Shri Durga Loha Bhandar Private Limited, MuzaffarNagar V. Pr, CIT, , Dehradun

ITA 803/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Durga Loha Bhandar Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Pr. CIT, Dehradun, setting aside their assessment for the year 2015-16. The original assessment under section 143(3) was challenged by the Pr. CIT on grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, primarily because the Assessing Officer did not refer certain domestic transactions to the TPO for determining the Arm's Length Price as required under the now-omitted section 92BA(i). The ITAT found that since the provision was omitted before the assessment was completed, the Pr. CIT's order was not sustainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113211 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT Vs. Texport Overseas P. Ltd., Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Yorkn Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, M/s. Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) Vs. ITO, M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Srinath li Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others, M/s. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd, M/s. Kohalapur Cane Sugar vs. State of Maharashtra, Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt Ltd, Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Revision of order; Transfer pricing
• Section: 6; 263; 143(3); 92; 92B; 14A; 251; 92CA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 803/Del/2021 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Assessment Years:2015-16 Shri Durga Loha Bhandar Pvt. Ltd., Vehlana Chowk, Meerut Road, Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 251 001. बनाम Vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun. PAN No. AANCS4365A अपीलाथᱮ / Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरतीकᳱओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Alok Gupta, C. A.; & Shri Vivek Chauhan, C. A. राज᭭वकᳱओरसे / Department by : Ms. Sapna Bhatia; [CIT] - D. R. सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/ Date of hearing : 15/02/2023 उ᳃ोषणाकᳱतारीख/Pronouncement on : 04/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to Pr. CIT) I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 2 Dehradun, dated 26.03.2021 for assessment year 2015-16 holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and setting aside the assessment. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following ground of appeal:- “ That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT setting aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is bad in law.” 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.90,62,200/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify interest expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A, mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR and mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act reported in audit report and ITR. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 22.09.2017 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.94,29,100/-. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued under section 263 of the Act as to why the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) on the specified domestic transactions with “related persons” specified in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Assessee I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 3 furnished its reply stating that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the same was passed after proper enquiry and verification. It was contended that Assessing Officer has examined in detail the related party transactions and other reasons for selection of case for “limited scrutiny” and thereafter made addition/disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- towards expenses incurred for related parties under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act as provided in sub section (i) of section 92CA of the Act. 4. In so far as reference to TPO is concerned, it was contended that each and every case is not to be referred to TPO and it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to TPO with the previous approval of the Pr. CIT. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer has sought for the explanation from the assessee in respect of the related party transactions on the query raised and the same has been replied by the assessee vide reply dated 21.08.2017 in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee contended that the issue regarding completion of impugned assessment without any reference to TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price is not in contravention of Board’s Circular No. 3/2016 dated 10.03.2016. It is the case of the assessee that all the documents pertaining to specified domestic transactions as per Form 3CBE with details and comparisons were furnished before the Assessing Officer, who had duly examined the same. It was also further contended that one of the scrutiny reasons was mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act reported in the audit report and ITR and as per CBDT Circular I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 4 No. 3/2016 which replaced earlier Circular No. 2015 and as such it was not mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to refer the case to TPO and mismatch in figures cannot be said to be a case for transfer pricing risk parameters. 5. However, the ld. Pr. CIT by order under section 263 of the Act dated 26.03.2021 cancelled the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and to pass fresh assessment order after due verification of the issue as the Assessing Officer failed to refer the specified domestic transactions to the TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price after due enquiry and verification. 6. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during the concerned AY 2015-16, assessee was subjected to the provisions of Domestic Transfer Pricing under section 92BA(i) as assessee had made purchases from its related party. The case of appellant was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" through CASS for the reason large interest expenses relatable to exempt income u/s 14A mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit report and ITR and mismatch in amount paid to related person u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit report and ITR. The order of assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) on date 22.09.2017 making following addition/disallowance. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,16,880/-. Payment to related party on account of rent Rs.2,50,000/-. Ld. Counsel submits that this is an appeal filed against the order of PCIT passed u/s 263, whereby ld. PCIT has cancelled the assessment order. According to the ld. PCIT reference was required to be made to TPO as only TPO is empowered to determine the arm's length I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 5 price after due enquiry and verification and since reference had not been made to TPO and hence the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had not been correctly applied by the AO. Therefore, the assessment order passed by Id. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that section 92BA(i) has been repealed vide Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and the assessment order passed was not erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld. Counsel submits that since clause (i) of Section 92BA has been omitted by the statute through the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, therefore, it is deemed that the said clause was never part of the Act. While deleting clause (i) of section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not specify whether proceeding initiated or action taken on this section will continue or not. Ld. Counsel submits that since there was no express saving clause or provision, stating whether the pending proceedings shall continue, it is deemed that the said clause has been deleted since its inception. Accordingly, any pending proceedings are null and void. Ld. Counsel further submits that the effect of omission of a provision without any saving clause of General Clauses Act means that the said provision was not in existence or never existed in the statute book. If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 6 been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. It is submitted that the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA is unconditional, that is, it does not say that pending proceedings under the clause would continue in future even after its omission on 01.04.2017. Therefore, in the absence of such condition/ saving clause it would be presumed that clause (i) of section 92BA had obliterated from the inception, that is, it would be presumed that clause (i) of section 92BA never existed in the statute book, it had never been passed and to be considered as a law never been existed Ld. Counsel submits that the effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute- book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) Pr. CIT Vs. Texport Overseas P. Ltd. [(2020) 114 taxmann.com 568 (Kar.)] (ii) Shahi Expoprts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA. No. 483/Del/2021) (iii) Yorkn Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA. No. 635/Del/2021 dated 18.08.2021; (iv) SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA. No. 6597/Del/2018); (v) M/s. Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) Vs. ITO (ITA. No. 117/Gau/2019; (vi) M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd. [(ITA. No. 895/Kol/2019 dated 10.06.2020]; (vii) M/s. Srinath li Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. [(ITA. No. 1035/Kol/2019]. I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 7 8. The ld. Counsel further placing reliance on the decision of the Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and M/s. Srinath li Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) submits that order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 26.03.2021 by the ld. Pr. CIT i.e. after the repeal of clause (i) of section 92BA and, therefore, in view of the judgements no action could have been taken as the section was repealed as if the law had never been engaged. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. Heard rival submissions perused orders of the authorities below. In this case the ld. Pr. CIT held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the only reason that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the specified domestic transactions to the TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price. It is observed that sub clause (i) of section 92BA has been repealed vide Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1.04.2017. This Amendment to sub clause (i) of section 92BA was made even prior to completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on 22.09.2017 and for that matter even prior to passing of the order by the ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act. 11. In the case of M/s. Bharti (SMSK) (JV) (supra) an identical issue came up before the Gauhati Bench of Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15 and the Tribunal held as under:- I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 8 "9. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Swastik Coal Corporation PvtLtd (Supra vide order dated 26.07.2019 In this orderthe Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: "8. We find that the above view of the Ld. PrCIT is not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion, moreover, the coordinate bench has also examined the issue inthe case of Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.1722/Bang/2017. Admittedly in this case, the order has been revised purely on the basis that the assessing officer has not referred to determine the arm's length price to the TPO. Since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under these undisputed facts in the light of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of General Finance Company (supra) as well as the order of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [supra]. The impugned order cannot be sustained hence is hereby quashed. The order impugned is thus quashed and the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed" 10. On the very identical facts the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of M/s Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd., in 1TA No. 895/Kol/2019 for AY 2014-15 order dated 10.06.2020 held as follows: "12. .... We note that Id PCIT issued the above show cause notice u/s 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause () of section 92BA of the Act which was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017 and effect of such "omission" of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision was never existed in the statute booksince clause (i) of section 92 BA was never existed in the statute book therefore, Id PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (iof section 92BA of the Act. In other words, since the clause () of section 92BA was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017 by the Finance Act 2017Thereforein the Act, clause (i) of section 92BA stood "omitted" from the Act as if it was never in the statute book. Therefore, "omission" means the above provisions was not in existence or never existed in the statute book. To support this we find useful a the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rayala Corporation (PI Ltd (1970 AIR 494) I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 9 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the terminology "omission" and "Repeal" and distinguished these terminologies also. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: 13 Case before us is that the clause (i) of section 92BA is unconditionally omitted without a saving Clause in favour of pending proceedings therefore Id PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 17.... Having gone through the concluding para, as mentioned above, we note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills [supra], has not decided the issue in favour of Revenue. Therefore, the contention of Id. D.R. that Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the issue in favour of Revenue, is not tenable. In fact, the concluding para No. 44 of the said judgment clearly speaks that the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also advocates that omitted provision being treated as if it never existed and as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not then apply to allow the previous operation of the provision so omitted or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Nor may a legal proceeding in respect of any right or liability be instituted, continued or enforced in respect of rights and liabilities acquired or incurred under the enactment so omitted. Therefore, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/sShree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra)it can be Page / 12 M/s. Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) ITA No.117/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 said that since clause () of section 92BA was omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 therefore, it would be treated that said since clause(i) of section 92BA was never existed in the statute book." II. Therefore based on the above judgements of the Coordinate Benches [in the case of Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt Ltd and in the case of M/s Raipur Steel Casting India (p) Ltd. (supra)] we hold that since clause () section 92 A was omitted with effect from 1st April2017 and the effect of such omission is that the saidclause() was never existed in the statute. Hence. Ld. PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.” 12. Similarly in the case of M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Kolkata Bench held as under:- I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 10 "11 As we noticed that clause (i) of section 92BA has been omitted" with effect from 01.04.2017. The effect of such omission without any saving clause of General Clauses Act, means that the above provision was not in existence or never existed in the statute hook. If it is held that effect of such "omission" of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision was never existed in the statute book, then in that situation the exercise of jurisdiction by the Id PCIT [in respect of above said clause (i) of section 92 BA] under section 26.1 of the Act would fail. 12. We note that Id PCIT issued the above show cause notice u/s 263 in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act which was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017 and effect of such "omission" of clause (i1 of section 92BA means that this provision was never existed in the statute book, since clause fit of section 92BA was never existed in the statute book therefore. Id PCIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 26.1 of the Act in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act. In other words, since the clause fi) of section 92BA was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017 by the Finance Act 2017. Therefore, in the Act, clause (i) of section 92BA stood "omitted" from the Act as if it was never in the statute bonk. Therefore, "omission" means the above provisions was not in existence or never existed in the statute book ... Argument advanced by Shri Viiav Shankar. (CIT- DR) on behalf of the Revenue was that the prosecution /penalty in respect of clause fi) of section 92BA of the Act, was in force in assessment year 2014-15 and therefore it is valid even after 01.04.2017. [When the clause was omitted]We do not agree with Id DR for the Revenue because omitted clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, does not contain any condition/ saving clause to the effect that a legal proceeding could be instituted even after the omission of clause (il of section 92BA of the Act. It is clear that when clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted, the Legislature did not make any provision that any prosecution/penalty committed under clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, would continue to remain punishable even after its omission w.e.f. 01.04.2017. therefore, in the absence of such condition/saving clause it would be presumed that clause (il of section 92BA had obliterated from the inception, that is. it would be presumed that clause till of section 92BA was never existed in the statute book. I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 11 17..... First, we take the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. C.I.T. Excise & Others 2015(3261 ELT 209 (S.C.I. the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced below: ......The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also advocates that omitted provision being treated as if it never existed and as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not then apply to allow the previous operation of the provision so omitted or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Nor may a legal proceeding in respect of any right or liability be instituted continued or enforced in respect of rights and liabilities acquired or incurred under the enactment, so omitted. Therefore, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills supra, it can be said that since clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 therefore, it would be treated that said since clause (i) of section 92BA was never existed in the statute hook. 20. We are of the view that at this juncture it is necessary to examine, the meaning of saving clause? As Per the law. Com Law Dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed. the saving clause has been defined as follows: "A saving clause in a statute is an exception of a special thing out of the general things mentioned in the statute; it is ordinarily a restriction in a repealing act which is intended to save rights pending proceedings penalties etc. from the annihilation which would result from an unrestricted repeal In contracts it is a clause that states that ambiguities should not render a contract void or voidable but the contract should be enforced in all other respects provided it can still exist as a valid and binding agreement" Thus, the saving clause means a clause which denotes a reservation or exception. As per Find Law Legal dictionary saving clause means a clause in a statute exempting something from statute's operation Having discussed the meaning of saving clause, it has become quite clear that at the time of omission of clause (i) of section 92BA with effect from 01.04.2017 the Legislature did not mention any terms and conditions to the effect that after omission of clause [1] of section 92B Apending proceedings/penalties etc. till the date of omission (01.04.20171 will survive. That is the Legislature did not insert new section in the Income Tax Act to the effect that pending proceedings/penalties etc in relation to clause Li) of section 92BA will survive even after omission[That is after 01.04.2017). Hence we note that these terms and conditions, as discussed above, are I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 12 absent in case of omitted clause [1of section 92BA of the Act, therefore as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rayala Corporation [supra] and Kohlapur Cane Sugar (supra)it will be presumed that clause [i] of section 92BA never existed in the Statute Bookmeaning thereby it is obliterated from the very beginning and hence the jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act invoking clause [if section 92BA for reference by A.Oto TPO is null in the eye of Law as clause [] of section 92 BA is "omitted" and not "repealed" and there is no provision in any other section of the Income Tax Act saving the pending proceedings initiated under the omitted provision [[clause [i] of sec. 92BA]] as the said clause was omitted on 01.04.2017, therefore, subsequent revision proceedings by Id. Pr.CIT u/s 263 on dated 08.03.2019 would be invalid...." 21. We note that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Indore in the case of Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 486/Ind/2018order dated 26.07.2011, has quashed the order of Id PCIT under section 263 of the Act, on the identical facts, as narrated above. The findings of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below: "8. We find that the above view of the Ld. Pr. CIT is not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion moreover, the coordinate bench has also examined the issue in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in IT [TP]A No.1722/Bang/2017Admittedly, in this case, the order has been revised purely on the basis that the assessing officer has not referred to determine the arm's length price to the TPO. Since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the LdPrCIT, under these undisputed facts in the light of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of General Finance Company [supra] as well as the order of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Textport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [supra] the impugned order cannot be sustained, hence is hereby quashed. The order impugned is thus quashed and the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed." 13. In the case of Yorkn Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) Delhi Tribunal held as under:- “15. The issue for consideration before us is clause (i) of Section 92BA which has been omitted from 01.04.2017 and there is no re-enactment with modification or any Saving Clause in any other Sections of the Act. Thus, without any I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 13 Saving Clause or similar enactment, then it has to be held that Clause (i) of Section 92BA did not come into operation whenever any action has been taken especially after such omission. Accordingly, we hold that no Transfer Pricing Adjustment can be made on a domestic transaction which has been referred to by the Assessing Officer after the omission of the said clause by the Finance Act, 2017 even though transaction has undertaken in the Assessment Year 2016-17. 16. Further, our decision is equally fortified by the judgment of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT which pertained to the Assessment Year 2014-15, and catena of other judgments as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee cited extenso in the foregoing paragraphs.” 14. Ratio of these decisions squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case. In the case on hand also admittedly the order under section 143(3) of the Act has been revised solely on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not referred to the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the specified domestic transactions. Since the provision of sub clause (i) of clause 92BA itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the ld. Pr. CIT, in the light of the above judgements and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Company the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 04/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( G. S. PANNU ) ( C. N. PRASAD ) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 14 Dated : 04/05/2023. *MEHTA* आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक / Assessee 2. राज᭭व / Revenue 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4.आयकर आयुᲦ- अपील / CIT (A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, DELHI/ DR, ITAT, DELHI 6. गाडᭅ फाइल / Guard file. By order ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi. Date of dictation 01.05.2023 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 02.05.2023 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member 04.05.2023 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 04.05.2023 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 04.05.2023 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS 04.05.2023 I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2021 15 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 04.05.2023 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 04.05.2023 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