M/s ACB (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 82/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9886 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Commercial expediency; Set aside
• Section: 37(1); 13; 119; 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI D BEN CH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 82/DEL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] M/S ACB [INDIA] POWER LTD VS. THE DY. C.I.T. C 102, SURYA ENCLAVE CIRCLE 1(2) NEW MULTAN NAGAR NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AAICA 7305 D [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.20 20 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL KAPOOR, SR. ADV REVENUE BY : MS RAKHI VIMAL, DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 1, NEW DELHI DATED 13.10.2015 PERTAINING T O A.Y 2012-13. 2 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS AR GUED BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 82,51,230/- U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT]. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSE SSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, GENERATION, STORAGE, TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY OF ELECTRICIT Y AND POWER AND ENERGY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBS IDIARY OF ACB (INDIA) LIMITED AND IT IS A FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF ARY AN GROUP. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 20.07.2010 WIT H MAIN OBJECT, INTER ALIA, TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, GENERATION, STORAGE, TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION, SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY, T O PROMOTE, OWN, ACQUIRE, ERECT, CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, MAIN TAIN, TAKE OVER POWER COMPANIES AND TO HOLD SHARES IN POWER COMPANI ES. 4. ON SCRUTINISING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS. 2, 50,000/-BEING EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANC Y CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 38,356/- HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME. THE TOTAL REVENUE 3 WAS SHOWN AT RS. 2,88,356/-, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES: I) EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EXPENSES RS. 2,53,091/- II) FINANCE COST RS. 82,51,230/- III) OTHER EXPENSES RS. 11,18,729/- 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY ACTIVITY THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION IS MAKING INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY CHARGES WHICH WERE CHARGED TO MARUTI CLEAN COAL& POWER LTD. TOWARDS POWER CONSULTANCY FOR 300M W PROJECT THERMAL POWER PLANT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVABLE AS AT T HE END OF THE YEAR. 6. ON THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIF Y ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY EXPLAINING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF TH E REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 4 ACB (INDIA) LIMITED (REFERRED AS ACBIL HEREIN AFTE R) IS A FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF ARYAN GROUP. ACBIL, ALONG WITH ITS SUBSI DIARIES AND ASSOCIATES, IS LARGEST AND MOST EFFICIENT COAL WASH ERY OPERATOR IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITH AN AGGREGATE DESIGNED BENEF ICIATION CAPACITY, ON A PROPORTIONAL BASIS, OF 62.34 MILLION TONS PER ANNUM. THE COMPANY HAS THE LARGEST COAL BENEFICIATION PLAN T IN INDIA IN DIPKA (CHHATTISGARH), WITH A DESIGNED CAPACITY OF 1 2.00 MILLION TONS PER ANNUM. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD (REFERRED AS ACBIPL HEREIN AF TER)WAS FORMED FOI BETTER MANAGEMENT PROSPECTIVE OF POWER P LANTS. THE MANAGEMENT OF ACB HA DECIDED TO SEGREGATE THE REJEC T BASED POWER PLANTS AND RAW COAL BASED POWER PLANT AND IN JULY' 2010 THE COMPANY FORMED ITS NEW SUBSIDIARY ACBIPL. ALL COAL BAS< POWER PLANTS ARE MANAGED THROUGH ACBIPL AND ALL REJECTS B ASED THERMAL ARE MANAGED BY ACBIL. THE MEMORANDUM OF ACBIPL READS AS UNDER: 1. TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, GENERATION, STORAGE, TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY (BULK AND RETAIL), POWER AND EI 2. TO PROMOTE, OWN, ACQUIRE, ERECT, CONSTRUCT, ESTABLI SH, OPERATE, M< TAKEOVER POWER COMPANIES, HOLD SHARE IN POWER COMPA NIES, AND USE THE E ELECTRICITY GENERATION CAPACITIES OWNED BY ANY GENE RATORS, INCLUDING AN TITLE OR INTEREST THEREIN AS WELL AS P OWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, FOR VENTURE WITH OTHER FOR PROMOTING AND TO OWN, ACQUIRE, DEVELOP MINES FOR POWER GENERATION AND OTH ER END USES IN 5 ANY PARTS OF INDI AND ELSEWHERE THROUGH TENDERS, LI CENSE FROM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ALL SUCH ACTS AND THINGS NECE SSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME COMPANY MAY FROM TIME TO T IME THINK PROPERLY TO BE ACQUIRED FOR AND TO SET UP, PROMOTE, OPERATE AND CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF COA WASHERIES, LIQUEFIED N ATURAL GAS FOR SUPPLY OF FUEL TO STATIONS AND TO 3. TO TAKE OVER, ACQUIRE, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, MANAGE AN D USE COMPANIES POWER PLANTS, COGENERATION POWER PLANTS, ENERGY CON SERVATION PROJ HOUSES, AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS F OR GENERATION, D TRANSMISSION, AND SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY.... DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS RECEIVED TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY AND SAME WERE INV< SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPANIES TO FULFIL THE OBJECTIVE OF BEING A HOLDING TO HAVE BETTER MANAGEM ENT OF COMPANIES INVOLVED TO POWER PRODUCTION AND COMMERCI AL OBJECTIVES AS STATED BY MOA A AOA BY SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHE OF SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPANIES. A BRIEF NOTE ON SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPANIES, I N WHICH THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDE R ASSESSMENT IS ENCLOSED EVIDENCING THEIR NATURE OF BUSINESS, WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS IN PREVIOUS YEARS AND CURRENT YEAR. THE SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUPCOMPANIES HAVE ENTERED IN TO MOU IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTS WITH THE GOVT AUTHORITIES . LONG TERM OPEN ACCESS HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPANIES AND BULK POWER TRANSMISSION AGREEMENTS, H AVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6 IT IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, TO PROMOTE, OWN ERECT, CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, TAKEOVER POWER COMPANIES, HO IN POWER COMPANIES OR TURNOVER, ACQUIRE, OPERATE, MAINTAIN,MANAGE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN POWER PLANTS. EVEN THE AMOUNTINVESTED BY THE SHARE CAPITA L INFUSION DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE INTEREST PAID IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WE MAY REFER TO SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 WHICH STATES THAT 'THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITA! BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINES S OR PROFESSION' HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COM PUTING THE INCOME-TAX UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. IN MADHAV PRASAD JATICN. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS' OCCURRING UNDER THE PROVISION IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME, PROF ITS OR GAINS', AND THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF APEX COURT. THUS IN ATHERTON V. BRITISH INSULATED SJDELSBY CABLES LTD. [1925] 10 TC 155, IT WAS HELD BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION, IT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY IS EXPENDED, NOT OF NECESSITY AND WITH A VIEW TO DIREC T AND IMMEDIATE BENEFIT, BUT VOLUNTARILY AND ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCI AL EXPEDIENCY AND IN ORDER TO INDIRECTLY TO FACILITATE THE CARRYI NG ON THE BUSINESS. THE ABOVE TEST IN ATHERTON'S CASE, {SUPRA) HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COURT IN SEVERAL DECISIONS E.G.EASTERN INVESTMENTS LTD. V. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1, CIT V .CHANDULALKESHAVLALDT CO. [1960] 38 ITR 601 ETC. 7 THE EXPRESSION 'COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY' IS AN EXPRES SION OF WIDE IMPORT AND INCLUDES SUCH EXPENDITURE AS A PRUD ENT BUSINESSMAN INCURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, BUT YET IT IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, IF IT WAS INCU RRED ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS' IS WIDER I N SCOPE THAN THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFITS' VIDE CIT V. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD, [1964] 53 ITR 140, CIT V. BIRLA COTTON SPG. AWVG. MILLS LTD. [1971] 82 ITR 166 ETC. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT EVEN THE INVESTMENT S MADE IN SHARE CAPITAL OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BY THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT BE CALLED THE INVESTMENTS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE BECAUSE IN THE MEMORANDUM AND THE ARTICLES OF THE COMPANY, ONE OF THE OBJECTS THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY MENTIONED IS 'INVESTMENTS IN S HARES OF OTHER COMPANIES BY THE ASSESSEE' WE RELY ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF SA BUILDERS VS CIT 288 ITR 1 - SC, WHERE IN THE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A HOLDING COMPANY HAS A D EEP INTEREST IN ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND HENCE IF THE HOLDING COMPANY AD VANCES BORROWED MONEY TO A SUBSIDIARY AND THE SAME IS USED BY THE S UBSIDIARY FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, ORDINARILY BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON ITS BORROWED LOANS...' 8 FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE BOR ROWED FUNDS WERE INVESTED INTO SUBSIDIARIES & GROUP COMPANIES AND THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF FUNDS AT ALL. SINCE THE FUNDS H AVE BEEN INVESTED INTO SUBSIDIARIES & GROUP COMPANIES, WHICH IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HENCE THE INTEREST IS A BUSIN ESS EXPENSE FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE IT IS REQUESTED NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTME NTS IN SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPANIES SINCE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN INCURRED TO PERUSE THE OBJECTIVES AS LAID DOWN BY T HE MOA AND AOA AND INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARIES AND GROUP COMPA NIES, IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. PARTICULARS AMOUNT AS ON 31.03.2012 (IN CRORES) AMOUNT AS ON 31.03.2011 (IN INFLOW OF FUNDS SHAREHOLDER FUNDS 547.47 273.70 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING ALLOTMENT - 27.45 SHORT TERM BORROWINGS - 57.03 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH 547.47 358.18 OUTFLOW OF FUNDS NON-CURRENT INVESTMENTS 418.83 358.18 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENDING ALLOTMENT WITH SUBSIDIARIES & GROUP COMPANIES 128.60 TOTAL FUNDS INVESTED 547.43 358.18 9 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE BORROWINGS OF T HE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS BEEN INVESTED IN SHARE CAPITAL OF SUBSIDIARY COMPAN IES AND EVEN THE FUNDS RAISED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA VE BEEN INVESTED IN SUBSIDIARY SHARES OF GROUP COMPANIES AND ALSO REPAY ING THE LOANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT BORRO WED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWING S SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND IF THE CAPITAL BORR OWED IS NOT UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDI NGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 82,51,230/-. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE DISA LLOWANCE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT ALSO. 10. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE F INDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THROUGH HER WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS, PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE RIVAL REPRESENTATIVES. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO ENGAG ED IN THE SAME BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AN D DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED AT P ARA 5.1 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE BO RROWINGS AS ON 01.04.2011. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS 288 ITR 1 SQUARELY APPLIES ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY HAS DE EP INTEREST IN IS SUBSIDIARY AND HENCE IF THE HOLDING COMPANY ADVANCE S BORROWED MONEY TO A SUBSIDIARY AND THE SAME IS USED FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE 11 ASSESSEE WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, ORDINARILY BE ENTI TLED TO DEDUCTION ON INTEREST OF ITS BORROWED LOANS. 15. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND ARE ON STRONGER F OOTING IN AS MUCH AS IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE APPELLANT DID NOT ADVAN CE ANY LOAN TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES BUT HAS INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF SUBS IDIARY COMPANIES. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF THE AP PELLANT ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS AS THAT OF THE ASSESSE E WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE MAIN OBJECT CLAUSE IN THE MEMORAND UM OF ASSOCIATION. 16. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE TOT ALLY ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. IN CASE OF PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL, T HE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO FINDING S RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT INTERESTS FREE ADVANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERNS FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES. THAT CA SE WAS OF ADVANCES WHEREAS THE CASE IN HAND IS OF INVESTMENT. 17. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF THUKRAL REGAL SHOES 391 ITR 119 WAS OF LOAN WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PROPERTIES WERE P URCHASED IN THE 12 NAME OF PARTNERS AND PROPERTY WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CATEGORICAL LY Y FOUND THAT ASSETS PURCHASED BY PARTNERS WERE NOT PUT TO USE AT LEAST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD IS OF NO GOOD AS TH E SAME HAS BEEN OVER RULED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M UNJAL SALES CORPN. 298 ITR 298. 18. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA WORLD CITY D EVELOPERS LTD 107 TAXMANN.COM 16, THE QUARREL WAS IN RESPECT OF PROVI SO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT VIS A VIS SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. ON THE SAME LINES, THE OTHER JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE ALSO CLEARL Y DISTINGUISHABLE. 19. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SH ARES TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF MAIN OBJECTS OF ITS B USINESS AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL. WE , ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 82,51,230/-. 13 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 82/DEL/2016 STANDS ALLOWED ON THE GROUND ARGUED BEFORE US. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.06. 2020. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2020. VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ASST. REGISTRAR 4. CIT(A) ITAT, NEW DELHI 5. DR 14 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.PS /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.P S/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 RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER