Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune V. M/s. Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd, Pune

ITSSA 90/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4023 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment; Valuation report; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 132; 143(3); 92B; 153A; 14A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपील सं. / IT (SS) No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2014-15 & आयकर अपील सं. / IT SS No. 89 to 90/PUN/2017 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2013-14 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. 162, Wellesley Road, Pune – 411 001. PAN : AABCS4223P .......अपीलाथᱮ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. DCIT, Cen. Cir-1(1), Pune ......ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ᮧित अपीलाथᱮ ......Respondent/Cross Appellant Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04.05.2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. The instant batch of five appeals pertains to a single assessee herein i.e. M/s. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. These assessee’s and Revenue’s cross appeals i.e. IT (SS) No. 76 to 77 and 89 & 90/PUN/2017 as well as former’s appeal ITA No. 78/PUN/2017 for assessment years 2012-13 2 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., to 2014-15; are directed against the CIT(A)-13, Pune’s common order dated 07/09/2017 passed in case Nos. PN/CIT(A)-13/DCIT, Cent Cir-1(1), Pune/ 562, 563 and 564/2016-17/268 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act”, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all adjudicate assessee’s three appeals i.e. IT SS No. 76 to 78/PUN/2017. It’s sole substantive grievance in assessment year 2012-13 and latter grievance in assessment year i.e. 2013-14 to 2014-15 seeks to reverse learned lower authorities identical action treating the corporate guarantee(s) involving overseas associate enterprises “AEs” as an international transaction resulting in arms length price adjustment(s) @ 2%; amounting to Rs.10,23,000/-, 19,03,393/- and 85,60,578/- ; respectively. There could be hardly any dispute that Explanation(c) to Section 92B inserted in ‘the Act’ vide Finance Act 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2002 that such a guarantee as an international transaction has been held as clarificatory in nature and therefore applicable with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 as per (2020) 122 taxmann.com 136 (Mad) PCIT V/s. Redington (India) Ltd. We thus find no merit in assessee’s legal arguments that a corporate guarantee does not form an international transaction u/s. 92B of the Act. 3. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned adjustment. We quote CIT V/s Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom) restrict the impugned corporate guarantee 3 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., adjustment from 2% to 0.5% only. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee partly succeeds in all of its corresponding substantive grounds. It’s first and foremost appeal IT SS No.76/PUN/2017 raising this solitary issue is partly allowed in very terms. 4. Next comes the assessee’s identical first substantive ground in its latter twin appeals IT SS No. 77 & 78/PUN/2017 regarding set-off its alleged contingent income to the tune of Rs. 03 crore and 71 lacs ; respectively. The CIT(A) has dealt with the instant issue as follows :- “3.2.10 The Appellant also declared income on account of the contingency of the issues, which may be found from the seized papers or which may come up during the assessment proceedings. The Appellant has prayed that the direction may be given the learned AO to grant set off of income declared against the disallowance made during the year under consideration and in the earlier years and refund the unused contingency. 3.2.11 I find that the Appellant had declared additional income in advance against the issues, which may be found from the seized material or during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, when the learned AO assesses the Appellant's income at the higher amount than the returned amount, the Appellant has already declared the additional income on contingency, which would cover any such eventuality. Therefore, it is logical and fair to grant set off of income declared against the disallowance made during the year. Accordingly, I direct the learned AO to grant set off of income declared during the year with the disallowance made for the year. 4 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., 3.2.12 However, contingent income cannot be set off against the additions or disallowances made in the earlier year because of the cash- flow issue. Expenditure cannot precede earning of income. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be granted set off of the additions or disallowances made in the earlier years against the income declared in the later year. I dismiss the Appellant's this prayer. 3.2.13 Regarding the Appellant's prayer to refund the balance contingency, I find that the Appellant has not asked for the refund of the excess tax paid by it but has requested to refund the tax paid on income declared without any basis. The Appellant declared the additional income on a contingent basis. Therefore, this claim may arise after the Appellant's assessment becomes final. Till the time the Department can exercise power u/s 147 or u/s 263, the Appellant's assessment cannot become final and it would be improper to refund taxes at this stage. The Appellant's own condition of contingent declaration would apply till such time. Accordingly, I dismiss the Appellant’s this claim being pre- mature. 5. We have heard rival contentions. It has come on record that the CIT(A)’s findings in para 03.2.11 already hold the assessee as eligible for the impugned set off so far as any disallowance(s) made during the year is concerned. Next comes the dispute between the parties qua the CIT(A)’s directions in paras 3.2.12 and 3.2.13 that earlier year’s additions or disallowances; as the case may be, would not attract set off and till the time the limitations period(s) of section 147 and 263; survive respectively. We find no merit in Revenue’s argument qua both these aspects. We first of all make it clear that there is no concept of assessment of any “contingent” 5 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., income since the ho’n’ble apex court’s landmark decision in (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT has settled the law long back that only a contingent item of expenditure could be booked at the first sign of probability as against the case of income which is recognized only after reasonable certainty. Their lordships refer to the principle of conservative accounting whilst holding so. This tribunals co-ordinate bench in Dheeraj Amin V/s. ACIT (2015) 172 TTJ 228 (Banglore) also reiterates the very principle. The factual position is hardly any different herein once the Revenue has failed to highlight any incriminating material held to be mandatory in the CBDT’s twin circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18/12/2014 that such search admissions and confessions hardly carry any significance in absence of documentary evidence. Be that as it may, we wish to further observe that section 153A proceedings after section 132 search action indeed cover a time span of “six assessment years” as per sub-sections 1(b) and therefore, the assessee’s additional income declaration must be held to be representing the very span of time only liable to be set off against disallowance or additions; if any. We thus reverse the CIT(A)’s findings in para 3.2.12 on issue. The very reasoning follows qua the CIT(A)’s discussion in para 3.2.13 as well as much water has flown downstream since the year 2016. We thus accept the assessee’s instant grievance and direct the assessing authority to grant set off of its addition(s); if any, in these twin assessment years. 6 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s latter twin appeals ITA (SS) 77 - 78/PUN/2017 are partly accepted in foregoing terms. 6. We, are, now left with the Revenue’s cross appeals for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 ITA Nos. 89 & 90/PUN/17 respectively. It’s identical first substantive ground pleads that CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting under invoicing scrap sales addition of Rs.1,32,30,250/- & Rs. 2,49,53,061/- ; respectively. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under :- “2.2.1 The learned AO stated that certain incriminating documents related to scrap sales were found and seized from the Appellant’s premises during the search action carried out on the Appellant. The learned AO stated that the Appellant has significantly under-invoiced income earned from the sale of scrap, which was generated at its Roha Unit. The Appellant's employees working at Roha and Mahad stated that the scrap was sold according to the market rate prepared for the time period, however, it is invoiced at the rate decided by Shri Rajesh Rathi- one of the directors of the Appellant Company. 2.2.2 The learned AO stated that there was a difference in the final rates agreed for the scrap sale and the actual invoiced value. The learned AO concluded on the basis of the evidence found during the search and the depositions given by the employees that the scrap sale invoice rates were decided by Shri Rajesh Rathi. She stated that the market rate of scrap found from Shri Rajesh Rathi's computer indicated that the rates mentioned therein were the actual market rates. Therefore, the learned AO has added the difference between the market rate and the invoice value totalling to Rs.1,32,30,250 to the Appellant's total income. 7 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., 2.2.3 Against the addition made by the learned AO on the scrap sale, the Appellant has stated that the employees of the Appellant Company have not admitted any under-invoicing done by it. Shri Rajesh Rathi had clarified in his statement recorded during the search itself that the scrap generated by the Appellant fetched lower value due to chemical contamination. The Appellant also furnished the sample valuation reports from the laboratory to the investigation wing as well as before the learned AO in support of its contention. 2.2.4 The Appellant also submitted that the learned CIT(A)-11, Pune has granted it relief for the addition made by the learned AO on this ground for the AY 2007-08. Accordingly, this issue is covered in its favour and accordingly, the addition made by the learned AO be deleted. 2.2.5 The Appellant's summarised submission made before me on this Ground of Appeal is reproduced as under: 2.1 It is respectfully submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - 11, Pune has accepted the submissions of the Appellant Company on the above issue for Assessment Year 2007-08 and directed the Learned Assessing Officer to delete the above addition of under-invoicing of scrap. The Appellant Company wishes to rely on the above decision in its own case. 2.2 The sale of scrap is to an unrelated party. There is no relation, whatsoever, between the Company and/or its directors and the scrap dealer. The scrap dealers have given affidavits that they have not paid any cash / out of the books consideration to the Appellant Company and therefore there is no reason to challenge the sale price accounted by the Appellant Company 8 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., 2.3 The Search Party has not found any incriminating material to show that the scrap generated was actually sold at "final rates" as per chart. There is no proof to show that scrap dealers have paid cash / any other consideration which is not recorded in the books of Appellant Company. No un-accounted cash has been found in the hands of the Appellant Company or its directors during the course of search proceedings. Thus the alleged "under- invoicing" was a mere conjecture by the department based on the notion/ misconception of under invoicing formed by the Search Party. There was no evidence which corroborates such under- invoicing 2.4 The employees of the Appellant Company have not admitted to any under-invoicing. They have expressed a doubt as to the rates as per excel sheet. However they have not mentioned that the said excel sheet was in any way related to our company neither have they accepted any under invoicing. 2.5 Mr. Rajesh Rathi - the director of the Appellant Company had duly clarified that the scrap generated by the Appellant Company fetched lower value due to chemical contamination in his statement given at the time of search. Further the Appellant Company also submitted copies of sample evaluation reports from laboratory to the Investigation Wing as well as to the learned Assessing Officer in support of its submissions. This would show that the submissions of our company and its claim of chemical contamination was not an afterthought and is genuine. 9 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., 2.6 The scrap dealers have given affidavits wherein they have confirmed local issues as well as issues of chemical contamination, costs associated with removal, cleaning and transport. They have also confirmed that the gross margins earned by them are lower than 25%. 2.7 The Appellant Company also submitted copies of third party invoices for similar items of scrap sales and submitted that the rates proposed to be considered by the learned Assessing Officer were on a substantially higher side and there was no under- invoicing in the case of the Appellant Company. In view of this, it is respectfully submitted that the prices charged by our company can be easily justified considering the above submissions. 2.8 Without prejudice to the above, the above submissions of the Appellant Company have also 2007-08 been accepted by the Learned CIT Appeals - 11 in appeal proceedings for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2.9 In view of this and considering the above submissions, we request Your Honour to kindly direct the Learned Assessing Officer to accept the values of scrap sales recorded by appellate company in its books and oblige. Findings 2.2.6 I have considered the facts and arguments of the Appellant and of the learned AO I find that the learned AO does not have any evidence to establish that the Appellant had indeed sold scrap at the market rate and not at the rate invoiced in the scrap sales. The Appellant mainly relies only on the excel sheet listing the market price of scrap found from Shri Rajesh Rathi's computer. However, when the Appellant 10 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., states that it has not sold scrap at the market price, evidence is required to establish that the Appellant' contention that it has sold at invoice rate is incorrect and it has indeed sold at the market price. However, there is no evidence rebutting the Appellant's contention. Therefore, such an addition cannot be made on the basis of only logical arguments in the absence of any evidence on the Appellant having actually earned the income. 2.2.7 I also find that the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the addition made by the learned AO on this ground vide his appellate Order dated 25.01.2017 for the Appellant's appeal for the AY 2007-08. The relevant part of the appellate Order of the learned CIT(A) is as under: “As the discussion on the merits of the addition made by the AO would show, the AO at best could have had some suspicion about suppression of sales by the Appellant that too in the years relevant to the search of the seized paper. AO had absolutely nothing with him to form a belief that Appellant had suppressed his sales in the FY 2006-07 relevant to assessment year 2007-08. The belief that the scraps sales were undervalued by 80% is only an extrapolation done by the AO. The excel sheet found during the search, even if believed to be true, pertained to FY 2012-13. There is nothing in the search finding or in the enquire conducted post search which may justify AO's assumption that the scrap sold in the AY 2007-08 was undervalued by 80%. 2.2.8 In view of the above and by following the Order of the learned CIT(A), I delete the addition of Rs.1,32,30,250 made by the learned AO.” 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments. We make it clear that the impugned 11 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., addition is based on VII-A found and seized during the search in assessee’s case dated 23.02.2013. The Assessing Officer has extracted the contents thereof in his assessment order. The clinching fact that said document is dated 11.10.2012 itself is not relevant to assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue’s grievance in this former assessment year 2012-13 deserves to be rejected for this precise reason alone. 8. We further find that the Revenue’s contentions seeking to revive the impugned addition hardly deserve to be accepted on merits as well. This is for the reason that the impugned seized document simply contains a list of the old proposed and final rates of 27 scrap items, without any indication anything had been sold or received qua the latter twin figures or not. Mr. Walimbe sought to place reliance on the assessing authoritie’s tabulation which hardly helps the Revenue’s arguments since it is nowhere clear that the alleged final rates had been actually agreed or acted upon or not. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the alleged seized document to this effect Annexure VII-A is a “dumb” evidence itself rebutting the statutory presumption of correctness u/s 292C for want of necessary cogent evidence. We also wish to make it clear that the assessee as well as the scrap dealers had ruled out any unaccounted purchase money as well. We accordingly reject Revenue’s first and foremost substantive grievance in both these appeals. 9. The Revenue’s second substantive grievance in both these appeals is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the section 14A 12 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., r.w.rule 8D disallowance(s) of Rs.5,15,000/- & Rs. 5,14,662/-; assessment yearwise, respectively. It is clear at the outset that the assessee had not derived any exempt income in both these assessment years. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in PCIT V/s. Kohinoor Projects (2020) 121 taxmann.com 177(Bom) holds that this disallowance provision applies only in “relation to” any exempt income than having any independent exigibility. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s findings deleting section 14A read with Rule 8D the disallowance(s) for this precise reason alone. The Revenue fails in this identical second substantive ground therefore. 10. The third common issue raised at Revenue’s behest in both these assessment years seeks to revive section 35(2AB) weighted deduction disallowance(s) of Rs.56,52,000/- and Rs.1,31,35,000/-; assessment year wise respectively. Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued that the prescribed authority “DSIR” had not granted its approval in assessee’s impugned deduction claim. He fails to dispute this tribunal’s recent order(s) in assessee’s case itself for preceding assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 has already decided the very issue against the department thereby holding that such a specific approval of the quantum sum applies w.e.f. 01.7.2016 only in light of amended Rule 6 (7) of the Income Tax Rules not appreciate with retrospective effect. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s instant third substantive grievance as well as former main appeal IT (SS) No. 89 PUN 2017. 11. Lastly comes the Revenue’s fourth and fifth grounds in assessment year 2013-14 reading as under :- 13 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., “4. Postponement of depreciation claimed On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) is justified in accepting the assessee's contention of the assets being put to use inFY 2012-13, ignoring the admission made by the Director the assessee company in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, 1961, which was later on reconfirmed by the Director by way of filing a separate letter after considering the facts. 5. Capitalization of repairs and maintenance expenses On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) is justified in accepting the assessee's contention that the expenditure are not Capital in nature, ignoring the admission made by the Director the assessee company in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, 1961, which was later on reconfirmed by the Director by way of filing a separate letter after considering the facts.” 12. Both the learned representative invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reading as under :- “3.2.4 The Appellant stated that it declared the income of Rs 12,01,89,900 by postponement of the depreciation claim. It had acquired and put to use certain assets during the year under consideration. However, to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind, it decided to withdraw its depreciation claim made during the AY 2013-13 and decided to claim it during the AY 2014-15. The Appellant's had declared it on a condition that the learned AO will not initiated penalty proceedings. However, the learned AD has initiated the penalty proceedings. The Appellant has prayed that therefore, it may be granted 14 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., depreciation during the AY 2012-13 itself for which, the learned AO may be directed to verify the facts and allow the depreciation. 3.2.5 I have considered the facts and arguments of the Appellant. I find that the learned AO has accepted the withdrawal of the Appellant's depreciation claim on a presumption that the Appellant has withdrawn its depreciation claim because it had not put its assets to use. However, the Appellant in its income declaration statement recorded during the search itself had stated that the assets were put to use by it. The learned AO in the assessment Order has not discussed as to how the Appellant's contention that it had put the assets to use is incorrect 3.2.6 I find that the Appellant's action of the postponement of the depreciation claim and the declaration of income on a condition that no penalty proceeding to be initiated, are contrary to the provisions of the law. Explanation 5 to section 32 does not provide any choice to the assessee in not claiming depreciation. Accordingly, depreciation has to be claimed if the assets were put to use for the purposes of business during the year. Further, there cannot be an agreement with the law. The assessee in its own volition cannot state that a particular provision of the law would not apply on it. Therefore, the Appellant could not have postponed its depreciation claim as it was done by it. 3.2.7 According to the Appellant, the assets were put to use. The learned AO has not challenged this contention in the assessment Order. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary finding recorded by the learned AO in the assessment Order, the assets will be considered to be put to use and depreciation will have to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, I find that the learned AO has not factually examined this aspect. Accordingly, I direct the learned AO to examine this issue and allow depreciation in accordance with the provisions of the law. 15 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., Capitalization of Repairs and maintenance Rs.-4,75,00,000” 13. Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued in light of the Revenue’s pleadings that the impugned disallowance of the postponed depreciation claim has been wrongly deleted in the CIT(A)’s order despite the fact that the same is based on search statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act. 14. We do not find any substance in Revenue’s instant substantive ground. We make it clear that there is no rebuttal from departmental side that the assessee had indeed put the corresponding fixed asset(s) to use in the relevant previous year only by way of trial production. So far as the Revenue’s case in light of the search statement (supra) is concerned, we hold that such a mere admission or confession; as the case, would hardly carrying any significance as per CBDT circulars dated 10.03.2003 as reiterated on 18.12.2014 (supra). This is also coupled with the fact that there is no concept of “postponement of a depreciation claim” as the same has to be compulsorily granted; even if not raised in the return, in light of section 32(1) Explanation 5 of the Act. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s findings in issue therefore. 15. The Revenue’s fifth substantive ground is that the CIT(A) has wrongly remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification which is no more sustainable in light of section 251(1)(a) amended by the evidence Act 2001 w.e.f. from 01.06.2001 omitting the corresponding statutory expression “or he may set aside”. Be that it may, we also adopt 16 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., the very course of action once all the relevant facts qua the assessee’s capital expenditure in issue are not clear. Ordered accordingly. This fifth substantive ground raised at the Revenue’s behead is allowed for statistical purpose. It’s latter appeal ITA 90/PUN/2017 is partly accepted for statistical purpose. To sum up, assessee’s three appeals IT (SS) No. 76 to 78/PN/17 are partly allowed and the Revenue’s former cross appeal IT(SS) No. 89 is dismissed and its latter case IT (SS) No. 90/PUN/17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 8 th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- S (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखा सद᭭य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 8 th June, 2022. Ashwini आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr.CIT-(Cen), Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary 17 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 06.05.2022 2 Draft placed before author 03.06.2022 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 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 18 IT SS No.76 to 78/PUN/2017 & IT SS No.89 -90/PUN/2017 Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., 11 Date of Dispatch of order