THE ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI V. M/S. AARTI DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 75/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ TOPRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT KUMAR SINHA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 75/M/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.89 TO 11.01.99 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, APPELLANT FLAT NO. 10A, LOVELY ROSE APT. OPP. ISKON TEMPLE, JUHU ROAD, MUMBAI. VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT CIRCLE 2, THANE APPELLANT BY : MR. PANKAJ TOPRANI RESPONDENT BY : MR. AJIT KUMAR SINHA ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, THANE, PASSED ON 24.03.2008 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.89 TO 11.01.99. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 13 GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR SUBM ITTED THAT HE IS PRESSING ONLY GROUNDS NO. 3, 4 & 8, WHICH READ AS U NDER:- 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE DIARY MARKED A-19 SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT BELONGE D TO THE APPELLANT AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 33,53,134/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SHARES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEE N EARNED BY THE APPELLANT, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THE SAID DIARY MARKED A-19 BELONG TO ONE MR. T. CHATURVEDI WHOSE FULL NAME WAS MR. THAKU RJI CHATURVEDI WHO WAS THE DIRECTOR OF SIRDAR SALES PVT . LTD. AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF M/S ATV PROJECTS LTD. ONLY AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT AS ALLE GED BY THE AO. 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. T. CHATURVEDI TO WHO M THE SAID DIARY A-19 BELONGED. ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 2 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IR ON AND STEEL UNDER THE TRADING NAME IN M/S COLLMAN TRADING CORP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION TOOK PLACE OF ASSESSEES BUSINES S PREMISE AT BHAYANDER ON 11/01/09. ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2001. THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO ITAT AND THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO. 33/MUM/05 FOR BL OCK PERIOD 01.04.89 TO 11.01.99 ORDER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 SENT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO OBSERVING AS UNDE R:- 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A) AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE MAT TER NEEDS RE-VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO. IT HAS BEEN S TATED THAT THE DIARY BELONGS TO ONE SHRI T. CHATURVEDI AND PARTICU LARS WERE GIVEN. HOWEVER, SHRI T. CHATURVEDI COULD NOT BE CON TACTED, NEITHER ASSESSEE FILED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI T . CHATURVEDI THAT THE DIARY BELONGS TO HIM. OF COURSE ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE DIARIES WERE FOUND FR OM HIS POSSESSION. NAMES AND DEALING IN SHARES ETC., ARE MENTIONED IN THESE DIARIES. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT SOME OF THE COMMISSION EARNED BY ASSESSEE WAS DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ALL TH ESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATT ER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRE SH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEAR D. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE AO IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE ITA T, TOOK THE CASE AND FIXED FOR HEARING. AFTER HEARING THE ASSES SEE, CONFIRMED THE ORIGINAL ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 12/12/2007 SUBMITTING T HAT THE SAID DIARY DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE AND CERTA IN TRANSACTIONS WRITTEN IN THE DIARY FOR SHARE TRADING WERE NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. MR. T. CHATURVEDI HAD VISITED HIS OFFICE & HE HAD FORGOTTEN THE SAID DIARY IN HIS OFFICE, HE NCE NO COGNIZANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN & NO ADDITION TO BE MAD E IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NO. OF SHRI T. CHATURVEDI. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE . IN SPITE OF GIVING FRESH OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILE D TO FURNISH ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF DIA RY NO. A- 19. THE ASSESSEE HAD PUTFORTH THE SAME SUBMISSIONS, WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE CIT(A) IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NO NEW EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED DURING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDI NGS. ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 3 THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 20/09/2006 HAD ALSO HEL D THAT ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT DIARY BEL ONG TO THIRD PARTY SINCE IT WAS FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION. THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE SAID ONUS. ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONTESTED COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 33,53,134/- FOR BLOCK PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HEREFORE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS WORKED O UT AT RS. 33,53,134 AS PER ORDER OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, T HANE DATED 27/03/2003 PASSED U/S 80 HHC R.W.S. 250 OF IT ACT, 1961. 5. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO OBSERVING A S UNDER:- SHRI HIMANK DESAI, CA AND SHRI K.V. DESAI APPEARED AND ARGUED THE CASE. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED 1) PA PER BOOK CONTAINING XEROX COPY OF DIARY MARKED A-19 ANNEXURE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 11/01/1999, 2) XEROX COPY OF STATEMENT OF APPELLANT RECORDED ON 15/01/1999 ETC. OTHER THAN THE ABOVE MENTIONED, THE LEARNED AR HAS NOT FI LED ANY DETAILS. IT IS SEEN FROM RECORDS THAT THE SAID DIAR Y WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE SAID DIARY DID NOT BELONG TO THE A PPELLANT SQUARELY FALLS ON THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED AR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY FRESH EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CONTESTED COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF RS. 33,53,134/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ABOVE, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD DETERMINED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/12/2007 OF RS. 33,53,134/-. 6. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WITHOUT COM PLYING WITH THE ORDER OF ITAT REPEATED THE ORIGINAL ADDITI ON. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED DIARY FOUND AT THE T IME OF SEARCH WAS NOT THE DIARY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS PERTAINED TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH DECEMBER, 2007 INCLUDING COMPLETE ADDRESS AND RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS. THE LEARN ED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THR OUGH THE ABOVE LETTER THAT THE TRANSACTION MENTIONED IN THE SAID D IARY DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO IS SUE SUMMONS TO MR. T. CHATURVEIDE AND TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHOSE NAM ES ARE MENTIONED IN THE DIARY TO ASCERTAIN ACTUAL TRANSACT IONS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQU ESTS, THE AO DID NOT ISSUE SUMMONS TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI. ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 4 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT DIARY WAS FO UND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF THE DIARY. THE LEARNED DR SU BMITTED THAT ITAT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF SUMMONS U/S 131 WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IN T HIS CASE IS A LIMITED IN THE SENSE THAT WHETHER THE AO HAS COMPLI ED WITH THE ORDER OF ITAT OR NOT? HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE SUB ORDINATE AUTHORITIES OTHERWISE; ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WOULD LEAD TO CHAOS. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOKAI CORPO RATION V. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [20 07] 162 TAXMAN 369 (DELHI). 12. THE SUPREME COURT STATED, MANY YEARS AGO, IN UNION OF INDIA V. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPN. LTD. [1991] (55) ELT 433 A S FOLLOWS : ...THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE T HAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNR ESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES.... (P. 436) IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT I F THE ORDER OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF FURTHE R APPEAL, THAT CANNOT FURNISH ANY GROUND FOR NOT FOLLOWING IT, UNL ESS ITS OPERATION HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY A COMPETENT COURT. THE SUPREM E COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT IF THIS HEALTHY RULE IS NOT FOLLOWED ; THE RESULT WILL NOT ONLY BE UNDUE HARASSMENT TO ASSESSEES BUT CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LAWS. 13. IN CIT V.RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. [2007] 2 SCC 326, THE SUPREME COURT HELD : ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 5 9. WHEN AN ORDER IS PASSED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY, THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS BOUND THEREBY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRIN CIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE.... (P. 330) THE SUPREME COURT DREW SUPPORT FROM BHOPAL SUGAR IN DUSTRIES LTD. V. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD : IF A SUBORDINATE TRIBUNAL REFUSES TO CARRY OUT DIR ECTIONS GIVEN TO IT BY A SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPEL LATE POWERS THE RESULT WILL BE CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTI CE.... (P. 622) IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED IN BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) : ...THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SITTING IN AP PEAL OVER THE TRIBUNAL AND WE DO NOT THINK THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THIS CASE, IT WAS OPEN TO HIM TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL WAS WRONG AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INJUSTICE IN DISREGARD ING THAT ORDER. AS WE HAVE SAID EARLIER, SUCH A VIEW IS DESTRUCTIVE OF ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (P. 6 23) 14. SIMILARLY, IN TRIVENI CHEMICALS LTD. V. UNION OF I NDIA [2007] 2 SCC 503, THE SUPREME COURT REITERATED THE PRINCIPLE THAT ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND BY THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. 8.1 IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THE ITAT CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT IN THIS REGARD ONUS LIES UPON THE ASS ESSEE BECAUSE DIARY WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT WAS THAT THE DIARY WAS NOT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ENTRIES IN THE DIA RY WERE RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF M/S ATV PROJECT INDIA LTD. T HE ITAT OBSERVED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS VERIFICATION AT THE END OF TH E AO. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISCHARGING HIS ONUS HAS MA DE A SPECIFIC REQUEST BEFORE THE AO VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 12 TH DECEMBER, 2007 THAT SUMMONS MAY BE ISSUED TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI AS THE DIARY BELONGS TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI. THE AO HAS TOTALLY OV ERLOOKED THE DIRECTION OF ITAT AND ARID DEALT WITH THE MATTER WI THOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE ITAT. T HE AO DID NOT ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 6 EXERCISE HIS POWER TO FIND OUT THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN SUBMITTING V ARIOUS DETAILS AND REQUEST TO ISSUE SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 OF TH E ACT TO VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING MR T. CHATURVEDI .FOR THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 12 TH DECEMBER, 2007, OF WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 4 TO 6 OF ASSESSEES PAPER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1 ) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON A DAY OF SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON 15.01.1999 STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE IT ACT, 196 1 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FURNISHED ADDRESS OF M/S SIRDA R SALES PVT. LTD. AND ALSO ADDRESS OF T. CHATURVEDI. FURTHE R, ADDRESS OF T. CHATURVEDI IS ALREADY MENTIONED ON DIARY MARK ED ANNEXURE 20 AND HIS ADDRESS IS SHOP NO. 13, HILTO N TOWER, SHREE PUNJAB COLONY, ANDHERI (E) AND HIS RESIDENTIA L ADDRESS IS 2004, SHEFFIELD TOWER, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDH ERI (W), MUMBAI 400 058 HIS RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE NOS IS 8 366971, 8378259 AND OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 6262336. 2) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION MENTIONED I N THE SAID DIARIES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. YOU ARE REQ UESTED TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI AND TO VARIOUS P ARTIES WHOSE NAMES ARE MENTIONED IN THE DIARY TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION. THERE ARE CERTAIN TRANSACTION W RITTEN IN THE DIARY FOR SHARE TRADING WHICH WERE NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3) HANDWRITING OF DIARY NO. A/19 AND A/20 ARE SAME AND NO ADDITION ARE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS REC ORDED IN THE DIARY OF M/S SIRDAR SALES PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE CASE OF TRANSACTION RECORDED IN DIARY MAINTAINED BY T. CHATURVEDI. 4) THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF TELEPHONE DIRECTORY DURING COURSE OF REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN TELEPHONE NUMBER OF MR. T. CHAT URVEDI AND ADDRESS WERE MENTIONED AND P.A.NO. OF T. CHATU RVEDI WAS ALSO FURNISHED. 5) DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E LEARNED AO HAD CALLED FROM BANK OF THE STATEMENTS M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO SUCH DEPOSIT AS MENTIONED IN T. CHATURVEDIS DIARY WERE DEPOSITED AND DURING COURSE OF THE SEARCH NO OTHER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS FOUND. 6) IT WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T. CHATURVEDI HAD VISITED HIS OFFICE AND HE HAD FORGOT TEN THE SAID DIARY IN HIS OFFICE, HENCE NO COGNIZANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN AND NO ADDITION TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 7 7) INSPITE OF REAPEATED REQUESTS NO SUMMONS HAS BEE N ISSUED TO MR. T. CHATURVEDI AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8) NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT UNLESS SUMMONS IS I SSUED TO PARTIES NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.2 FROM ABOVE FACTS WE FIND THAT IT WAS THE DUT Y OF THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE FACTS OF THE CAS E. WHEN THE AO HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT AND FAILED TO RECORD COMPLETE FACTS IN SPITE OF THE FACTS THAT IN THE FI RST ROUND OF LITIGATION THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, IT WILL NOT FAIR AND JUST TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AGAIN TO GIVE ONE MORE INNINGS OF LITIGATION AND TO IMPROVE THE CASE OF THE REVENUE . THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF GIVING 'ONE MORE INNINGS' TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEALS ARE NOT TO BE DECIDE D FOR GIVING 'ONE MORE INNINGS', TO THE AO. CONSIDERING PECULIAR FACT S OF THE CASE AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AO TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH IMPUGNED ADDITIO N IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (A.L. GEHLOT ) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH JUNE, 2010. ITA NO. 75/M/08 VIJAY CHATURVEDI, 8 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, F BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI. KV S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1.6.10 SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2.6.10 SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER