Mohd Irshad, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 882/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91238 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Capital receipt; Condonation of delay; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.C.GUPTA, V.P. AND SH. N. K. SAI NI, AM ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 MOHD. IRSHAD 502, RAMPURI, ROORKEE ROAD MUZAFFARNAGAR VS ITO WARD- 2(1) MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO . AIBPM6434B ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAM AVTAR BANSAL ADV., SMT PREM LATA BANSAL SR. ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJH A, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .06.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2011 OF LD. CIT(A)- MUZAFFARNAGAR. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 315 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLI CATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BY STATING THEREIN THAT THE DE LAY OCCURRED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BONA FIDE. IT WAS FURTHER ST ATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 50,00,000/- SUBJ ECT TO NO PENAL ACTION BUT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 UPHELD THE P ROCEEDING ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 2 INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRME D THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- ACCEPTING THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE A DDITION OF RS. 7,13,535/- MADE BY THE AO ON OTHER GROUNDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CONDITIONAL SURRENDER HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND I T WAS ONLY WHEN THE AO IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 17,00,000/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2012, THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVI NG THE SAID ORDER SOUGHT AN OPINION FROM THE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO OPINED THAT THE SURRENDER WAS CONDITIONAL, IT WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION AS HE BEING THE I LLITERATE PERSON, NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DESPITE THE CONDITIONAL SURRENDER AO IMP OSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 17,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRA INED TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDING U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING GOES TO THE VARY ROUTE OF THE MATTER AND TOUCHES THE JURISDICTION OF THE A O U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES :- A) COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (198 7) 167 ITR 471 (SC) ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 3 B) SURYA GENERAL TRADERS VS. CTO (2003) 133 STC 388 , 389 (AP) APPLYING COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. M ST KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) C) REMEX CONSTRUCTIONS/ REMEX ELECTRICALS VS. ITO (1987) 166 ITR 18, 23(BOM). D) STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY, AIR 1972 SC 749. E) DINABANDHU SAHU VS. JADUMANI MANGARAJ (1955) 1 S CR 114= AIR 1954 SC 411, APPLIED IN MOHANLAL CHEDILAL VS. CST (1986) 62 STC 264 (ALL). F) SANDHYA RANI SARKAR VS. SUDHA RANI DEBI, AIR 197 8 SC 537 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE AFO RESAID APPLICATION AND PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL BE DELETED, T HEREFORE THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AS SESSEE MADE A CONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF RS. 50,00,000/- AND PAID T HE TAX ON THE SAID SURRENDER SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF ORDER SHEE T DATED 21.12.2009 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASS ESSEES COMPILATION, IN THE SAID ORDER SHEET ALSO IT IS MEN TIONED SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEVE THAT NO PENALTY WILL BE LEVIED, S URRENDERED ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 4 RS. 50 LACS AND DID NOT PREFER AN APPEAL. IN OUR O PINION, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATED , THEREFORE THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 5. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS AP PEAL :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW AND O N FACT AND THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE THERETO IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHE D. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147 AS VALID IGNORING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE SAME WAS ISSUED MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND THEREFORE, WAS LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING DESPITE THE FAC T THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF SUC H PROCEEDING HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND THEREFORE, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO WAS BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IGNORING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON INCORRECT GROUNDS / REASONS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANC E TO SUCH PROCEEDING IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING DESPITE THE FAC T THAT THE SAME WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CONTRARY TO THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 / 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT DECIDING THE OBJECTIONS, FIRST, RAISED BY THE APPEL LANT ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 5 BEFORE HIM; HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO WAS BAD IN LAW, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 50 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM WAS UNCALLED FOR AND BE DELETED FROM THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 50 LAC ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE IN LAW. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FA CT THAT THE A.O. HAD WRONGLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND , ALTER, ABANDON OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUN DS DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 , THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE REOPENING U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND G ROUND NOS. 6 TO 8 RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION WHILE GROUND NO. 9 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. FACTS OF THE CASE RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME ON 13.2.2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,76,890/- WHI CH WAS PROCESSED ON 14.3.2008 ON THE RETURNED INCOME. LATE R ON THE ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 6 CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,83,890/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CA ME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FA BRICATED BANK STATEMENT WHICH RESULTED INTO ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 57,95,000/-. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ISS UED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING NECESSARY SA NCTION / APPROVAL. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED, THEREAFTER THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE OBJECTION AGAINST TH E REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON 21.09.2010. HOWEVER, VIDE LET TER DATED 15.11.2010, THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 50,00,000/- FOR TAXAT ION, SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS SURRENDER WAS BEING DONE WITH CLEAN HANDS AND THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT REPRESENTED PAST SAVINGS KEPT IN THE HOUSE FOR FUTU RE UNFORESEEN EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THE SOURCES OF ALLEGED AMOUNT AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 7 S. NO. AMOUNT SOURCES OF FUND 1. RS. 10,00,000/- RS. 12,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATH ER BEFORE 40 YEARS DURING FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS. 2. RS. 40,00,000/- ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED IN APRIL, 2006 FOR SALE OF TWO HOUSESRS. 15,00,000/- FOR HOUSE AT CHARTHAWAL AND RS. 25,00,000/- FOR HOUSE AT MUZAFFARNAGAR 7. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TH IS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT WAS CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND WAS DULY ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND CREDITED IN MOHD. IRSHAD PERSONAL FUND A/C. THE AO ALSO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY OBSERVING THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 28.02.2010, NO BOOKS WERE FOUND AND DURING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED, THERE WAS NO SUCH MOHM . IRSHAD PERSONAL A/C IT WAS APPENDED LATER. THE AO HELD TH AT A FABRICATED BANK STATEMENT WAS PRODUCED WHICH WAS TA LLIED WITH THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF BANK AS APPEARED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED U/S 1 45(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- WAS MAD E. ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 8 8. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 AT PAGE NOS. 5 TO 12 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME ARE NOT R EPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ASKED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO FURNISHED THE SAME WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORAT ED IN PARA 3.1.1AT PAGE NOS. 13 TO 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REP ORT WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN PARA 3.1.2 AT PAGE NOS. 18 TO 21 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE COST OF RE-PETITION, THE SAM E ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO SUSTAINED THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION WERE SILENT ON THE AS PECT OF PRODUCTION OF FORGED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE TH E AO AND THAT THE EMPHASIS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INFORMAT ION RECEIVED FROM BANK WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF O RIGINAL PROCEEDINGS WAS PATENTLY WRONG. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO DUE TO LACK OF VIGILANCE FELL IN THE TRAP LAID B Y THE ASSESSEE AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PARTICULAR ENTRIES IN TH E COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED BY THE BANK, THUS TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE, CORRECTLY INITIATED THE PROCEE DINGS U/S ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 9 147 OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLL OWING CASE LAWS :- (I) CIT VS. SHAPOORJI MISTRY (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC ) (II) DHALA V. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 341 (PAT) (III) DALAL (DR. MR.) V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (1963) 49 ITR 492 (BOM) (IV) MALEGAON ELECTRICITY CO. PVT. LTD. V. CIT (19 70) 78 ITR 466 (SC) (V) SACHDEVA (SD) V. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 447 (P&H) (VI) CIT VS. KALYANJI & CO. (1969) 74 ITR 107 (CAL ) (VII) SOHAN SINGH V. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 174(DEL) (VIII) ITO V. RADHESHYAM LADIA (1987) 166 ITR 134( SC) (IX) CONSOLIDATED PHOTO AND FIN VEST LTD. V. ACIT (2006) 281 ITR 394 (DEL) (X) PALANISWAMI (P) V. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 811 (MAD ) (XI) PANCHUGURUMURTHY V. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 51(MA D) (XI) GANGA SARAN & SONS (P) LTD. V. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, (XII) ITO V. NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN BAHADAR (197 4) 97 ITR 239 (XIII) RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE AO WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT AND CIT ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE NOT PREFERR ED APPEAL AGAINST THE SURRENDER MADE OF RS. 50,00,000/- INASM UCH AS THE SURRENDER MADE WAS NOT AN IMPUGNED ISSUE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN APPEAL AGAINST. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F URTHER ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 10 SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FRAMED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,83,890/-. L ATER ON THE AO HAD CALLED INFORMATION FROM TRADE TAX DEPART MENT AND CANARA BANK, BUT NO ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF SEND ING THE LETTERS AND RECEIVING INFORMATIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER SHEET. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE RAISED THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE AO AGAINST THE RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND THOSE OBJECTIONS WERE NOT DISPOSED OFF TILL THE CONSIDERABLE TIME WAS LAPSED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESSURIZED TO MAKE THE SURRENDER OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS. 50,00,000/- TO AVOID LITIGAT ION AND ALTERNATIVELY ASSESSEE WAS SO MUCH MENTALLY PERTURB ED THAT HE THOUGHT IT BETTER TO MAKE THE SURRENDER. THEREFO RE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WAS BAD IN LAW SI NCE NO INFORMATION HAD COME BEFORE THE AO TO FORM A BELIEF BASED ON REASONS AND THE ASSESSEE BEING ILLITERATE PERSON SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 50,00,000/- SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION TO AVOID ANY DISPUTE OF LITIGATION AND ALSO TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND AND WITHDRAWING OF OBJECTION AGAINST REOPENING WAS ALSO AS A MATTER OF CONDITION. 11. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WITHDREW THE OB JECTION ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 11 FILED AGAINST THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO AGREED FOR SURRENDER OF RS. 50,00,000/ -. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/-. IT WAS FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO INITIAT ED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT TH ERE WERE CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO PROPER EXPLANATION. THE AO ALSO NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED FABRICATED COPY OF BANK ACCOU NT ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS SUCH FORMED THE BELIE F THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH FILED THE OBJECTION AGA INST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, WITHDREW THOSE OBJECTION AND SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 50,00,000/- SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WITHDREW THE OBJECT ION FILED AGAINST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 50,00,000/- AND P AID THE TAX THEREON, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 12 UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 1 47 OF THE ACT AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000 /-. WE, THEREFORE, DONT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19/06/20 15) SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 19 /06/2015 *B. RUKHAIYAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 882/DEL/2013 13 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 17/06/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18/06/2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.