DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI V. JINDAL ITF LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 1777/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s Jindal ITF Limited concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the disallowance of interest expenses, credit card payments, depreciation and amortization expenses, and deductions for premium on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs). The Assessing Officer had disallowed these claims during the scrutiny assessment, categorizing some expenses as pre-operative and others as not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) reversed these decisions, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the nature of the business and the timing of revenue recognition in infrastructure development.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398280 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, Maruti Insurance Broking (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Bharti Land Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-4(2) New Delhi, Whirlpool India Ltd vs. CIT, Hughes Escorts Communications vs. CIT, Wipro Ltd vs. CIT, Shriram Investment vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR BINDAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Business expenditure; Depreciation; Tax effect; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 10B; 139(5)

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Circle - 28 28, Shivaji Marg New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AABCJ 9263 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP Department By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 23, New Delhi dated 30.03.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 2 of 20 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.22,24,72,637/- made on account of disallowance of Rs.22,24,72,637/- as interest expenses ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to produce any concrete and additional evidences in support of its contention. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred and on facts in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 2,68,853/-made on account of credit card payments ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to produce any concrete and additional evidences in support of its contention. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,09,120/-made on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,09,120/- as depreciation and amortization expenses ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to produce any concrete and additional evidences in support of its contention. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and facts and ignoring the fact that the claim for deductions on account of claim of deduction for premium on debentures amounting to Rs. 2,01,99,731/- had not been made in its original income tax return and revised return by the assessee nor was made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and facts and ignoring the fact that Honourab'le Supreme Court in its Judgement in the case 'M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 3 of 20 has observed that any claim which has not been made in the Income tax return which is the consolidated financial statement of the assesse cannot be entertained at any appellate stage. 6. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 7. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of appeal. 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules. 4. Brief facts relating to Ground No. 1 pertaining to deletion of addition of Rs. 22,24,72,637/- on account of interest expenses are that the assessee electronically filed its return of Income on 30.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 12,87,850/-. The return of income was subsequently revised to a loss of Rs 22,56,84,213/- on 31.03.2015. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on perusal of details of income reflected in the profit and loss account noticed that the assessee company has not earned any income under the head of revenue from operation and it reflected other income comprising of interest income and misc. income. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 4 of 20 The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that since the assessee has not yet commenced operations, the interest expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure should be kept in pre-operative expenses and accordingly, disallowed the interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 22,24,72,637/- and assessed the income of the assessee at a loss of Rs 25,65,090/- vide his order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2016. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us. 7. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee itself classified certain interest expense as ‘pre-operative expense’ and in the course of assessment proceedings did not submit any justification for treating the interest income as revenue expense. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 5 of 20 8. Per contra, the ld AR of the assessee stated that the assessee company was incorporated on 18.09.2007 with the main objective of development of infrastructure facilities. It is the say of the ld AR that by 31.03.2013, an amount of Rs.893.87 Crores was invested through various 100% subsidiaries companies out of which Rs.553.84 Crores was infused in 100% subsidiary company named M/s JITF Waterways Ltd. The ld AR stated that the assessee is in the business of logistics and transport of coal as in the year 2011, the assessee successfully bid tender with NTPC for transporting their imported coal from High seas to the port which included procurement of barges, building of jetty at Farakka near NTPC plant, unloading of coal and transferring them in the barges and transporting it to Farakka. In the immediate two previous years, the assessee was also engaged in the trading of steel pipes. The ld AR stated that the assessee furnished evidences before the lower authorities to show that various agreements were entered into through its subsidiaries for work and various proposals were submitted to the authorities for development of infrastructure-projects. The assessee raised funds also that ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 6 of 20 were required for meeting expenses to carry out the infrastructure development. 9. The ld AR further submitted that any infrastructure development activity is a time taking process and entails various preparations and activities. The revenues start coming after a long time. If the revenue is considered as the only base for allowing expenditure, in that case hardly any expense would be allowed in the case of construction and Infrastructure project. 10. The ld AR stated that the subsidiaries of the assessee has already started work/projects during the year under consideration. In the appellant's business model, the work was to be executed through its subsidiaries and this is the business model in respect of most of the infrastructure projects. It is the say of the ld AR that considering all these facts the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee had set up its business although revenue under the head income from business and profession came subsequently. The ld AR stated that the CIT(A) correctly held that earning of revenue alone ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 7 of 20 cannot be the basis of treating whether the expenses are to be allowed or disallowed relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Insurance Broking (P.) Ltd. 435 ITR 34 (Del.). The ld. AR also relied on the case of Bharti Land Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-4(2) New Delhi, the ITAT 'A' Bench (ITA No. 195/Del/2020 for A.Y 2016-17). 11. The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer himself in the immediate previous years has allowed the claim of expenditure including interest expenditure in scrutiny assessment proceedings. The AR pointed out that before holding that interest needs to be capitalized, the Assessing Officer neither examined why the interest cost was incurred nor attributed the interest cost to any particular asset. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find ourselves aligned with view of the ld CIT(A) that for an infrastructure company, the infrastructure development activities are time consuming process where for earning revenue the gestation period is high. In the instant case, the CIT(A) has found for a fact that the ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 8 of 20 assessee follows a business model where the work is executed by the subsidiaries. We find that the assessee has established several subsidiaries who have started work prior to the year under consideration. The assessee itself commenced its business of logistics and transport of coal since 2011 for NTPC for transporting their imported coal from High seas to the port near Farakka. 13. We also find that the CIT(A), on the issue of commencement/set-up of business, has correctly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Insurance Broking (P.) Ltd. 435 ITR 34 (Del.). wherein it has been held as under :- \"It was held in this case that business does not conform to 'cold start' doctrine and most cases, there was gap between time a person or entity is ready to do business and when business is conducted and during this period, expenses are incurred towards keeping business primed up and these expenses cannot be capitalized. Hence, it was held that expenditure incurred between setting up and commencement of business could not have been capitalized and was to be allowed as business expenditure.\" ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 9 of 20 Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd 318 ITR 347 (Del) held that the company was a financial enterprise and the business is set up when the directors and staff are appointed and their salaries paid, computer acquired and installed. Hence, expenditure under section 37(1) is allowable. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications (165 Taxman 318) held that the assessee correctly claimed that date on which purchase order was placed should be reckoned as the date on which its business was set up and expenditure incurred by it after such date could not be capitalized but was to be treated as revenue expenditure.” 14. We also note that the AO has himself allowed the claim of expenditure including the interest expenditure while conducting scrutiny assessment in the immediate previous year of AY 2012-13. The AO has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in facts in the impugned year as to how he altered his view on the claim of interest expenditure. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the assessee has already commenced its business activities, the revenue from which would come in due course, and the interest ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 10 of 20 expense requires to be considered as revenue expense allowable for the impugned year. We therefore hold that no interference is called for in the decision of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of interest expense. The ground no 1 of the revenue is dismissed. 15. Facts relating to Ground No. 2 pertain to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,68,853/- on account of credit card payments and Ground No. 3 pertain to deletion of addition of Rs. 3,09,120/- on account of depreciation and amortization of expenses. 16. The ld DR heavily relied on the order of the AO while the ld AR of the assessee relied fully on the order of the CIT(A). 17. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. With respect to the Credit Card expenses the CIT(A) found that one Shri Indresh Batra, Director of the assessee company as well as M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was using the credit card and the expenses were paid by JITF Water Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and the expenses probably related to the work of M/s JITF Water ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 11 of 20 Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and was paid & claimed by the subsidiary. We are inclined to agree with CIT(A) that it is not a case of expenditure not accounted in the books of accounts or expense not for purposes of the business of the assessee. The subsidiary company has incurred the said expense which is accounted and paid by it as its expenditure. We therefore direct the AO to delete the said addition. As far as addition of Rs. 3,09,120/- on account of depreciation and amortization of expenses is concerned, the CIT(A) found that the same was added back by the assessee in its computation of income. Therefore, the same was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). Ground no 2 and 3 of Revenue is dismissed. 18. Brief facts relating to Ground No. 4 pertaining to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,01,99,731/- on account of claim of deduction for premium on Non-Convertible Debentures. The appellant claimed that there was accrued liability of Rs.4,58,00,477/- on account of premium on NCDs and was claimed that the same should be allowed as deduction for the year under consideration. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 12 of 20 19. The CIT(A) found from the books of accounts that the assessee has made a provision for premium on NCDs of Rs.4,82,39,000/- in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) found that there is a variation in the liability shown in the balance sheet for the year and in the claim made by the assessee. In the balance sheet, from the securities premium account, the amount of Rs.4,82,39,000/- has been reduced being premium on redemption of NCD. However, there is no debit in the Profit and Loss account for the year under consideration. In the computation of income also, there is no claim on account of premium on NCDs. 20. The CIT(A) held that the premium on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) and the premium on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are different in nature and character. While the premium on CCDs are in the nature of discount on issue of shares and are not actually paid or expanded; the premium on NCDs are actually to be paid as per the terms of debenture. It is in the nature of interest as the appellant is liable to pay the amount. The CIT(A), following the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs CIT reported in (SC) 225 ITR 802 (1997), held that the liability on account of payment of premium (which is in nature of interest) is allowable deduction, during the year under consideration ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 13 of 20 and allowed the claim of premium of Rs. 2,01,99,731/- on NCD worth Rs 50 Crore carrying IRR of 13.7725% per annum and interest @ 9.5% per annum, as deduction during the year. 21. The ld DR vehemently submitted that the claim for deductions on account of premium on NCDs amounting to Rs. 2,01,99,731/- had not been made in its original income tax return and revised return by the assessee nor was made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The claim was made for the first time before the Ld. CIT (A) who wrongly allowed the claim. The ld DR heavily relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld DR also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd (2022) 446 ITR 1(SC) and Sriram Investment Civil Appeal no 6274 of 2013 dated 04.10.2024. 22. Per contra, the ld AR forcefully submitted that the decision of Goetze India bars only the AO for entertaining claim made by the assessee other than by way of original or revised return but does not put fetters on the powers of the appellate authorities. The ld AR relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Finance Ltd which ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 14 of 20 held that decision of Goetz India does not impinge upon the plenary powers of the ITAT bestowed u/s 254 of the Act. 23. The ld AR further stated that the assessee had incurred loss of Rs 72,676/- in AY 2011-12 and has incurring losses continuously every year till AY 2024-25. It is submitted that the assessee has Carried forward losses of Rs 72,676 in AY 2011-12 to Rs 1,01,22,44,295/- in AY 2024-25. It is the say of the ld AR that the assessee has Carried forward loss of Rs 1,66,17,54,013/- upto AY 2016-17, including Carried forward loss of Rs 30,33,33,742/- in the period of the instant AY 2013- 14, which has already lapsed. The ld AR submitted that in view of the losses being carried forward and the loss of the instant year having lapsed, there would not be any tax effect involved. 24. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. From the perusal of the grounds no 4 and 5 of the appeal, we find that the Revenue has not disputed the deduction on merits. We further find that the Revenue’s main grievance is that the CIT(A) should not have allowed deduction for premium on NCDs as the assessee had ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 15 of 20 not made the claim in the original return or the revised return or before the AO during the assessment proceedings following the decision of Goetz India Ltd. The issue of powers of the assessing authorities i.e., the AO and the appellate authorities i.e., the CIT(A) to adjudicate on claims which are not made in the return of income either original or revised, has been elucidated by the hon’ble Supreme Court itself in the decision of Wipro Finance Ltd (supra) when it elaborated the decision in Goetz India as under: “11. Learned ASG had placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in support of the objection pressed before us that it is not open to entertain fresh claim before the ITAT. According to him, the decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. merely permits raising of a new ground concerning the claim already mentioned in the returns and not an inconsistent or contrary plea or a new claim. We are not impressed by this argument. For, the observations in the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. itself make it amply clear that such limitation would apply to the “assessing authority”, but not impinge upon the plenary powers of the ITAT bestowed under Section 254 of the Act. In other words, this decision is of no avail to the department.” 25. We are therefore of the considered view that the decision of Goetz India itself holds that limitation to entertain issues which are not claimed in the original/revised return, is limited to the Assessing Authority and it does impinge on the powers ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 16 of 20 of the appellate authorities. In the instant case, the assessee raised the issue of expense towards premium on NCDs for the first time before the CIT(A), who after giving the opportunity to the AO to give his comments on the claim, discussed the issue and decided in favour of the assessee. In the light of the decision of Goetz India and Wipro Finance Ltd (supra) as above, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was well within his jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issues which were not claimed in the original/revised return of income or before the AO. 26. On merits, we concur with the view of the CIT(A) that liability on account of payment of premium, which is actually in the nature of interest, is an allowable deduction being a revenue expense during the impugned year. We therefore, uphold the decision of CIT(A) on both counts. 27. In the course of hearing, a reference to the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Wipro Ltd (supra) and Shriram investment (supra) was made wherein it is held that where the assessee has filed return u/s 139(1) and revised its ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 17 of 20 return u/s 139(5) declaring loss and carries forward the said loss, the same is impermissible under law if the assessee has not originally filed its return under section 139(3). This legal principle laid down in Wipro Ltd (supra) and reiterated in Shriram investment (supra) is enunciated by the hon’ble Supreme Court in Shriram investment, by quoting Wipro Ltd as under: “9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under Section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set- off of any loss. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the IT Act. Therefore, claiming benefit under section 10B (8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B (8) in the revised return of income which was much after ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 18 of 20 the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, cannot mean that the assessee has complied with the condition of furnishing the declaration before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 10B (8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature. 28. On this aspect, we find in the instant case that the assessee has filed return of income under section 139(1) declaring income of Rs. 12,87,850/- on 30.09.2013. The return of income was subsequently revised u/s 139(5) on 31.03.2015 to a loss of Rs 22,56,84,213/-. In such a situation, the Bench enquired the assessee on the issue, in the light of the law laid down by hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Wipro Ltd (supra) and Sriram Investment (supra) whether the assessee is permitted to carry forward the loss. The ld AR of the assessee made a submission that the assessee has been incurring losses every year since AY 2011-12 till date and is carrying Carried forward losses of Rs 72,676 in AY 2011-12 to Rs 1,01,22,44,295/- in AY 2024-25. It is submitted that in fact, the Carried forward loss of Rs 1,66,17,54,013/-, including the period of the instant AY 2013-14 of Rs 30,33,33,742/- has already lapsed, and therefore there is no impact on tax liability. ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 19 of 20 29. Though the issue of carried forward of loss was not taken up specifically by the revenue in the grounds of appeal but the matter was brought up by the assessee itself during the course of hearing before us. We therefore merely direct the AO to examine the submissions of the assessee with respect to carry forward of loss; the same being lapsed and that it has no effect in tax liability and to take necessary action as per law. The grounds no 4 and 5 is accordingly dismissed with the above direction. 30. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MAHAVIR SINGH] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 04thJune, 2025. VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT ITA No. 1777/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. M/s Jindal ITF Limited Page 20 of 20 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order "