The Shimoga District Co-operative, Shimoga V. ACIT-Circle-1, Sindagi

ITA 1499/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8571 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 80P; 195; 13; 145; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1499/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE SHIMOGA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., BALRAJ URS ROAD, SHIMOGA. PAN AABTS 2483 A VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. R PREMI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 10/3/2016 PASSED BY LD CIT(A), DAVANGERE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.64.83 LAKHS LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID PENALTY AR E STATED IN BRIEF :- THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BA NK CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT DECLARED ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 13 INTEREST INCOME ON LOANS AND ADVANCES ON ACCRUAL B ASIS, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE AO, ACCORDINGLY, TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE INTERES T ACCRUED ON THE LOANS ADVANCED BY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SA ME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS REGISTERED UNDER KARN ATAKA CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETYS ACT AND IS ALSO FALLING UNDER R EGULATORY CONTROL OF DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, N ABARD AND RBI. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, AS PER PROVISIONS OF KA RNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETYS ACT AND RULES, THE ASSESSEE I S BOUND TO ACCOUNT FOR INTEREST INCOME, ONLY ON ITS REALIZATIO N. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.209.81 LAKHS. THE AO NOTICED THAT T HE BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14/9/2012 PASSE D IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, HAD DIRECTED THAT THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED ON MERCANTILE BASIS AS MANDATED BY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESS ED THE ABOVE SAID INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.209.91 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAID ADDITION BY NOT CHALLENGING THE S AME BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. 3. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED FOLLOWING E XPLANATIONS AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SH OULD BE DROPPED. ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 13 1. WE HAVE FULLY CO-OPERATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FOR THE SMOOTH COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 2. WE HAVE FULLY DISCHARGED THE ENTIRE TAX DUE OF RS.89,38,364/-. AN AMOUNT OF RS.64,83,274/- WAS PAID BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.24,55,090/- WAS PAID ON 29/03/2014. A COPY OF CHALLAN IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH . 3. WE HAVE NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE ADDITION TO INCOME MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT IS RELATED TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK DUE TO THE STATUTORY COMPULSIO N UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 195 9. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO UNDISCLOSED ASSETS AND PROPERTIES NOR UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENTS AND MONEY NOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME WERE OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE ADDITION PERTAINS TO THE ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 45 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH REQUIRES THE COMPUTATION ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 13 OF PROFIT UNDER EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED. 7. WE ARE A DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETI ES ACT, 1959 AND ARE LIABLE TO COMPULSORILY FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 AND KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES. 8. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 22 AND RULE 29 OF KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1960 A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAS TO ACCOUNT ONLY THE INCOMES ACTUALLY REALIZED DURING THE YEAR. THE RULE ALSO ST ATES THAT ALL INTEREST ACCRUED AND DUE BUT NOT ACTUALLY REALIZED HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFITS AND SH OULD BE ADDED TO THE PROFITS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEN RECOVERED. 9. DUE TO THIS RESTRICTION THE BANK HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWING SINCE INCEPTION THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UNDER WHICH ALL EXPENDITURES AND INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS ARE ACCOUNTED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND ONLY THE INTEREST INCOME ON LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON REALIZATION BASIS METHOD. 10. EVERY YEAR, SINCE THE REMOVAL OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 , WE HAVE BEEN OFFERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND INTEREST ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 13 ACCOUNTED ON CASH BASIS TO TAX DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 11. DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ALSO WE HAVE COMPUTED AND VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE INTEREST ACCRUED AND NOT RECEIVED ON ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2011. 12. OUR SOFTWARE IS DESIGNED TO ACCOUNT ONLY THE INTEREST EARNED ON CASH BASIS. HENCE THE COMPUTATIO N OF INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS HAS TO BE DONE MANUALL Y EVERY YEAR THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF BORROWER ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH INTEREST HAS TO BE CALCULATED SEPARATELY. THIS WORK IS DONE AT THE HEAD OFFICE AN D FIGURES WILL BE AVAILABLE VERY LATE. HENCE WE ARE U NABLE TO OFFER THE SAID INCOME TO TAX AT THE TIME OF FILI NG THE RETURNS. HENCE THE SAME IS OFFERED TO TAX VOLUNTARI LY DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 13. THE INTEREST RECEIVABLE ON THE LOANS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2011, FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2010 TO 31/03/2011 WHICH IS RS.6,81,36,749/- AND IN RESPECT OF EARLIER YEARS IS RS.6,20,05,890/- AGGREGATING TO PS. 13,01,42,639/-. IN THE YEAR AY 2010-11 INTEREST OUTSTANDING OF RS.10,91,61,171/- HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDED TO INCOME AND THEREFORE IS EXCLUDED FROM TAXATION FOR THE CUR RENT AY 11-12. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,09,81,469/- IS OFF ERED ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 13 TO TAX AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ASSESSED. THE TAXES DU E HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID. 14. AS IT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND AS WE ARE BOUND BY THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND RULES PROVISIONS, THE QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT OR PROVIDING INACCURATE PARTICULARS DO NOT ARISE. 15. AS THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINS TO INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW , THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS DOES NOT ARISE. 4. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.6 4.83 LAKHS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY O RDER AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE US. 5. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AC COUNTED FOR INTEREST ACCRUED ON LOANS, BUT NOT RECEIVED BY IT A S PER THE MANDATE OF THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND RULE S, WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON REALIZATION BASIS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REASONABLE AND WERE BASED ON FACTS. H ENCE THE SAID EXPLANATIONS WERE NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE OR NOT BONA FIDE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST A CCRUED BUT NOT RECEIVED BY IT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 13 PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NON- DISCLOSURE OF IMPUGNED INCOME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDE RED AS THE CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME, AS THERE WAS A VALID REASON FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. THE LD AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S STEEL CENTER (ITA NO.15/BANG/20 08 DATED 3/6/2014), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATIONS AND IT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE OR NO T FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BE NCH OF ITAT, BANGALORE HAS APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE COOPERA TIVE BANKS ARE CONSTRAINED TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS INTEREST INCOME ON R ECEIPT BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE BHATKAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. , VS. DCIT (ITA NO.429/BANG/2011) DATED 12/10/2012 AND RESTORED TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION RENDER ED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS. CIT (237 ITR 889) IN THIS REGARD, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST DUE ON LOANS WHICH WERE DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY NEED NOT BE RECOGNI ZED AS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY NOT DECLARED INTEREST ACCRUED ON LOANS BUT NOT RECEIVED BY IT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN CONFRONTED BY AO ONLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INTEREST INCOME SO NOT DE CLARED BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ACCEPTED ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 13 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY NOT CHALLENGING THE SAME IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ALL THESE ASPECTS PROVE THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEED INGS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS INCOME AND ALS O LEVIED PENALTY ON THE VERY SAME LIMB. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE RECORD. IT IS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS BO UND BY THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE SOCIETYS ACT AND RULES WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, MANDATE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOU LD BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON REALIZATION BASIS ONLY. THERE I S NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HENCE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT, THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON LOANS ADVANCED BY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOT BEEN R ECEIVED BY IT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK LTD., (SUPRA) THAT THE INTEREST DUE ON LOANS WHICH WERE DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY NEED NOT B E RECOGNIZED AS INCOME. THIS LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUP REME COURT ON THE BASIS OF REAL INCOME PRINCIPLE, I.E., ONLY RE AL INCOME SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE PRINCIPLE OF REAL INCOME THEO RY HAS BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHATKAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., (SUPRA). BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT RECEIVED BY IT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS DECL ARED ONLY DURING ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 13 THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS EXPLA INED THAT, AS PER THE CIRCULARS ISSUED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETYS ACT AND RULES, NABARD AND RBI, IT WAS REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INTEREST INCOME ON REALIZATION BASIS. THUS, WE NOTICED THAT THERE IS SOME VALID REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DECLARING INTE REST ACCRUED BUT NOT RECEIVED BY IT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE WITH R EGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INTEREST INCOME WHENE VER IT HAS REALIZED IT. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF INTEREST ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S 145 OF THE ACT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , WE EXTRACT BELOW THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED FOR TAX THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING A 2011-12 IN THE A Y 2012-13 DURING WHICH THE ACCRUED INTEREST HAD BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIV ED. THE APPELLANT PLACES BEFORE THE HON'BLE CIT (A) THE TABLE SHOWING DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED AND ACCR UED DURING A 2011-12 AND A 2012- 13. AS MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, THE ACCRUED INTEREST NOT RECEIVED OF RS. 2,09,81,4681- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME DURING AY 2011-12 TO GIVE EFFEC T ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 10 OF 13 TO SECTION 145 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. WHEREAS DURING AY 2012-13 THE INTEREST RECEIVED WAS MORE THAN THE INTEREST ACCRUED AND HENCE, THE ADJUSTMENT U/S 145 LEADS TO DEDUCTION FROM THE RETURNED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,63,76,2851- . THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED THIS DEDUCTION DURING AY 2012-13 AND TH E SAME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DEDUCTED DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR AY 2012-13. THIS HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE TAX PAYMENT ON AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,63,76,285/- 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE TABLE, WE NOTICE THAT TH E INTEREST ADJUSTMENTS WARRANTED AN ADDITION OF RS.209.81 LAKH S DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, WHILE IN THE SUCCEEDI NG ASST. YEAR I.E. ASST. YEAR 2012-13, IT WARRANTS REDUCTION OF THE TO TAL INCOME BY RS.363.76 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IN ASST. YEAR 2012-1 3. THESE FACTS WOULD SHOW TO THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS NOT ALTOG ETHER CONCEALED, BUT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS ON RECEI PT BASIS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE SYSTEM IS FOLL OWED IN CONSONANCE WITH CERTAIN PRINCIPLES DIRECTED TO BE F OLLOWED BY ITS CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES. IN EFFECT, IT RESULTS IN S HIFTING OF INCOME FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER YEAR ONLY. 9. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATIO NS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FALSE. WE ALSO N OTICE THAT THE AO HAS ALSO NOT FOUND IT TO BE FALSE OR FOUNT IT TO BE NOT BONAFIDE. IN ANY CASE, THE SYSTEM SO FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE RE SULTS IN SHIFTING ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 11 OF 13 OF INCOME FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER YEAR AND THE SAI D PRACTICE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IS SUPPORTED BY THE DIRE CTIONS GIVEN BY THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION OF RS.209.81 LAKHS WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PA SSED BY LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A LEGAL ISSUE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF SANCTION GIVEN BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WE DECLI NE TO ADJUDICATE THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL ISSUE, AS THE SAME WOULD BE AC ADEMIC IN NATURE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 17 TH JANUARY, 2019. /VMS/ ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 12 OF 13 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT (S) / CROSS OBJECTOR(S) 2. RESPONDENT(S) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.1499 /BANG/2016 PAGE 13 OF 13 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. . 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED