Late Shri Jaswant Singh Madhok through L/H Shri Sandeep Singh Madhok, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6468/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3401 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPIL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A; 274; 132

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHIR K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6468/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20099-10) LATE SHRI JASWANT SINGH MADHOK, THROUGH L/H SHRI SANDEEP SINGH MADHOK, D-97, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI PAN: AAAPS3927J VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SMT NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 28/08/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/11/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A)-25, NEW DELHI DATED 29.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10. 02. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF RS.5,26,354/- IMPOSED U/S 271(L)(C] OF THE ACT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DETAILED SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ID. CIT (A] HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION. 3. THAT THE ID. CIT (A] HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATI NG GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BEFORE HIM. 4. THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AN D VOID AB INITIO SINCE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 THE ID. AO HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE IRRELEVANT CL AUSE OF THE NOTICE, MEANING THEREBY THE AO HAS NOT APPRISE THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHARGE, UNDER WHICH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD GUILTY OF PENAL ACTION. 03. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN CASE OF M/S JAY POLYCHEM INDIA LTD AND ITS ASSOCIATED INITIATED ON 14/3/2012. THEREFORE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED ON PAGE | 2 2/11/2012. CONSEQUENT TO THAT ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF INR 9 002960/ ON 18/12/2012. ASSESSMENT U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT WAS PASSED ON 30/3/2014 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AT INR 1 0733189/. IN THE ASSESSMENT / 1730229 WAS MADE AS MOST OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARDS ARE NONBUSIN ESS IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE HELD AS AN EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY A ND RELIEF FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR JAY POLY CHEM INDIA LTD. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PIL OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES BUT FAILED TO SUBMI T THE BASIS AS TO HOW THESE EXPENSES ARE RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THAT COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE AO THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FO R PERSONAL PURPOSES OF THE DIRECTORS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY SAME W ERE ADDED AS A PART WITH IT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED. NO SPECIFIC CHARGE WAS MENTIONED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 04. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T A WOULD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CREDIT CARD EXPENSE S OF INR 1 81674/ AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF INR 1 54855/. 05. CONSEQUENT TO THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS TRUE INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 06. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY ON 15/3/2016 STATI NG THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXPOSURE RELIEF FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AND THEREFORE IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT T HE COMPANY HAS DEBITED THESE EXPENSES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CLAIM THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND TENA BLE AND ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS WI LLFULLY CONCEALED ITS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY A PENALTY OF INR 5 26354/ WAS LEVIED BY THE ORDER DATED 23/3/2016. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE PAGE | 3 LEARNED CIT A WHEREIN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE AN EX PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED DISMISSING T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 07. DESPITE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE NONE APPEARED BEFORE US, THEREFORE THE ISSUE IS DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS PER I NFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 08. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND THEREFORE IT HAS RESULTED INTO A PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. 09. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION A ND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE GROUND NUMBER 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO SINCE IN THE SHOW WAS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 2 74 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE NOTICE MEANIN G THEREBY THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPRISE THE ISSUE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHA RGE UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD GUILTY OPEN ELECTIONS. THE NOTICE OF PENALTY U/S 274 RWS 271 DATED HAS NOT STRUCK OFF AND THE TWIN CHARGES. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER LD AO HAS MEREL Y MENTIONED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) ARE INITIATED, HOWEVER THERE IS NO SATISFACTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE TWIN CHARGE S. FURTHER EVEN IN THE PENALTY NOTICE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OPENED BOTH THE CHARGES FOR LEVY OF THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, THERE IS ALWAY S CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE TAXPAYER. BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AO HIMSELF WAS NOT AWARE / SURE AS TO WHETHER HE IS ISSUING NO TICE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME' OR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH IN COME' BY THE ASSESSEE RATHER ISSUED VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS NOTICE B Y INCORPORATING BOTH THE LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) . WHEN THE CHARGE IS TO BE FRAMED AGAINST ANY PERSON TO MOVE THE PENAL PROVISIONS AGA INST HIM/HER, HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFICALLY MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGES TO BE PAGE | 4 LEVELED AGAINST HIM/HER. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KAR NATAKA IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD THAT WHEN THE AO HAS FAILED TO ISSUE A SPECIFIC SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS REQ UIRED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L) (C) , PENALTY LEVIED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- '59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY REC ORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUN DS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 , THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER, WH ICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY, WHICH H AS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORD ER AND IF IT IS, A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISIO N CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 OR IN EXPLANATION 1 (B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE O F CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AN D SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF TH E DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271 (1)( C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTME NT SENDING A PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTION ED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 10 0% PAGE | 5 TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS SAID PROVISIONS HA VE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E IS VAGUE. BASED ON SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, TH AT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT, THE FAC TS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOM E CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM G UILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF TH E EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTI ATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLE D UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PAGE | 6 PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND, THE PENALT Y SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE TH E BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS N OT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. TH E VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS I N THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALI DATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE AC T TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIE D IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THU S THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T ASHOK POI V. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 /161 TAXMAN 340 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANU ENGG. [1980] 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VIRGO MARKETING (P) LTD . [2008] 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALT Y HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVI ED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE N OTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR PAGE | 7 FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICA TION OF MIND. ' 10. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSA 'S EMERALD MEADOWS - (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE QUASHING THE PENALTY BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WEL L AS HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON GROUND OF UNSPECIFIED NOTICE HAS HELD AS U NDER:- ' SECTION 274 , READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) , OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT , 1961 - PENALTY - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF (CONDITIONS PRECEDENT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - TRIBUNAL, RELYING ON DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMANN.COM 250, ALLOWED APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1 )(C) WAS BAD IN LAW, AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDE R WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271 (1 )(C) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED, I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT O F PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME - HIGH COURT HELD THAT MATTER WAS COVERED BY AFORESAID DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH AND , THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR DETERMINATION - WHETHER SINCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN SLP FILED BY REVENUE, SAME WAS LIABLE TO B E DISMISSED - HELD, YES [PARA 2] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESS EE]' 11. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS UNDER :- '21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION PAGE | 8 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) (C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER I. E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMEN T IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSA 'S EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241 (KAR) , THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY T HE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 11485 OF 2016 BY ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2016.' 12. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, CIT VS. SSA 'S EMERALD MEADOWS AND PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (S UPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW BEING VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS HAVING NOT SPECIFIED UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, INITI ATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BASED ON VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS NOTICE I S BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH NOT SUSTAINABLE. 13. CONSEQUENTLY, WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERI T, ON THIS GROUND ITSELF , PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) OF RS 526354/- IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11/2019. SD/- SD/- (K.N.CHARY) (PRAS HANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20/11/2019 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO PAGE | 9 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI PAGE | 10 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/ 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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