Sava Healthcare Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,Central Circle-2(1), Pune

ITA 114/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3380 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; International transaction; Revised return
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 201; 144C; 13; 22; 92CA; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH C, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, OFF NEW AIRPORT ROAD, VIMAN NAGAR, SAKORENAGAR, PUNE 411 014 PAN : AAECA9456D VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-11-2018 PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER (AO) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUS TMENT OF RS.10,14,06,297/- MADE IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE FIRST ASSESSEE BY SHRI KISHOR PHADKE REVENUE BY SHRI T.V. BHASKAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING 06-03-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09-03-2020 ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 2 LEGAL ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL POSES A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISD ICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTUAL SCENARIO, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE EXTANT LEGAL ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIAN COMPANY WHICH FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,73,81,465/-, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO A LOS S OF RS.4,39,40,490/- ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF SOME COMPAN IES. THE ASSESSEE REPORTED CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN FORM NO. 3CEB, INCLUDING `SALE OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. THE AO M ADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETER MINING THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE LATTER PROPOSED A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10,49,46,477/-. PURSUA NT TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), THE AO MADE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10,14,06,297/- IN THE IMPUGNED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS STATED THEREIN AND HENCE, S UCH A ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 3 REFERENCE SHOULD BE DECLARED INVALID AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL TR ANSFER PRICING ADDITION DELETED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE LEGAL QU ESTION, IT IS SINE QUA NON TO HAVE A GLANCE AT CERTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. PAGE 386 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A COPY OF CASS (COMPUTER ASSISTED SCRUTINY SELECTION) REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS GIVEN ARE LOW NET PR OFIT OR LOSS SHOWN FROM LARGE GROSS RECEIPTS; LARGE OTHER EXPENSES C LAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; TAXABLE INCOME SHOWN IN REVISED RETURN IS LESS THAN THE TAXABLE INCOME SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETU RN; LOSS FROM CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS; LOW INCOME IN COMPARISON TO HIGH LOANS/ADVANCES/INVESTMENT IN SHARES; LARGE DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING STOCK OF CURRENT YEAR AND CLOSING STOCK OF PREVIOU S YEAR SHOWN IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER RETURN OF INCOME; MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR; MISMATCH IN AMOUNT PAID TO RELATED PERSONS U/S. 40A(2)(B) REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR; AND MISMATCH BETWEEN INCOME/RECEIPT CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CONSIDERED UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME AND INCOME FROM HEADS OF INCOME. IT ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 4 IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE REASONS THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON NON-TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS. THE AO SOUGHT APPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PR. CI T) (CENTRAL) VIDE HIS LETTER 28-10-2016 FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TPO U/S. 92CA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF MORE THAN RS.10.00 CRORE WAS MADE IN AN EAR LIER YEAR IN TERMS OF PARA 3.3(B) OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.3/2016 DATED 1 0-03-2016 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. A COPY OF SUCH LETTER IS AVAILABLE AT PA GE 383 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PR. CIT ACCORDED HIS APPROVAL VID E LETTER DATED 03-11-2016, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON 3 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON RECEIPT OF APPROVAL FROM THE PR. CIT, THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO ON 04-11-2016 FOR DETERMINING THE A LP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IN THIS REFERENCE LETTER AGAIN, TH E AO GAVE SIMILAR REASONS FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE TPO AS W ERE GIVEN IN THE LETTER TO THE PR. CIT, BEING, TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF MORE THAN RS.10.00 CRORE IN EARLIER YEAR AND EX CONSEQUENTI, THE CASE COVERED UNDER PARA 3.3(B) OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.3/2 016 DATED 10-03-2016 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH A RE FERENCE, THE TPO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 92CA(3) PROPOSING THE TRAN SFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.49 CRORE. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 5 5. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE AO WENT WRONG IN SEEKING PERMISSION FROM THE PR. CIT AND TH EN MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TPO ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSF ER PRICING ADDITION OF MORE THAN RS.10.00 CRORE WAS MADE IN A N EARLIER YEAR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 6. SECTIONS 92 TO 92F, CONTAINED IN CHAPTER X OF THE ACT , WERE SUBSTITUTED / INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002. SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE AO TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION / SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2). SECTION 92CA(1) WITH THE MARGINAL NOTE REFERENCE TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER STA TES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTION IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT SO TO DO, HE MAY, WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER, REFER THE COMPUTATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO THE TPO. ON A CONJOINT READING OF SECTIONS 92C AND 92CA, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ALP DETERMINATION CAN BE DONE DIRECTLY BY THE AO AS WELL AS CAUSE TO BE DONE THROUGH TPO AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE PR. CIT. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 6 7. THE CBDT ISSUED INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2003 DATED 20-05 -2003 PRESCRIBING THAT WHEN THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION EXCEEDS RS.5.00 CRORE, A REFERENCE WILL BE MA DE BY THE AO TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP. SUCH A LIMIT WAS FURTHER ENHANCED TO RS.15.00 CRORE. THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN PR. CIT VS. S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (2019) 310 CTR 1 (SC) CONSIDERED A CASE IN WHICH THE AO, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE AFORESAID CBDT INSTRUCTION OF 2003, SUO MOTU DETERMINED THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WHOSE AGGREGATE VALUE EXCEED ED RS.5.00 CRORE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINA BLE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT, IT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO WHEN THE AGGREGATE V ALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS EXCEEDED RS.5.00 CRORE IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2003. HAVING NOT DONE SO, IT ECHOED THE VIE W OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDERING TO DELETE THE ADDITION. IT, HOWEVER, FU RTHER HELD THAT THE ITAT SHOULD HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO SO THAT APPROPRIATE REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE TPO. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 7 8. ON 16-10-2015, THE CBDT, REPLACING ITS EARLIER INSTR UCTION OF 2003, ISSUED A FRESH INSTRUCTION NO.15/2015 ON THE SUBJEC T BY PROVIDING THAT THE CASES WERE TO BE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON LY ON CERTAIN PARAMETERS AND THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF REFER RING AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF ITS ALP MERELY BECAUSE THE VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS EXCEEDED A PARTICU LAR LIMIT. THUS, IT IS OVERT THAT WITH THE INSTRUCTION NO.15/2015, THE HITHERTO THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.5/RS.15.00 CRORE REQUIRING THE MAKING OF A MANDATORY REFERENCE TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP BY THE AO, WAS DISPENSED WITH. 9. THEREAFTER, INSTRUCTION NO.03/2016 DATED 10-03-2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE CBDT REPLACING THE EARLIER INSTRUCTION DATED 16- 10- 2015. THE NEW INSTRUCTION OF 2016 PROVIDES FOR MAINLY TWO CATEGORIES OF CASES IN WHICH REFERENCE CAN BE MADE BY TH E AO TO THE TPO FOR THE ALP DETERMINATION. THE FIRST MAIN CATEGORY CONSISTS OF THE CASES THAT ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS AND SECOND CATEGORY CO MPRISES OF CASES THAT ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF NO N TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS. FOR THE FIRST CATEGORY, WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AT PARA NO.3.2 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION, IT HAS BE EN STATED ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 8 THAT ALL THE CASES SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSF ER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY REFERRED BY THE AO TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. WE