Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - IndoreShivganga Drillers P Ltd, Indore vs Cpc , Bengaluru on 17 May, 2022ITA No.174/Ind/2021\n                                                                  A.Y. 2017-18\n\n                                                                   Page 1 of 14\n\n\n      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n               INDORE BENCH, INDORE\n\n BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n                     AND\nSHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\n                  (Conducted through Virtual Court)\n\n                        ITA No.174/Ind/2021\n\n                     Assessment Year: 2017-18\n\nShivganga Drillers Private Ltd. Vs.CPC, Income Tax,\nIndore                                    Bangalore\n[PAN - AAJCS2458Q]\n(Appellant / Assessee)                    (Respondent/Revenue)\n\n\n      Appellant by  : Shri Prakash Jain & Shreya Jain, A.Rs.\n      Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R.\n\n      Date of hearing                :    24.02.2022\n      Date of pronouncement          :    17 .05.2022\n\n                             ORDE R\n\nPer Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.:THIS APPEAL:1.    This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated\n03.09.2021 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC ["Ld.\nCIT(A)"], which in turn arises out of the rectification-order dated\n17.12.2018, passed by the learnedCPC, Bangalore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 154 of\ntheIncome-tax Act, 1961["the Act"] for the Assessment-Year 2017-18.BACKGROUND:2.    The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the Ld.\nAO through Intimationu/s 143(1)of the Act after making two\nadjustments, viz. (i) disallowance of Rs. 1,02,513/- on account of delayedITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 2 of 14payment of employees' contributions to Provident Fund / Employees State\nInsurance ("PF / ESI"), and (ii) disallowance of the credit of TDS of Rs.60,49,627/-, claimed by the assessee. Against this Intimationu/s 143(1),\nthe assessee submitted an application for rectificationu/s 154of the Act\nto the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, however, passed order of rectification on\n17.12.2018 whereby the application filed by the assessee was rejected.\nBeing aggrieved by this order of rectificationu/s 154, the assesse filed\nappeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of\nassessee in limine. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed\nthis appeal and now before us.GROUNDS:3.    The assessee has raised following Grounds:1.    That impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal\n      Centre, Delhi is bad in law, without jurisdiction, it is based on\n      incorrect interpretation of law and without allowing proper and\n      reasonable opportunity of being heard, moreover the facts have also\n      been incorrectly construed.2.     That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law,\n      the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in rejecting appeal\n      filed by the assessee summarily by stating that appellant has not\n      filed appeal against intimation orderu/s 143(1)and tried to take\n      back door entry by filing appeal against orderu/s 154for which the\n      original cause of action has arisen at the stage of 143(1) itself\n      without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has\n      taken the remedy of filing applicationu/s 154which is legal and as\n      per the provision ofIncome Tax Act. Thus the order of the National\n      Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal and liable to be set aside to decide\n      on merits.3.     That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n      law the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not deciding\n      the following grounds of appeal on merits:a)    That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n      law the Ld. A.O. (CPC) erred in making disallowance of Rs.1,02,513/-u/s 36 of the Income Tax without giving nature of the above\n      disallowance and more so without considering the facts of the case\n      and contents of return filed by the appellant.b)    That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n      law the Ld. A.O. (CPC) erred in not allowing credit for TDS of Rs.\n      60,49,627/- as deducted by National Centre for Antarctic & OceanITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 3 of 14Research since it is not appearing in the 26AS statement for the\n      Assessment year 2017-18, without appreciating the fact that the\n      credit of TDS of Rs.59,57,630/- was duly appeared in the 26AS\n      statement for the Assessment year 2018-19 and appellant claimed\n      the TDS credit as per provisions ofsection 199of the Income Tax\n      Act since the corresponding income was duly offered for tax in the\n      assessment year 2017-18 itself.c)    That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\n      law the Ld. AO (CPC) erred in charging interestu/s 234Band234Cat Rs. 25,70,673/- and Rs. 12,14,010/- respectively which is very\n      high and excessive."GROUND No. 1:4.    In the Written-Submission, the assessee has submitted that this\nground is general in nature. During hearing, the Ld. AR repeated this\nversion and did not make further submission. Hence this Ground does not\nrequire any adjudication.GROUND No. 2:5.    In this Ground, the assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in limine.6.    Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing Intimationu/s\n143(1)of the Act, the Ld. AO made two adjustments, viz. (i) disallowance of\nRs. 1,02,513/- on account of delayed payment of employees' contributions\nto Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance ("PF / ESI"), and (ii)\ndisallowance of the credit of TDS of Rs. 60,49,627/-. Though the assessee\ndid not file any appeal against this Intimationu/s 143(1), an application\nfor rectificationu/s 154of the Act was filed to the Ld. AO within the time\npermissibleu/s 154of the Act for seeking redressal of the grievances\narising out of the two adjustments made by Ld. AO. However, the Ld. AO\nrejected the application filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved by rejection,\nthe assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and technically such appeal\nhappened to be against the order of rectificationu/s 154and not against\nthe original Intimationu/s 143(1). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of\nassessee in limine by observing in Para No. 5 to 6 of his order as under:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 4 of 14"5. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal is not\n      against the intimation orderu/s 143(1). The appellant had\n      filed an applicationu/s 154beforeCPC. Thereafter,the CPChad passed orderu/s 154rejecting the request of the\n      appellant for rectification of the mistake. It is against this\n      order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The original\n      cause of action arises at the stage of 143(1) itself whenthe\n      CPChad processed the return of income. Thereafter, the\n      appellant has filed rectification application which has been\n      rejected and against this, the appellant had filed the present\n      appeal.5.1 On perusal of these facts, it appears that the appellant is\n      trying to take back door entry by filing an appeal against\n      orderu/s 154for which the original cause of action has arisen\n      at the stage of 143(1) itself. As per the provisions of the Act,\n      the appellant could have filed an appeal against the\n      intimationu/s 143(1)of the CPC dated 09.11.2018. However,\n      the appellant has not filed an appeal against the intimation\n      u/s 143(1). Thereafter, the appellant has filed a rectification\n      applicationu/s 154beforethe CPC. As per the rectification\n      orderu/s 154dated 17.12.2018,the CPChas rejected the\n      request of the appellant for rectification of mistake. There is\n      no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154\n      application. If, at all, the issue under consideration would\n      arise only at the stage of intimationu/s 143(1). Therefore, the\n      issue is not adjudicated herein. Accordingly, the grounds of\n      appeal are dismissed.6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."7.    Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the\ndeduction of employee's contribution to PF / ESI as well credit of TDS in\nthe Return of Income and it is the Ld. AO who has disallowed both of\nthese claims in the Intimation passedu/s 143(1), though both of these\nclaims were very much allowable in accordance with the law. The Ld. AR\nwent on submitting that under the scheme of the Act, the assessee has\ntwo remedies against the Intimationu/s 143(1), viz. (i) file rectification-applicationu/s 154, or (ii) file appealu/s 246A. According to Ld. AR, the\nassessee filed a rectification-applicationu/s 154which is not only one of\nthe available remedy but also a simpler remedy and practically resorted to\nby many of the assessees, particularly in the matter of the two\nadjustments involved in the present appeal. Accordingly to Ld. AR, it isITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 5 of 14not a case that the rectification-applicationu/s 154against the Intimationu/s 143(1)is absolutely barred in the scheme of Act. Finally the Ld. AR\nmade a submission that in the law and on facts, the assessee is very\nmuch entitled to the deduction of employees' contribution to PF / ESI as\nwell TDS credit and by not allowing the same, would result in computation\nof taxable income and tax liability beyond and against the scheme of the\nAct. With these submissions the Ld. AR prayed that the lower authorities\nbe directed to accept the claim of assessee on merit, in accordance with\nthe decision of this Bench on the subsequent Grounds.8.     Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed any\nappeal against the Intimationu/s 143(1), which necessarily should have\nbeen filed. According to Ld. DR, the assessee filed rectification-applicationu/s 154against the Intimationu/s 143(1)and thereafter carried the\nmatter to Ld. CIT(A) when the rectification-application itself was rejected.\nThe Ld. DR submitted that this route adopted by the assessee was not\npermissible in the issues involved and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was\njustified in dismissing the appeal of assessee in limine. With these\nsubmissions, the Ld. DR prayed to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).9.     We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and also\nperused the record. We are very much aware of the recent decision of\nITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Akbar Mohammad, Nagaur Vs. ACIT,CPC,    Bangalore   ITA   No.   108   &   109/Jodh/2021       order    dated\n31.01.2012 in which the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench had resolved an\nidentical controversy by holding as under:"6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not\n       file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the\n       Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent that the assessee\n       cannot be given relief for that reason. However, it is also a\n       settled law that the assessee cannot be taxed on an amount on\n       which tax is not legally imposable. Although, the assessee\n       might have chosen a wrong channel for redressal of his\n       grievance, all the same, it is incumbent upon the Tax\n       authorities to burden the assessee only with correct amount of\n       tax and not to unjustly benefit at the cost of tax payer.ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 6 of 14Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it\n      expedient to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing\n      officer with a direction to pass appropriate orders deleting the\n      addition / disallowance after duly considering the settled\n      judicial position in this regard, which have been decided in\n      the three cases as enumerated above in Para 5."During hearing, we have apprised both sides about this recent decision of\nthe Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench.10.   Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Co-ordinate\nBench, we are inclined to accept the request of assessee. Therefore,\nGround No. 2 is allowed.GROUND No. 3(a):11.   In this Ground, the issue involved is related to the disallowance of\nRs. 1,02,513/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of\nemployee's contributions to PF / ESI.12.   The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has made the disallowance\nwithout appreciating that though the assessee had not deposited the\nemployees' contributions to PF / ESI upto the due dates prescribed under\nthe PF / ESI laws, yet the assessee had deposited the same to the\nrespective funds within the time permittedu/s 43Bof the Act i.e. upto the\ndue dateu/s 139(1)for filing the return of income and hence no\ndisallowance is attracted in view of numerous decisions of Hon'ble High\nCourts favouring the assessee. Some of the decisions relied upon by Ld.\nAR are mentioned below:(a)   Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508.(b)   Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inSagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT145 DTR 265(c)   Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court inCIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages\n      Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill(2017)\n      250 Taxman 32ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 7 of 14The Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in\nfavour of the assessee by decision of this very Bench of ITAT in the case of\nNataraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT ITA No. 153/IND/2021 order dated\n06.12.2021.The Ld. AR also submitted that even otherwise the impugned disallowance\nis debatable in nature and outside the scope ofsection 143(1)(iv)of the Act\ninvoked by the Ld. AO and therefore also not sustainable, as held by\nITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions\nIndia (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) order dated\n23.09.2021.With these submissions, the Ld. AR prayed that the disallowance made by\nLd. AO is illegal and deserves to be deleted.13.   Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities.\nHe further submitted that in following decisions it has been held that once\nthe employees' contributions are paid after the due dates under PF / ESI\nlaws, disallowance is attracted even if the assessee has made payments\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto the due dateu/s 139(1)for filing\nof return:(a)   Hon'ble Gujarat High Court inCIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport\n      Corporation, (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100(b)   Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd.(2020) 115 taxmann.com 340(c)   Hon'ble Kerala High Court inCIT Vs. Merchem Ltd.(2015) 378 ITR443The Ld. DR further submitted that theFinance Act, 2021has also inserted\nExplanation 2 toSection 36(1)(va)and Explanation 5 toSection 43Bas\nunder:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 8 of 14Section 36(1)(va):"Explanation 2.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby\n        clarified that the provisions ofsection 43Bshall not apply and\n        shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of\n        determining the "due date" under this clause;Section 43B:"Explanation 5.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby\n        clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and\n        shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received\n        by the assessee from any of his employees to which the\n        provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) ofsection 2applies."The Ld. DR claimed that with the introduction of these amendments, it is\nvery much clear that the due dates specified insection 43Bshall not\napply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the\nemployees' contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI\nlaws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the\nwords "... shall be deemed never to have been applied ..." appearing in\nthese    newly   inserted   Explanations   clearly   demonstrate   that    the\namendments, though inserted from 01.04.2021, are clarificatory in nature\nand hence they would apply retrospectively in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Apex Court inZile Singh Vs. State of Haryana(2004) 5 SCC 1.\nTherefore, according the Ld. DR the amendments are applicable to the\nassessment-year involved in the present appeal too and hence the\ndisallowance made by Ld. AO is very much in accordance with the law.With these submissions, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. AO has rightly\ndisallowed the employees contributions to PF / ESI not paid by the\nassessee upto due dates under the PF / ESI laws and therefore the\ndisallowance must be upheld.14.     We have considered the rival contentions and submission of both\nsides and also perused the relevant materials available on record. Before\nproceeding further we would like to mention that the assessee has\ndeposited the impugned contributions to the PF / ESI, though after due\ndate under PF / ESI law but within the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto theITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 9 of 14due dateu/s 139(1)for filing return of income and there is no dispute on\nthis point by revenue.Regarding the decisions relied upon by both sides, we observe that there\nare divergent views of Hon'ble High Courts on the allowability of\nemployees' contributions to PF / ESI paid after due dates under the PF /\nESI laws but within the time allowedu/s 43B. While the Ld. AR has relied\nupon various decisions favouring to the assessee, the Ld. DR has quoted\nthe decisions against the assessee. We are also informed by both sides\nthat there is no decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madhya\nPradesh on this issue. In this situation, we are mindful of the decision in\nVegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nhas held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are\npossible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.\nIn view of this, the decisions favouring the assessee shall get preference\nover the decisions against the assessee. Being so we hold that the\nemployees contributions paid after due date under PF / ESI law but\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43B, are allowable as deduction.Regarding the amendments made throughFinance Act, 2021, it is\nspecifically mentioned by the legislature that the amendments are effective\nfrom 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions\nin the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus:"These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and\n      will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and\n      subsequent assessment years."Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments\nshall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment\nyears. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment-\nyears preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto\nassessment-year 2020-21. This has also been held so in several decisions\nof ITAT Benches including following:ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 10 of 14(a)   ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, ITA No.\n      186/Kol/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 16.07.2021(b)   ITAT Hyderabad in Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Limited Vs. ITO, ITA\n      No. 644/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 15.06.2021(c)   ITAT Jodhpur in Akbar Mohammad Vs. ACIT,CPC, Bangalore ITA\n      No. 108 &109 / Jodh / 2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, order\n      dated 31.01.2022\n\nThe reliance of the Ld. DR upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase ofZile Singh(supra) in fact supports the assessee's case and not\nrevenue's case. The conclusion coming from this decision is very clear that\nwhen there is a specific effective date given by the Act, the amendment will\nbe effective from that date only and if there is no mention of retrospective\napplicability, it will not apply to the earlier dates.15.   It is also noteworthy that this Bench has recently decided several\nappeals, a few mentioned hereunder, wherein the similar disallowance\nmade by Ld. AO has been deleted:(a)   ITA No. 175 / Ind / 2021 Shri Virendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. CIT(A),\n      NFAC, order dated 30.03.2022(b)   ITA No. 184 / Ind / 2021 M/sPrestige Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs.\n      ACIT-4(1), Indore order dated 30.03.2022(c)   ITA No. 223 / Ind / 2021 Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT,CPC,\n      Bangalore, order dated 30.03.202216.   Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, we observe that employees'\ncontributions to PF / ESI paid after due date under PF / ESI laws but\nwithin the time allowedu/s 43Bi.e. upto the due dateu/s 139(1)for filing\nof return is allowable as deduction in computing taxable income of\nbusiness and the assesse had rightly claimed the same. Therefore the Ld.\nAO was not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. We thereforeITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 11 of 14accept this Ground of assessee and direct the Ld. AO to make suitable\nrectification by deleting the disallowance. Therefore, Ground No. 3(a) is\nallowed for statistical purpose.GROUND No. 3(b):17.   In this Ground, the issue involved is related to the credit of TDS\namounting to Rs. 60,49,627/-.18.   Before us, the Ld. AR has made a detailed submission on Page No. 6to 9 of the Written-Submission. The Ld. AR has presented a lengthy\nreconciliation of the Gross-Receipts and TDS as per books of account and\nForm 26AS of assessment-year 2017-18 and 2018-19. We are not\nreproducing the same for the sake of brevity but the crux of the\nsubmission is that although the payers have deducted TDS in the\nfinancial year relevant to the assessment-year 2018-19, the assessee has\noffered the relevant income in the assessment-year 2017-18 as per regular\nmethod of accounting and therefore claimed the credit of TDS in the\nassessment-year 2017-18 which is very much correct and allowable in\naccordance with the following provision ofsection 199:"199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing\n      provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government\n      shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person\n      from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of\n      the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or\n      of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be.(2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) ofsection 192and\n      paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax\n      paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such\n      payment of tax has been made.(3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect\n      of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this\n      Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the\n      rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than\n      those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and also\n      the assessment year for which such credit may be given."ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 12 of 1419.    Ld. DR, agreeing with the submission that the credit of TDS is\nrequired to be allowed in accordance withsection 199, left the issue to the\nwisdom of the Bench.20.    We have considered submissions of both sides. We observe that the\nLd. AR has rightly pressedsection 199before us. We also observe that the\nsub-section (3) of the saidsection 199empowers the Board to make rules\nand exercising that authority, the Board has made Rule 37BA which\nprovides as under:"Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section199.\n       37BA. (1) and (2) XXX\n       (3)(i) Credit for tax deducted at sourced and paid to the Central\n       Government, shall be given for the assessment-year for which\n       such income is assessable."Thus   a   bare   reading   of   sub-rule   (3)(i) of   Rule   37BA    makes it\nunambiguously clear that the credit of TDS shall be allowed in the year in\nwhich the relevant income is taxable. As can be seen from the submission\nof Ld. AR, the relevant-income out of which the TDS was deducted, had\nbeen offered by the assessee for taxation in the assessment-year 2017-18\naccording to the regularly followed method of accounting. Hence the credit\nof TDS deserves to be allowed in the assessment-year 2017-18 in\naccordance with the mandate ofsection 199read with Rule 37BA.21.    However, the lower authorities did not have occasion to verify the\nfigures of relevant-income and TDS supplied by the assessee and whether\nthe assessee has actually offered the relevant-income in the assessment-\nyear 2017-18 or not. Hence a complete verification is required. Therefore,\nwe think appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. AO who\nshall give an adequate opportunity to the assessee, make the necessary\nverification and allow credit in terms ofsection 199read with Rule 37BA.\nNeedless to mention that the Ld. AO shall take a note of all the evidences\nproduced by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue according to the\nlaw. Ground No. 3(b) is, therefore, allowed for statistical purpose.ITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 13 of 14GROUND No. 3(c):22.     In this Ground, the assessee has challenged the charging of interestu/s 234Band234Camounting to Rs. 25,70,673/- and Rs. 12,14,010/-\nrespectively.23.     The levy of interest is statutory and consequential. Hence this\nGround does not require any adjudication at this stage.DISPOSITION:24.     In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose.Order    pronounced       as   per   Rule   34   of   I.T.A.T.    Rules    1963     on\nthis ...17th ..... day of May, 2022.Sd/-                                             Sd/-\n\n(SUCHITRA KAMBLE)                                           (B.M. BIYANI)\n\nJudicial Member                                          Accountant Member\n\nIndore, 17 th May, 2022\n\nPatel/ Sr. P.S.\n\nCopies to:    (1)      The appellant\n              (2)      The respondent\n              (3)      CIT\n              (4)      CIT(A)\n              (5)      Departmental Representative\n              (6)      Guard File\n                                                                            By order\nUE COPY\n                                                            Assistant Registrar\n                                                  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n                                                          Indore Bench, IndoreITA No.174/Ind/2021A.Y. 2017-18Page 14 of 141.    Date of taking dictation: 23.02.20222.    Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member:24.02.20223.    Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:.........4.    Dt. on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for\nPronouncement: ..........5.    Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: .........................6.    Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk: ..........................7.    The dt. on which the file goes to the Astt. Registrar for signature on\nthe order: .........................8.    Date of despatch of the Order: ........................