMENT A S A RULE OF LAW. THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REBUTTING SUCH INFERENCE I S SQUARELY ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO OFFER AN EXPL ANATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BY ITSEL F WILL MERIT PENALTY. SECONDLY, AS REGARDS TO DELIBERATE ACTS I S CONCERNED. IT DOES NOT HOLD GOOD NOW. 6.5. AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION (1) BELOW S .271(1)(C ) AS HELD IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KP MADHUSUDANAN VS C IT 251 ITR 99 (SC), THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SIR SAHADILAL SUG AR AND GENERAL MILLS LTD. 168 ITR 705 (SC), DID NOT HELD GOOD. AS CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN THIS DECISION AS ALSO IN ;THE DECISION OF B A 8 BALASUBRAMANYAM BROS & CO. VS. CIT 1999 (236) ITR 9 97 SC, AFTER THE DELETION OF WORD DELIBERATELY FROM S.27 1(1)(C ) AND THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION BELOW S.271(1) WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1964, THE RATIO OF CIT VS. ANWAR ALI 76 ITR 696 (SC), DID NOT HOLD GOOD AND ONUS OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT O F INCOME WAS ON THE ASSESSEE AND MENS REA HAD NOT TO BE PROVED ; BY THE DEPARTMENT. 11. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT FEE. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIM BY PRODUCING EVIDENCE. EXCEPT FOR MAKING A S TATEMENT, NO EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD. OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ANY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE CONCURRENT FACTUAL FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AR E NOT CONTRADICTED WITH EVIDENCE BEFORE US. SUBMISSION CANNOT TAKE T HE PLACE OF EVIDENCE. HENCE WE HAVE TO UPHOLD THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CL AIM OF GENUINENESS OF MANAGEMENT FEES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESEE ON THIS ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF MANAGEMENT FEE IS NOT BONAFIDE AND THE CLAIM REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CONFIRM THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT FEE. 12. COMING TO THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISC USSED THEM IN DETAIL. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAWS AND ALSO CONSIDERED T HE PROPOSITIONS LAID 9 DOWN THEREIN. IN OUR VIEW THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOW N IN ALL THOSE CASES DO NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE F ACTS OF THIS CASE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT FEE PAID WITH EVIDENCE. THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BONAFIDE. THE ISSUE IS NOT DEBATABLE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF MERE DISALLOWANCE ON A DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CONFIRM THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY ON THIS ITEM OF DISALLOWANCE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER,2012. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ON: 3. DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER ON: 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ON: /09 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO SR.P.S. ON: /09 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /09 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK ON : 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GIVEN TO HEAD CLERK ON: 9. DATE OF DISPATCHING THE ORDER ON :