HAVE REPRODUCED A BOVE THE REASONS FOR SCRUTINY SELECTION OF THE ASSESSEES CASE , WHICH ARE CLEARLY NON-TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS. THUS PARA 3.2 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CA SE REQUIRING ANY MANDATORY REFERENCE TO BE MADE BY THE AO TO THE TPO. THE SECOND MAIN CATEGORY OF THE CASES SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF NON-TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS HAS B EEN DEALT WITH AT PARA 3.3 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION. THIS MANDATES MA KING A REFERENCE BY THE AO TO THE TPO FOR THE ALP DETERMINATION IN O NE OR MORE OF THE THREE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN PARAS ( A) TO (C). PARA 3.3(B) OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE AO FOR SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE PR. CIT AS WELL AS MAKING A REFE RENCE TO THE TPO FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALP. THE AO SOUGHT APPROVAL OF THE PR. CIT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 28-10-2016, WH ICH WAS GRANTED VIDE LETTER DATED 03-11-2016. THEREAFTER, A R EFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE TPO VIDE LETTER DATED 04-11-2016. THUS, IT IS VIVID THAT THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO AFTER INSTRUCTIO N NO.3/2016 HAD KICKED IN ON 10-03-2016. IT IS BORNE OUT FR OM PARA ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 9 3.1 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION THAT: `THE BOARD HAS DECIDED THAT THE AO SHALL HENCEFORTH MAKE REFERENCE TO THE TPO ONLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES LAID OUT IN THIS INSTRUCTION. THE INSTANT REFERENC E HAVING BEEN INITIATED ON 28.10.2016 AND MADE ON 4.11.201 6 IS GOVERNED BY THE 2016 INSTRUCTION. EVEN THE AO HAS ALSO TAK EN RECOURSE TO THE 2016 INSTRUCTION FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE. NOW WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IF THE EXTANT REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO S ATISFIES THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION. 10. THE AO IN HIS LETTER, FIRST WRITTEN TO PR. CIT SEEKING APPROVAL AND THEN TO THE TPO FOR MAKING A REFERENCE, HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT NOTING: KINDLY REFER THE ABOVE. 2. THE CASE OF M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED (EARLI ER KNOWN AS ANAGHA PHARMA LIMITED) WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR A.Y. 2014-15 BY CASS CYCLE 2016. FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E A.Y. 2013-14, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) CONCERNED. FOR THIS YEAR, THERE WAS ADDITION OF RS.23,35,28,452/- BY THE TPO. HENCE, YOUR KIND REF ERENCE IS INVITED TO PARA 3.3(B) OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2016 DAT ED 10-03-2016 ISSUED BY THE CBDT : WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10 CRORE OR MORE IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR A ND SUCH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORIT IES OR IS PENDING IN APPEAL. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 10 3. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS ADDITION OF MORE THAN RS. 10 CRORE. ALSO, THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESO LUTION PANEL (DRP), MUMBAI. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE ADDITIONS BY THE TPO CONCERNED FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, NAMELY 2007 -08 TO 2012- 13. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED B Y US) 11. WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETERS. IN THAT V IEW OF THE MATTER, APPLICATION OF PARA 3.2 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION IS OU STED. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTIONS OF THE AOS LE TTER, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO IN TER MS OF PARA 3.3 (B) OF INSTRUCTION OF 2016, WHICH DEALS WITH MAKIN G A REFERENCE IN ONE OF THE THREE SITUATIONS QUA A CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF NON-TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETER S. THUS, WE CONFINE OURSELVES IN EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN PARA 3.3(B) OF INSTRUCTION 2016, AS INVOKED BY THE AO, WERE SATISFIED. 12. PARA 3.3(B) OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION DIVULGES THAT THE REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE TPO: WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF R S.10.00 CRORE OR MORE IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUCH AD JUSTMENT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR IS PENDING IN AP PEAL. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 11 13. A CAREFUL CIRCUMSPECTION OF THE ABOVE PARA REVEA LS THAT IT CONTAINS TWO CONDITIONS. THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THERE: `HAS BEEN A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.00 CRORE OR MORE IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AFTER THE USE OF CONJUNCTION ` AND, THE SECOND CONDITION IS THAT: `SUCH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR IS PENDING IN APPEAL. THESE TWO DISTINCT CONDITIONS NEED TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED SO AS TO BRING A C ASE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS PARA. 14. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WILL BE APT TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE PR OCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. O N RECEIVING A REFERENCE FROM THE AO, THE TPO PASSES AN ORD ER U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT PROPOSING A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY. THEREAFTER THE AO NOTIFIES DRAFT ORDER INCORPORATING THE PRO POSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE AN APPELLATE OR THE DRP RECOURSE. WE WILL DISCUSS THE APPELLATE RECOURSE INFRA. IN THE DRP RECOURSE, AT THE STAGE OF THE ORDER OF THE TPO O R THE DRAFT ORDER BY THE AO, IT IS ONLY A PROPOSED TRANSFER PRIC ING ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT IS STILL UNDE RWAY. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 144C MAKES THE POSITION UNAMBIGUO US BY PROVIDING THAT: `THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, ., IN THE FIRST ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 12 INSTANCE, FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DRAFT ORDER ) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE... THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE RAISES OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DRAFT ORDER INCORPOR ATING THE PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, BEFORE THE DRP, WH ICH ARE DISPOSED OF BY MEANS OF DIRECTION U/S 144C(5) OF THE ACT . THIS IS ELUCIDATED FROM SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 144C, WHICH PRO VIDES THAT: `THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO, HOWEVER, THAT ... ONLY WHEN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OF BY THE DRP AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND THEREAFTER THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED BY THE AO THAT THE `PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT SHEDS THE WORD `PR OPOSED AND ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF `TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF CONTAINING THE EFFECT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 15. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.00 CRORE OR MORE IN THE FIRST CONDITION OF PARA 3.3(B) IS TO AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE TERM AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR DOES NOT REFER TO THE IMMEDI ATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IF, FOR ANY YEAR PRIOR TO TH E ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 13 IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.00 CRORE OR MORE HAS BEEN MADE, IT WILL SATISFY THE FIRST CONDITION. 16. NOW WE COME TO THE SECOND CONDITION IN PARA 3.3 (B), WHICH IS THAT SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.00 CRORE OR MORE MU ST HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR PENDING IN APPEAL. A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES (AT LEAST, THE FIRST FORUM) ONLY WHEN SUCH AN ADJU STMENT IS FIRST MADE AS A FIRST STEP, THEN APPEALED AGAINST EITHER BE FORE THE CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS A SECO ND STEP AND THEN CONFIRMED BY EITHER OF THEM AS A THIRD STEP. IN THE LIKE MANNER, A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE P ENDING IN AN APPEAL WHEN IT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE FINAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST IT EITH ER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL, AND FURTHER SUCH AN APPEAL IS PENDING ON THE DATE OF MAKING A REFERENCE BY THE AO TO THE TPO. W HAT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IS THAT WHETHER THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IS UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR IS PENDING IN APPEAL, IT IS A PRE-REQUISITE THAT THE TRANSFER PRIC ING ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 14 ADJUSTMENT MUST HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE A O IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 17. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND F ROM THE LETTER OF THE AO WRITTEN TO THE PR. CIT/TPO THAT A TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.23.35 CRORE WAS MADE BY THE TPO FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND FURTHER THAT `THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFOR E THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. IN ADDITION, HE ALSO WROTE THAT: `IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE ADDITIONS BY THE TPO CONCERNED FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, NAMELY, 2007-08 TO 2012-13. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE POSITION OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS FO R SUCH EARLIER YEARS WAS SIMILAR INASMUCH AS THE TRANSFER PR ICING ADJUSTMENTS WERE ONLY PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDERS AND ALL THE MATTERS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE DRP. THIS STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. THE REASON FOR PENDENCY OF THE DRAFT ORDERS FOR SO MANY YEARS BEFORE THE DRP IS THAT ALL SUCH EARLIER YEARS WERE TAKEN UP FOR ASSESSMENT SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSU ANT TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY. THE FACTUAL POSITION WHICH, THEREFORE, EMERGES ON GOING THRO UGH THE ABOVE REFERENCE LETTER OF THE AO TO THE TPO IS, THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS MAKING A REFERENCE, THERE WERE ONLY PROPOSED TRAN SFER ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 15 PRICING ADJUSTMENTS OF RS.10.00 CRORE OR MORE FOR SOME EARLIER YEARS, ALL OF WHICH HAD SUBSUMED IN THE DRAFT ORDERS BUT W ERE STILL PENDING WITH THE DRP FOR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION. IN OTHER WORDS, NO FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ANY OF THE EARLIER Y EARS WAS PASSED MAKING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10 CRORE OR MORE AT THE POINT OF MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TPO. ONCE THE POS ITION IS SUCH, WE ARE AFRAID THAT EVEN THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUST MENT ITSELF CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND A FORTIORI THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING UPHELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR PENDING IN APPEAL. 18. THE LD. DR TRIED TO DRAW A PARALLEL BETWEEN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND PENDENCY OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE DRP. HE CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT WAS PE NDING WITH THE DRP, THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS PENDING IN APP EAL. 19. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION. WE HAVE NOTED EA RLIER THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE RIPE FOR CONSIDE RATION BY JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES EITHER AT THE TIME OF PENDENCY OF APPEAL OR ITS DISPOSAL IN WHICH THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN U PHELD ONLY WHEN IT HAS IRRETRIEVABLY GONE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE A O, WHO HAS BECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO. IF THE AO HAS YET TO CONTINUE WITH ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 16 THE ASSESSMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SECOND CONDITION OF PARA 3.3(B) OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION IS SATISFIED. OBVIOUSLY AN APP EAL WILL LIE ONLY WHEN AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. AS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP ARE CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEING A STAGE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT, WE CANNOT APPROVE THE CONTENTION THAT THE PENDENCY OF THE MA TTER BEFORE THE DRP CAN BE EQUALIZED WITH THE PENDENCY OF AN AP PEAL SO AS TO SATISFY THE SECOND CONDITION OF PARA 3.3(B) OF THE 20 16 INSTRUCTION. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (2013) 39 TAXMANN.COM 201 (BOM.) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD IN PARA 47 THAT THE PROCESS BEFORE THE DRP IS A CONTIN UATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ONLY THEREAFTER WOULD A FINAL APPEALABLE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE PASSED. TILL DATE THERE IS N O APPEALABLE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT FURTHER WENT TO HOLD THA T : `THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DRP IS NOT A APPEAL PROCEEDING BUT A CORRECTING MECHANISM IN THE NATURE OF A SECOND LOOK AT THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HIGH FUNCTIONARIES OF THE R EVENUE KEEPING IN MIND THE INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A CONTIN UATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL SUCH TIME A FINAL ORDER OF ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 17 ASSESSMENT WHICH IS APPEALABLE IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE APPELLATE RECOURSE IN AN E ARLIER PARA. ONE NEEDS TO APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REMEDY THROUGH THE CIT(A) ON ONE HAND AND THROUGH THE DRP ON THE OTHER . WHETHER IT IS A CASE OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR FILING OF OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP, THE AO HAS TO FIRST NOTIFY THE DRAFT ORDER U/S 144C(1) IN THE SAME MANNER. IN THE SCENARIO O F THE STRAIGHT APPEAL TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE O BJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. ON THE EXPIRY OF THE GIVEN PERIOD, THE AO HAS TO NECESSARILY COMPLETE THE ASSESSM ENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAFT ORDER U/S 144C(3) OF THE ACT, W HICH ORDER IS THEN APPEALED AGAINST BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE DRP ALSO D OES NOT PASS AN APPELLATE ORDER. IT ALSO ONLY ISSUES DIRECTION TO THE AO U/S 144C(5), WHEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED. IRR ESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS A CASE OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) OR TAKING A WAY OUT WITH THE DRP, IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS, THE AO HAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT SEPARATELY AFTER FIRST NOTIFYING TH E DRAFT ORDER AT THE INITIAL STAGE U/S 144C(1) OF THE ACT. WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF DRP ROUTE, THE AO COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144C (13) ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 18 OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE CIT(A) ROUTE, THE AO COMPLE TES THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144C(3) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING THE SAME FORCE AS THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL, ERGO, DOES NOT FIT INTO THE SCHEME AS THE COMPLETION OF ASS ESSMENT CAN TAKE PLACE ONLY AFTER THE DRP HAS DISPOSED OF THE OBJE CTIONS. 21. THERE IS A LOGIC BEHIND PROVIDING A SAFEGUARD OF SATISFYING THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF PARA 3.3(B) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, NAM ELY, FIRST THE MAKING OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AND SECOND EITH ER ITS APPROVAL OR PENDENCY OF APPEAL AGAINST THAT. SOMETIMES, A T PO MAY BE SWAYED BY AN OVER-AMBITIOUS ENDEAVOUR RESULTING IN TO PROPOSING A HIGH-PITCHED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT IN HIS O RDER U/S. 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH, AT THE STAGE OF NOTIFYING TH E DRAFT ORDER, BECOMES BINDING ON THE AO IN TERMS OF SECTION 92CA (4). TILL SUCH TIME, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE TAK ES UP THE MATTER BEFORE THE DRP THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTME NT IS VETTED AND SCRUTINISED BY THE DRP FOR ENSURING THAT IT HAS BEE N PROPERLY PROPOSED LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE FINAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. BOTH THE SITUATIONS IN THE SECOND CONDITION O F ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 19 PARA 3.3(B) - OF EITHER UPHOLDING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJU STMENT BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OR THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL AGAINST THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT - CONTEMPLATE A PRIOR PASSING OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. 22. UNLESS THE AFORE-REFERRED TWIN CONDITIONS ARE CONJU CTIVELY SATISFIED, THE MANDATE OF CLAUSE (B) OF PARA 3.3 IS NOT TRIG GERED. 23. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE CAN ALSO BE COVERED UNDER PARA 3.3(C) OF 2016 INSTRUCTION. THE LATER PARA PROVIDES THAT REFERENCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE TPO WHERE A SEARCH AND SE IZURE OR SURVEY OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AND FINDINGS REG ARDING TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE INVESTIG ATION WING OR THE AO. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT A SEARCH YEAR BUT THE EARLIER YEARS WE RE COVERED UNDER SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS. 24. WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COUNTENANCE SUCH A SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, PARA 3.3(C) OF THE 2016 I NSTRUCTION REFERS TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR SURVEY OPERATIONS HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A REFER ENCE CAN BE ONLY TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR SURVEY OPERATIONS RELATING TO THE ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 20 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT ANY EARLIER OR LATER YEARS . SECOND, THE AO DID NOT INVOKE PARA 3.3(C) OF 2016 INSTRUCTION EITHER AT THE TIME OF SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE PR. CIT OR MAKING A RE FERENCE TO THE TPO. THE ENTIRE CASE IS FOUNDED ON PARA 3.3(B) OF 2 016 INSTRUCTION. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS CONTENTION. 25. ANOTHER ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY THE LD. DR WAS TO THE E FFECT THAT SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE AO TO SUO MOTU DETERMINE THE ALP OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION / SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION. HE STATED THAT 2016 INSTRUCTION CANNO T OVERRIDE THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT. ADVANCING HIS ARGUMENT FURTHER, HE STATED THAT, IF THE AO CAN HIMSELF DETERMINE THE ALP U/S. 92C(3), HE CAN ALSO GET IT DO NE FROM THE TPO U/S. 92CA OF THE ACT. AS THE AO, IN THE INSTAN T CASE, GOT THE ALP DETERMINED FROM THE TPO IN TERMS OF SECTION 92C, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT IT WAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXERCISE DONE BY THE AO HIMSELF U/S. 92C(3) OF THE ACT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE TPO, WHICH CAN BE DONE DE HORS THE 2016 INSTRUCTION. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 21 26. AGAIN, WE ARE AT LOSS TO FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. PARA 3.7 OF THE INSTR UCTION CLEARLY STATES THAT: FOR ADMINISTERING THE TRANSFER PRICING REGI ME IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS THE POWER U/S. 92C TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OR SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION, DETERMINATION OF ALP SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT AT ALL BY THE AO IN A CASE WHERE REFERENCE IS NOT MADE TO THE TPO . ON GOING THROUGH PARA 3.7 OF 2016 INSTRUCTION, IT IS MANIFESTED THAT THE AO, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, CAN HIMSELF DETERMINE THE ALP OF AN INTERNATIONAL/SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION U/S. 92C OF THE ACT. HE IS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO GET THE ALP DETERMINED FROM THE TPO, AND THAT TOO, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE RELEVAN T PARAS OF THE INSTRUCTION. AS THE AO IS DEBARRED FROM EXE RCISING ANY POWER U/S. 92C(3) OF THE ACT AT HIS OWN BY VIRTUE OF 2016 INSTRUCTION, THE SAME HAVING BINDING EFFECT ON THE DEPARTME NTAL AUTHORITIES, CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT HIMSELF DETERMINE THE ALP, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF HIS AVAILING THE SERVICES OF THE TPO SAVE AND EXCEPT THE CIRCUMSTA NCES GIVEN MAINLY IN PARAS 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE 2016 INSTRUCTION. THE ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 22 ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE INSTRUCTION 2016 CANNOT OVER RIDE SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, THOUGH LOOKS ATTRACTIVE, BUT CANNOT PASS THE SCRUTINY FOR THE RAISON DETRE THAT ALL THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND BY THE CBDT CIRCULARS / INSTRUCTIONS. THEY HAV E NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW THE SAME EVEN IF THE SAME ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY ABOVE NOTED JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT ARE BOUND BY THE INSTRUCTION NO. 03/2003 REQUIRING MANDATORY REFERENCE TO THE TPO IN CASE TH E AGGREGATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS EXCEEDS RS.5.00 CRORE. THOUGH IN THAT CASE, THE AGGREGATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTIONS CROSSED RS.5.00 CRORE, BUT THE AO, INSTEAD OF MAKING A R EFERENCE TO THE TPO, TOOK UPON HIMSELF THE TASK OF DETERMINING THE ALP WHICH WAS OTHERWISE SUPPORTED BY SECTION 92C(3). THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE AO WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO GE T THE ALP DETERMINED FROM THE TPO IN THE FACE OF INSTRUCTION 20 03. WE, THEREFORE, FIND EVEN THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR AS B EREFT OF FORCE. ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 23 27. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF THE `PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT W AS MORE THAN RS.10.00 CRORE IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT THE SAME FELL SHORT OF THE `TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AS IT WAS STILL PEN DING WITH THE DRP AT THE TIME OF THE AO MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TPO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TILL THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO MAKE VARIATION IN THE INCOME RETURNED. TO SUM UP, WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE TWO CONDITIO NS ENSHRINED IN THE INSTRUCTION OF 2016 WERE SATISFIED IN AS MU CH AS NEITHER TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF MORE THAN RS.10 CROR E WAS MADE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR NOR, AS A SEQUITUR THERE WAS A NY QUESTION OF SUCH TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT HAVING BEEN EITHER UPHE LD BY A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OR PENDING IN APPEAL. THAT BEING THE POSITION, W E HOLD THAT THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TPO IN CONTRAVEN TION OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2016. SINCE THE INSTRUCTION IS BINDING ON THE AO, SUCH REFERENCE IS DECLARED AS INVALID AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.10.14 CRORE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. 28. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ON THE LEGAL GROUND ITSELF, TH ERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT . ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 24 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VIC E PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 09 TH MARCH, 2020 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT -5, PUNE 5. , , / DR C, ITAT, PUNE 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.114/PUN/2019 SAVA HEALTHCARE LIMITED 25 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 06-03-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09-03-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *