M/S.Ultratech Cement Ltd vs The Additional Commissioner Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1786 Bom

                                                             IT Appeal 1060/14

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                  INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2014


 M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd.                          .. Appellant 

                  v/s. 

 The Additional Commissioner of 
 Income Tax, Range, 2(2)                             .. Respondent 

Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b Atul Jasani for the appellant Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal a/w Ms. Namita Shirke a/w Ms. Brenda D'Souza for the respondent

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.

RESERVED ON : 5th APRIL, 2017.

PRONOUNCED ON : 18th APRIL, 2017

JUDGEMENT :- (Per M.S. Sanklecha, J)

1] This appeal under Section 260A of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the

Act) challenges the order dated 20th February, 2014

of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

referred to as the Tribunal). The assessment year

involved is A.Y. 2008-09.

 2]               The   appellant  assessee   has   urged   only  the 



 Uday S. Jagtap                                                            1 of 28



                                                              IT Appeal 1060/14

following question of law for our consideration :-

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in refusing to admit the additional ground of the appellant of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on the income earned by the Appellant on operation and maintenance of the Jetty / Port?

3] On 29th March, 2017, at the request of the

parties, the Court while adjourning the appeal had

recorded the fact that the appeal itself could be

disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

4] We admit the above question at paragraph

no.2 above as giving rise to substantial question of

law. At the instance and request of the parties, we

take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

5] The appellant assessee is engaged in the

business of manufacture, sale and trading of cement

and cement related products. For the subject

Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

assessment year, the appellant assessee had filed

its Return of Income declaring a total income of

Rs.1,287 crores. On 20th February, 2011, the

Assessing Officer passed an order under Section

143(3) of the Act determining the appellant's income

at Rs.1,490 crores.

6] Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee

carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The grounds urged

by the appellant - assessee before the CIT(A) were

as under :-

(a) The dis-allowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of the Rail System established at Chhatisgarh, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal;

(b) Sales Tax exemption benefit received by the appellant assessee was held to be a revenue receipt when according to the respondent Revenue it was a capital receipt;

(c) The dis-allowance under Section 14A of the Act at a sum higher than that offered for dis-allowance was not justified in law; and

(d) The dis-allowance in respect of the provisions for expenses made for employees

Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

stock option plan (ESOP).

7] The CIT (A) by an order dated 21st

December, 2011 partly allowed the appellant

assessee's appeal. The appeal was allowed on all

issues except on issue of disallowance of

expenditure under Section 14A of the Act and on

provision for expenses made for ESOP.

8] Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee

carried the issue in further appeal to the Tribunal.

The appeal as filed urged issues only in relation to

dis-allowance under Section 14A of the Act and dis-

allowance of provision for expenses made for ESOP.

However, before the Tribunal, the appellant assessee

sought to raise an additional ground at the time of

the hearing of the appeal. The additional ground of

appeal which gives rise to this appeal, reads as

under :-

"(i) The appellant has developed, operated and maintained jetty / port situated at Kovaya in the State of Gujarat under agreement with the Gujarat Maritime board.

 Uday S. Jagtap                                                           4 of 28



                                                              IT Appeal 1060/14

The Jetty / Port commenced its operations in Financial Year 1997-98 i.e. A.Y. 1998-99.

(ii) Under proviso to Sec. 80IA(2), the deduction can be claimed for any ten consecutive years out of twenty years beginning from the year in which the enterprise develops, operates and maintains the infrastructure facility".

9] In support of the above additional ground

being entertained, the appellant assessee submitted

that the issue of deduction under Section 80IA of

the Act with regard to a jetty / port is already on

record for the subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y.

2009-10 when the claim under Section 80IA of the Act

in respect of the jetty / port was allowed for the

first time. However, the impugned order did not

permit the appellant assessee to raise the

additional ground as urged by the appellant assessee

holding that the relevant facts which would entitle

the appellant to claim the benefit of Section 80IA

of the Act were not a part of the record for

assessment year under consideration i.e. Assessment

Year 2008-09. Thus, this issue was not considered.

 Uday S. Jagtap                                                            5 of 28



                                                                  IT Appeal 1060/14

Further the impugned order holds that reliance upon

the order passed for subsequent assessment year

allowing the claim under Section 80IA of the Act

cannot be considered as evidence for earlier

assessment year, when the material facts to support

such a claim for the subject assessment year is not

on record before the Assessing Officer. This was by

placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme

Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(NTPC Ltd.)

Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 229 ITR 383.

Moreover, the claim under Section 80IA of the Act

has to be decided on many factors and the same not

having been considered by the Authorities under the

Act for the subject assessment year, the above

additional ground in respect of deduction under

Section 80IA of the Act in respect of Jetty / Port

could not be allowed.

10] Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee is

in appeal before us and Mr. Agarwal in support of

the appeal submits as under :-

(a) The power of the Tribunal to admit

Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

additional ground in an appeal is very wide as its basic purpose is to ascertain the correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. Thus, the additional ground ought to have been allowed to be raised, even if the same was not urged before the lower Authorities.

(b) In any case, the primary facts i.e. the evidence of a jetty / port having been in operation since the Assessment Year 1998-99 was known the Revenue. In the above view, the primary facts being on record, the appellant assessee was entitled to raise an additional ground in the appeal; and

(c) In any case, in the present case, the facts in support of the additional ground being urged were already on record before the Tribunal inasmuch as the appellant assessee's claim for benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port was granted in the subsequent assessment year namely Assessment Year 2009-10 and, therefore, there was evidence on record to allow the urging of the additional ground.

11] As against the above, Mr. Chanderpal,

learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue

in support of the impugned order submits as under :-

 Uday S. Jagtap                                                                7 of 28



                                                              IT Appeal 1060/14

          (a)              An additional ground could be urged by 

the appellant assessee for the first time in appeal only if it is supported by evidence on record for the year under consideration;

(b) In any case, under Section 80IA(7) of the Act deduction under Sub-Section (1) of Section 80IA of the Act, is allowable only if the accounts of the undertaking have been audited for the period for which deduction is claimed and a report in Form No.10CCB as required under Rule 18BB(3) of the Income Tax Rules is submitted along with Return of Income. In this case, admittedly, for the subject assessment year, the appellant assessee had not filed necessary Form 10CCB and the audit report which would establish whether or not the appellant assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA(1) of the Act for the subject assessment year; and

(c) In any case, the grant of benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in a subsequent assessment year cannot be evidence on record for an earlier assessment year to grant the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Each year is a separate assessment year and the assessee must satisfy Sub-Section 4 of Section 80IA of the Act in the year for which deduction is claimed. This by production of evidence of the same by filing Form 10CCB for the subject

Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

assessment year.

In the above view, it is submitted that the

impugned order calls for no interference.

12] We note that it is an undisputed position

before us that for the subject assessment year, the

appellant assessee had not claimed benefit of

Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty /

Port either before the Assessing Officer or before

the CIT(A). A claim for benefit under Section 80IA

of the Act can only be made if the infrastructure

facility such as Jetty / Port is, among other

things, being run on the basis of an agreement for

either developing or operating and maintaining or

developing, operating and maintaining a new

infrastructure facility. The sine qua non provided

in Sub-Section (7) of Section 80IA of the Act is

the furnishing along with its Return of Income, a

report of audited accounts in Form 10CCB as required

under Rule 18BBB(3) of the Act. The Form 10CCB

which is required to be filed along with Return of

Uday S. Jagtap 9 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

Income has various details to be filled in,

including the initial assessment year from which the

deduction is being claimed, the nature of the

activity carried out with regard to the

infrastructure facility, namely, whether it is for

developing or developing and operating or for

developing, operating and maintaining the new

infrastructure facility. It is only on examination

of those details as submitted by the auditor in Form

10CCB that the claim of deduction can be considered.

It is undisputed that for the subject assessment

year, no Form 10CCB has been filed by the appellant

assessee. Therefore, there is no evidence on

record for subject assessment year to allow the

claim. The submission of Mr.Agrawal for the

appellant that primary evidence in the form of jetty

is on record is not acceptable. Mere ownership or

existence of jetty is not evidence of eligibility to

the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act, which is

admittedly conditional upon satisfaction of certain

requirements as provided therein.

 Uday S. Jagtap                                                      10 of 28



                                                           IT Appeal 1060/14

 13]              However,   Mr.   Agarwal,   learned   Counsel 

appearing for the appellant assessee contends that

in any case for the subsequent assessment year i.e.

Assessment Year 2009-10, the appellant assessee had

made a claim for benefit of deduction under Section

80IA in respect of its jetty / port and the same was

allowed by the Assessing Officer. According to him,

there is no difference in the earlier assessment

year which would warrant the Assessing Officer from

taking a different view in the subject assessment

year. This cannot be accepted, more particularly

for the reason that in the subsequent assessment

year when the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act was

granted, the evidence in the form of the Auditor's

report in Form 10CCB of the Rules was available.

This Form 10CCB of the Rules is not available on

record for the subject assessment year. The

consideration and the nature of activity may undergo

a change from year to year for purposes of claiming

deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. This

deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be

allowed on the basis of the inference / assumption

Uday S. Jagtap 11 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

that satisfaction of conditions for a subsequent

assessment year would mean it is even so for the

subject assessment year. Neither can one be

subjected to tax on the basis of assumption or

presumption nor can exemption / deduction be claimed

and allowed on the basis of assumption or

presumption.

14] Therefore, we do not agree with the

contention of Mr. Agarwal that once benefit under

Section 80IA of the Act has been granted to the

appellant assessee's jetty / port it must ipso facto

follow that for the earlier years also the benefit

must be granted on the mere say of the assessee that

there is no change in the facts and circumstances of

the case. Admittedly, for the subject assessment

year, there is no claim made for the benefit of

deduction under Section 80IA of the Act before the

lower authorities and the evidence of an Auditor as

required by law in Form 10CCB of the Rules for

eligibility of deduction under Section 80IA of the

Act is not on record. This would be the evidence

Uday S. Jagtap 12 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

which would be subject to enquiry/examination by the

Assessing Officer and/or the C.I.T. (A) before

allowing the deduction claimed. This is a factual

enquiry to be done at the time of assessment before

the claim can be allowed. Thus the view of the

Tribunal that the new ground urged could not be

allowed to be raised as the same is dependent upon

leading of evidence and verification of the same by

the Authority before the claim under Section 80IA of

the Act can be allowed, cannot be faulted.

15] Mr.Agarwal then contended that once the

additional ground is allowed, he would lead

evidence in support. This submission seeks to

unsettle the settled position as laid down in NTPC

Ltd. (supra) that additional ground can be urged

before the appellate authorities provided the

evidence is on record. If the submission of

Mr.Agarwal is accepted, that a new ground alongwith

fresh evidence can be urged before the appellate

authorities, even if not raised earlier without

anything more (such as decision of Court or valid

Uday S. Jagtap 13 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

reasons for not raising the claim earlier) would

unsettle the settled law. Accepting above

submission would lead to great uncertainty and fall

foul of one of the basic tenets of good tax

administration i.e. finality to assessments.

16] It was then contended by Mr.Agarwal that

evidence for the subject assessment year is on

record in the form of an assessment order for the

subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the

additional ground raised should have been admitted

for consideration.

17] In support, he placed reliance upon the

decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Patiala (133

ITR 231) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court

in Indra Singh & Sons Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India &

another (LXIV ITR 501). Both the aforesaid decisions

arise out of rectification applications filed before

the authorities and the words for consideration were

"mistake apparent on the record". In this case, we

Uday S. Jagtap 14 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

are not dealing with mistake apparent on record but

with the raising of additional grounds in the

absence of evidence on record for the subject

assessment years. Therefore, it would have no

application to the present facts.

18] In the present facts, the necessary evidence

entitling the appellant to claim deduction u/s 80IA

of the Act for the subject assessment year is not on

record. As pointed out hereinabove, the benefit of

deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is available only when

Form 10CCB is filed duly certified by the auditors.

This Form 10CCB requires detailed information to be

provided, which would then be a subject of

examination by the Assessing Officer before

extending the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the

Act.

19] Mr.Agarwal then placed reliance upon the

decision of the Apex Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd.

v. CIT (62 ITR 232). The issue before the Tribunal

was the question as to what should be the proper

Uday S. Jagtap 15 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

written down value of the buildings and machinery

for calculating depreciation u/s 10(2)(vi) of the

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (1922 Act). The

assessment year involved was 1950-51 to 1952-53. In

the above case, the assessee was incorporated in the

native State of Indore. Therefore, it was assessed

to tax in British India as non-resident. After the

Constitution came into force and the assessee became

a resident, the question which arose was

determination was the written down value of the

building and machinery for calculating depreciation

u/s 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act. The Assessing

Officer as well as the first appellate authority did

not accept the assessee's contention that the

original cost of the buildings and machinery be

taken as written down value for the purpose of

computing depreciation. It held that only that part

of the depreciation which was actually allowed under

the 1922 Act could be considered while arriving at

the written down value of the fixed assets. The

Tribunal remanded the entire issue to the Income Tax

Officer to hold further enquiry with regard to

Uday S. Jagtap 16 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

whether or not the depreciation which was paid under

the Industrial Tax Rules should be taken into

account for the purpose of computing the written

down value. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court

held that no objection with regard to the revenue

raising the additional ground for the first time was

raised before the Tribunal or before the High Court.

Notwithstanding the above, the Apex Court held that

even if it is assumed that such an issue of

additional ground was raised before the Tribunal, it

was open to the Tribunal to consider the additional

ground and for that purpose, remand the issue. The

Court held that the question for consideration in

appeal from orders of lower authorities was the

proper written down value of the buildings and

machinery. Therefore the additional ground to

determine the above issue could be raised.

20] In this case, the issue of claim for

deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was not the issue

raised before the lower authorities. In the above

case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. (supra), it was not

Uday S. Jagtap 17 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

the case of the Assessing Officer that the evidence

was not on record. In fact the order was passed on

the basis of the evidence being already on record,

but a new ground was being urged by the revenue.

Thus, the aforesaid decision would not be of any

assistance to the appellant. In the present facts,

the evidence which would entitle the appellant to

raise the issue of deduction under Section 80IA of

the Act in respect of port / jetty by way of an

additional ground before the Tribunal is not on

record.

21] Mr.Agarwal next placed reliance upon the

decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi

Textile Mills Ltd. (66 ITR 710). In this case, the

assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs.93,000/-

for introduction of the "Casablanca conversion

system" in its spinning plant. This involved

replacement of certain rollers to the spinning

machinery, removal of ring frames from certain

existing parts and introduction of new parts so as

to make the machines more effective. The assessee

Uday S. Jagtap 18 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

claimed development rebate on the ground of

introduction of "Casablanca conversion system"

involved in the installation of new machinery.

Before the Tribunal, in the alternative, for the

first time, the assessee claimed that in any event

the expenditure incurred for introduction of the

"Casablanca conversion system" should be allowed as

current repairs u/s 10(2)(v) of the 1922 Act. The

Apex Court held that the Tribunal had evidence

before it from which it could conclude that the

expenditure of Rs.93,000/- was allowable as current

repairs even if the claim for development rebate was

disallowed. In the aforesaid facts, it would be

noted that all the evidence was available before the

Tribunal entitling the appellant - assessee to raise

an additional alternative ground. In these

circumstances, the above decision would also not

assist the appellant - assessee. In the present

facts, the evidence was not on record for the

subject assessment year.

 22]              Mr.Agarwal   then   placed   reliance   upon   the 



 Uday S. Jagtap                                                         19 of 28



                                                         IT Appeal 1060/14

Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad

Electricity Company Ltd. v. CIT (199 ITR 351). In

the above case, the issue involved was whether an

additional ground could be raised before the

Tribunal with regard to deductibility of the sums

transferred to the contingency reserve and dividend

control reserve. During the proceedings before the

Assessing Officer for the AY 1962-63 to 1971-72, the

appellant - assessee did not claim the deductions on

account of sums transferred to contingency reserve

and dividend control reserve. However, when the

matter was pending before the Tribunal, this Court

in the case of Amalgamated Electricity Co.Ltd. v.

CIT (97 ITR 334) held that the amounts transferred

to contingency reserve and dividend control reserve

are allowed as deductions on revenue account. It is

in view of the decision of this Court in the case of

Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra) that the

assessee sought to raise additional grounds before

the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal refused to

grant leave to the assessee to raise such an

additional ground. As there was difference of

Uday S. Jagtap 20 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

opinion between various decisions of this Court, the

matter was placed before the Full Bench to resolve

the controversy. The Full Bench of this Court held

that the parties are allowed to raise additional

grounds before the Tribunal so long as they arise

from the subject matter of the proceedings and not

necessarily from the subject matter raised in the

memo of appeal. The reliance was also placed upon

the decision of the Apex Court in Jute Corporation

of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688) wherein the Apex

Court permitted the appellant to raise an additional

ground for the first time before the appellate

authority claiming deduction of purchase tax

liability because the same had become liable to

payment subsequent to the assessment order. The

Full Bench observed that the Apex Court in Jute

Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) made reference to

the decision of the Apex Court in Additional

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurjargravures P.

Ltd. (111 ITR 1), and held that it does not prohibit

the raising of an additional ground before the

appellate authority, when the ground so raised could

Uday S. Jagtap 21 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

not have been raised before the Assessing Officer or

the ground now becomes available in view of changed

circumstances such as a decision of a Court allowing

a particular deduction.

23] Therefore, before an additional ground is

allowed to be raised, the appellate authority must

be satisfied that the ground raised could not have

been raised earlier for good reasons. The

underlying basis for allowing the raising the

additional ground in the case of Ahmedabad

Electricity Co.Ltd. (supra) was the subsequent

decision rendered by this Court in Amalgamated

Electricity Co.Ltd. (supra) when appeal was pending.

As held by the subsequent decisions of the Apex

Court in NTPC Ltd. (supra), a judicial decision when

an appeal is pending will entitle raising of

additional ground.

24] In any view of the matter, the aforesaid

decision does not deal with the situation which

arises for consideration in this case viz. relying

Uday S. Jagtap 22 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

upon the evidence on record for a subsequent

assessment year to hold that the assessee is

entitled to a benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the

Act for an earlier assessment year. A deduction

under Chapter VIA of the Act under which Section

80IA of the Act falls would depend, as pointed out

above, upon the satisfaction of the facts necessary

for claiming a deduction. The allowing of a

deduction in a subsequent year's assessment order

cannot determine the facts as existing in the

earlier assessment year, such as in this case so as

to allow the deduction.

25] In fact, the issue with regard to the

raising of new grounds in the absence of any

evidence on record is no longer res integra in view

of decision of the Apex Court in Addl. Commissioner

of Income Tax Vs. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd.,(supra).

In the above case, it has been held that an

additional ground cannot be raised before the

appellate Authority when no claim for a particular

deduction was made before the original authority nor

Uday S. Jagtap 23 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

was there any material on record to support such a

claim. Further the Court held that merely by

allowing the deduction for a subsequent assessment

year, it could not be held that conditions for

availing the deduction in the subject assessment

were also satisfied. In the present facts also, the

claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act

was not made before the Assessing Officer or the

CIT(A) but was made for the first time only before

the Tribunal nor was there any evidence in support

of the claim for the subject assessment year on

record. Thus it stands covered by the above

decision in Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The

aforesaid decision of the Apex Court was subject

matter of consideration in Jute Corporation of India

Ltd.(supra) wherein the Court while distinguishing

Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the

additional ground could also be raised before the

appellate Authority if such ground could not have

been raised at the earlier stage i.e. when the

return of income was filed. This is only when the

assessee is able to satisfy the appellate Authority

Uday S. Jagtap 24 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

that the ground now raised was bona fide and the

same could not have been raised earlier for good

reasons. In such cases, the raising of additional

ground could be allowed. In this case, there is

nothing on record to indicate as to what was the

reason which prevented the appellant assessee from

raising a claim for deduction under Section 80IA of

the Act for subject assessment year during the

proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the

CIT(A). Therefore, in the above facts , the view

taken by the Tribunal in not allowing the appellant

to raise additional ground in appeal is in line with

the decision of the Apex Court in Gurjargravures

Pvt.Ltd. (supra), NTPC Ltd. (supra) and Jute

Corporation of India Ltd.

26] None of the decisions cited by the

appellant would render the decision of the Supreme

Court in Gurjargravures Pvt.Ltd. (supra), read with

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and NTPC Ltd. (supra)

inapplicable to the present facts.

 Uday S. Jagtap                                                       25 of 28



                                                          IT Appeal 1060/14

 27]              There can be no dispute that whether or not 

to allow an additional ground to be raised before

the appellate authority is to be decided by the

appellate authority in exercise of its discretion

considering the facts and circumstances of the case

before it. Where only a pure question of law arises

from facts which are already on record, then there

is no reason why the appellate authority should not

consider the question of law so as to determine the

correct tax liability of an assessee in accordance

with law. However, where evidence is to be examined

and that is not on record, then it will be

considered only if the parties seeking to raise the

additional ground satisfies the authority concerned

that for good and sufficient reasons, the ground

could not be raised before the lower authorities.

In the present facts, no such ground has been made

out by the assessee before the Tribunal. In the

present facts, as pointed out above and being

reiterated once more, the additional ground, which

is raised, is not a pure question of law, but would

depend upon the satisfaction of the authority as to

Uday S. Jagtap 26 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

the facts existing in the subject assessment year

for allowing the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act.

The additional ground is being raised for the first

time before the Tribunal without relevant evidence

being on record.

28] In the above view, the substantial question

of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of

the respondent - revenue and against the appellant -

assessee.

29] Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

30] It may be pointed out that presently one of

us (Sanklecha,J.) is a Visiting Judge to the

Aurangabad Bench of this Court with effect from

10.4.2017. Therefore, a draft order of this

petition (partly dictated) was received on his e-

mail account from the Stenographer at Mumbai. On

15.4.2017, he sought to send the draft order on his

e-mail account to his Stenographer at Aurangabad to

obtain print out to carry out corrections and also

Uday S. Jagtap 27 of 28

IT Appeal 1060/14

dictate further. However, while doing so, he omitted

putting in the suffix to the name of the

Stenographer, which was a part of his e-mail

address. Therefore, the draft order was forwarded

to an incorrect e-mail account rather than to the

correct e-mail account of his Stenographer.

Thereafter (Sanklecha,J.) forwarded another e-mail

to the wrong addressee clearly indicating that it

was sent by mistake and not meant for him. The

aforesaid facts have been recorded only to ensure

transparency.

    (S.C. GUPTE, J.)                   (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)




 Uday S. Jagtap                                                      28 of 28