Carrefour WC & C India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

ITA 1576/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3383 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KR JIWANI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 5(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) CARREFOUR W & C INDIA PVT. LTD. E-22, 2 ND FLOOR, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI PIN- 110016 VS. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2) NEW DELHI PAN : AADCC2042A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K.SAMPATH, ADV. & SH. V.RAJA KUMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. VIJAY KR. JIWANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2018 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 04/01/2018 PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-13, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING A PENALTY O RDER OF RS. 2 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) 47,40,699 ON THE APPELLANT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSME NT YEAR U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SUMMARILY AND WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY FACTS/INCOME WAS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT. HENCE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS BA D IN LAW AND THE PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED OR DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN LE VYING PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE MERE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DI SALLOWANCE BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON ACCO UNT OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUO-MOTO ACCEPTED THE DISALL OWANCE AND DECIDED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL WITH THE ITAT TO AVO ID GENUINE HARDSHIP, MITIGATE COMPLIANCE COST AND FACILITATE LIQUIDATION PROCESS AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAST LOSSES WHICH WOULD EVENTUALLY LAPSE GOING FORWARD. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE HON. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 47,40,699/- O N THE APPELLANT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S 271 ( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT SUMMARILY AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLA NT COMPANY HAS NOT MADE CONCEALMENT OF ANY FACTS/INCOME. 4. THE HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN S TATING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED TRULY AND F ULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE LD . AO. 5. THE HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND 3 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY AND IN GOOD FAITH, MADE FULL AND TRUE D ISCLOSURES OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AND WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 3. CARREFOUR WC&C INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED WAS INCORPOR ATED ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER 2007 TO CARRY ON WHOLESALE TRADING OF ALL KINDS OF CONSUMER GOODS, DURABLES, ARTICLES AND TO CARRY OUT ANY AND ALL SUCH ACTIVITIES AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR RELATED TO O R IN CONNECTION WITH CARRYING ON SUCH TRADING ACTIVITIES. DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME O N 29 TH NOVEMBER 2012 DECLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 55,44,09,599/-. LATER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH MARCH 2013 DECLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 54,14,79,557/-. SUBSE QUENTLY, THE RETURN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY VIDE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). FOR AY 2011-12, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO INTERNATION AL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, THE CASE WAS REFERR ED TO THE ADDITIONAL CIT, TPO 1(1), NEW DELHI (TPO) FOR DETE RMINATION OF 4 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) ALP U/S 92CA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE TPO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 27 TH JANUARY 2015 PASSED U/S 92CA(1) OF THE ACT DIRECTED THE DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2) TO ENHANCE THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY RS. 1,39,47,334/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT VARIOUS D ETAILS, EXPLANATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS WHICH WERE DULY FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME. THE DRAFT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED BY DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI ON 26 TH FEBRUARY 2015 WHEREIN CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE PROPOSED TO BE MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT PRE FERRED ANY OBJECTION/APPEAL AGAINST THESE PROPOSED ADDITIONS WI TH THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ( , DRP')/CIT(APPEALS). THEREAFTER, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21 ST APRIL 2015 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AR MS LENGTH PRICE U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT - RS. 1,39,47,334/-. A S PER THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 54,14,79,557/- F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REDUCED TO RS. 52,75,32,220/-. 4. PURSUANT TO THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE 5 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) NOTICE DATED 21 ST APRIL 2015 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON 05 TH MAY 2015 REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.47,40,699/- VID E ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH 2016. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESS EE COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL U/S 246A(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 06 TH MAY 2016 TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON 04 TH JANUARY 2018. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT A PPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AD ACCUMULATED SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES OF INR 75.52 CRORES AS OF 1 ST APRIL 2010 WHICH REMAINED UNUTILIZED BECAUSE OF NO PROFITS . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE REPRE SENT JUST 1% OF THE EXPENSES WHICH IS HIGHLY IMMATERIAL WITH THE NATU RE OF BUSINESS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN IND IA (APPROVED BY 6 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETI NG HELD ON 7 TH JULY 2014). IN PURSUANCE OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY ALREADY UNDERTOOK SIGNIFICANT STEPS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S SUPPOSED TO VOLUNTARILY LIQUIDATED AFTER FOLLOWING THE PROCED URES GIVEN UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 IN THE DUE COURSE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN INCURRING SIZEAB LE OPERATING LOSSES SINCE INCEPTION, AND HAS CONSEQUENTLY FILED LOSS RETURNS DECLARING TAX LOSSES FROM AY 2008-09 TO AY 2015-16. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OPERATIONAL INCO ME GOING FORWARD I.E. FROM FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2014-15 ONWAR DS AND SHALL BE VOLUNTARILY LIQUIDATED, THE PAST LOSSES WOULD EVENT UALLY LAPSE AND ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SET OFF THESE LOSSES IN ANY FUTURE YEARS. FURTHER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DESIROUS OF SEEKING ACCELERATED CLOSURE OF ITS PENDING TAX ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PAST YEARS(S) TO MITIGATE C OMPLIANCE COST AND FACILITATE LIQUIDATION PROCESS. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE BACKGROUND AND IN ORDER TO GET THE CLOSURE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ON AN ACCELERATED BASIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUO-MOTO AC CEPTED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI. T HE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SO AS TO AVOID CON SEQUENT 7 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) COMPLIANCE COST TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAST LOSSES WHICH WOULD EVENTUALLY LAPSE GOING FORWARD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT PREFER TO F ILE ANY APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL IN REFERENCE TO ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE PENALT Y WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BEING ITA NO. 5504/DEL/2016 ORDER DATED 04.09.2017. THUS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE CONTESTED, IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER :- 3.5 HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELI ED UPON, WE 8 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) FIND THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED ON TWO ADDITIONS. FIRSTLY, ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,19, 120/- (CONSISTING OF DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO ADP INDIA PVT. L TD. AT RS.3,01,239/-, OTHERS TO RS.20,34,022/- AND PROVISI ON MADE AT RS.97,83,859/-) AND SECONDLY, ON THE ADDITION OF RS .66,24,284/- IN VIEW OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF TH E ACT. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE FOREMOST CONTENTION OF THE ID. AR TH AT IS THE VERY BASIS OF INITIATION OF PENALTY AND LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS AS AMBIGUOUS, WE FULLY CONCUR WITH THE SU BMISSION OF THE ID. AR THAT WHILE RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BOTH THE ADDITIONS I.E. RS. 1,21,09,120/- AND RS.66,24,284/- HAS STATED AS I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME / SUBMITTED WRONG PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE INITIATED ON THIS ACCOUNT AND . I AM SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY CONCEALED THE INCO ME / FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, HENCE PENALTY PROCEED INGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT HAVE BEEN INITIA TED SEPARATELY RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 41,19,289/- ON BOTH THE ADDIT IONS WITH THIS FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED / FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH SATISFACTION RECORDED AS HENCE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME / FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF EXCESS LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,87,33,404/- AS PER PROVISIONS OF 9 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE HONHL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ITS ABOVE CITED DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. JYOTI LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. WHITEFORD INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HA S BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT WDIERE NO CLEAR FINDING WAS RE CORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CO NCEALING INCOME AND / OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(L)(C) LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE RATIO OF THESE CITED DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING AN D UPHOLDING THE PENALTY IN QUESTION UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3.6 THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS . BEING PENAL IN NATURE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THERE IS POSITIVE EVIDENCE BEYOND DOUBT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF TOWARDS THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL REASON S FOR NON- FURNISHING OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES AND PAYMENT ARE FURNISHED. THUS, NON-FU RNISHING OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MAY BE A GOOD REAS ON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM, BUT IT CANNOT ALWAYS LE AD TO THE CONCLUSION BEYOND DOUBT THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SUCH CLAIM. IN THE CASE OF CIT 10 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) VS. UDAIPUR HOTELS LTD. (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF DELHI HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT IN A CASE WHERE EXPEN DITURE WAS DISALLOWED DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTING EV IDENCE, IT COULD NOT BE HELD AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE , PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) COULD NOT BE LEVIED. THE H ONBLE TELANGANA & AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS . G. K. PROPERTIES P. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPT ABLE IPSO FACTO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE A WRONG CLAIM BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS ATTRACTING PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. ON PAGE NO. 1 IN PARA NO. 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY FURNISHING AFFIDAVIT, TDS CERTI FICATES IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENT OF RS.20,34,023/-, TAX AUDIT REP ORT FOR THE YEAR AS WELL AS FORM NO. 3CBE FOR THE YEAR THE ASSE SSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT NIL TDS DEMAND WAS THERE. IT IS NO T THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THESE INFORMATIONS WERE FALSE. WE ARE THUS OF THE VIEW THAT IN ABSENCE OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TOW ARDS THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C ) AT R S.41,19,289/-. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4.IN RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) IN PRESENT YEAR AS WELL IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE RE VENUE THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE IN COME OR THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE ATTRACTE D IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. THUS, THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11. HENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTATN MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATE: 23 .08.2018 BINITA COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT; 2) THE RESPONDENT; 3) THE CIT; 4) THE CIT(A)-, NEW DELHI; 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI; TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITAT, NEW DELHI 12 ITA NO.1576/DEL/2018 (CARREFOUR WC & C INDIA P. LTD.,) DATE OF DICTATION 21.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 21.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 23.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 23.08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 23 .08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 23 .08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .08.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER