Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS), Circle - 2(1), Bangalore V. M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1687/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3341 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: H PADAMCHAN D KHINCHA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Competent authority; Time period of passing order; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 201(1); 201; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1687/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU. VS. M/S INFOSYS LTD., 44 & 97A, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010. PAN AAACI 4798 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO NO.58/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S INFOSYS LTD., 44 & 97A, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010. PAN AAACI 4798 L VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISRA, JCIT (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, C.A DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 10/4/2019 ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 12 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-13, BENGALURU AND IT RELATE S TO THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD C IT(A) IN QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) O F THE ACT. THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 9 DAYS. THE R EVENUE HAS MOVED A PETITION BEFORE THE BENCH SEEKING CONDONATION OF DE LAY. WE HEARD PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. HAVING REGARD TO THE SU BMISSIONS MADE IN THE PETITION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 3. IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES AND IS ALSO CHALLENGING THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE DEFAULT AMOUNT. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG BUSINESS CONSULTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OUTSOURCING S ERVICES. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE TDS OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASST. ORDER PASSED FOR ASST. YEAR 2 010-11. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS MADE FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FORM CERTAIN EXPENDITURE . FROM THE INFORMATION SO RECEIVED, THE TDS OFFICER CAME TO KN OW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM CERTAIN EXP ENDITURE. HENCE THE TDS OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT ON 5/7/2016 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY IT SHOU LD NOT BE HELD TO BE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). SUBSEQUENTLY THE TDS OFFICER RAISED A DEMAND OF RS.28.73 LAKHS U/S 201(1) AND INTEREST OF RS.26.14 LAKHS U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 12 CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ORDER SO PASSED BY TDS OFFI CER. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY TDS OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, AS THE PROCEED INGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FORM THE END O F THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORAT ION (305 ITR 137)(DELHI) AND THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARAT HOTELS LTD (384 ITR 77)(KAR). AND HAS CONTENDED BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THE PROCEED INGS U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31/3/2014. HOWEVER THE TDS OFFICER HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS O NLY ON 5/7/2016 AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6. THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 HAD INSERTED SUB -SECTION (3) AND (4) IN SEC.201 OF THE ACT AND AS PER SUB-SECTION (3 ), A TIME PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WAS PRESCRIBED FOR PASSING ORDER U/S 201( 1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE AMEND MENT, BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY LD CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FROM AY 2011-12 ONWARDS AN D THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AY 2010-11. ACCORDINGLY, T HE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE TIME LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS PRESCRIBED B Y HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CO RPORATION ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 12 (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE I MPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW TH E OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A):- ADMITTEDLY DURING THE HEARING ON 22/04/2010, THE A R SUBMITTED AN ALTERNATIVE 1EGAL SUBMISSION TO GROUND NO. 2 ON TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER: 2.10 EVEN ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 201(3) VIDE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2009 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE HELD 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH ORDER IS PASSED TO BE A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT, SOM E OF THEM ARE AS UNDER: 2.11 THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V JVHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPN (2008) 305 [TR 237 (DELHI) NOTED AND HELD THAT- 'EVEN THOUGH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WOULD BE A REASONABLE PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 153 OF T HE ACT FOR COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD TH AT THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS, IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US, TAKEN THE VIEW THAT FOUR YEARS WOULD BE A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIM E FOR ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 12 INITIATING ACTION, IN A CASE WHERE NO LIMITATION IS PRESCRIBED. THE RATIONALE FOR THIS SEEMS TO BE QUITE CLEAR - IF THERE IS A TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS MUST BE SAME, IF NOT LESS NEVERTHELESS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A GREATER PERIOD FOR COMMENCEMENT OR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB THE TIME LIMIT OF FO UR YEARS PRESCRIBED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN BHATI NDA DISTRICT CO-OP MIL P. UNION LTD. ACTION MUST BE INI TIATED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT , WHERE NO LIMITATION IS PRESCRIBED AS IN SECTION 201 OF THE ACT WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS,' 2.12 THE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SATLUJ JUL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED (2010) 345 ITR 55 2 (HP) RELIED ON THE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPN CASE OBSERVED AS UNDER.' 'WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGMENT O F THE DELHI HIGH COURT SINCE IT FOLLOWS THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT EVEN IF NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS PRESCRIBED, THE STATUTORY POWER MU ST BE EXERCISED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD. THIS REASONAB LE PERIOD TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS PROVIS IONS OF ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 12 THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE FOUR YEARS I N A NUMBER OF CASES. WE SEE NO REASON TO EXTEND THIS PE RIOD ANY FURTHER.' 2.13 THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAD AN OCCASION TO ADDRESS AN IDENTICAL ISSUE ON THE TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201. THE HONOURABLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V BHARAT HOT ELS LTD (2016) 384 ITR 77 (KAR) AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN CIT V NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPN HELD AS UNDER: .WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.201 (1) AND (1A) OF THE ACT ON 28.1.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, WOULD BE BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WO ULD BE FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QU ESTION.' 2.14 IN THE PRESENT CASE, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201 AND 201(1A) FOR AY '2010-11 WERE COMPLETED VIDE ORD ER DATED 30.11.2016. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. APPLYING THE DICTUM OF JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SAID ORDER IS B AD IN LAW AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. EVEN IF ONE WERE TO G O BY THE FIRST NOTICE DATED 23.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE ID. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 201(1)(1A), THE SAID NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 12 AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. HENCE, T HE SAID NOTICE WAS ALSO INVALID AND TIME BARRED AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE PROCEEDINGS THERETO INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND (1A) DATED 30.11.2016 IS ALSO TIME BARRED, INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.' 12. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED AND PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPELLANT, THE ISSUES WHICH ARISE ARE ANSWERED AS UNDER: 13. GROUND NO. 1, IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFOR E NOT TAKEN UP FOR SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 14. GROUND NOS. 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE IMPUGNED YEAR UNDER EXAMINATION IS ASSESSMENT-YEAR 2010-11. FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2009 INSERTED SUBSE CTIONS (3) AND (4) WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2010. IT PROVIDED THAT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(L) FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TH E WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT, I F THE DEDUCTEE IS A RESIDENT PAYER, SHALL BE PASSED WITHI N TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE SAID AMENDM ENT ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 12 IS APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY , IT IS ARGUED THAT THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE FOR PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201 EXPIRES ON 31/03/2013 (BEING TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS FILED - WH ICH IS FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE SAI D ARGUMENT IS NOT ACCEPTED AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE (NO 2) ACT, 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/201 0 IS APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS IS CLARIFIED IN PARA 50.4 OF CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2010 DATED 3.6.2010 [EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009] WHICH READS AS UNDER: '50. PROVIDING TIME LIMITS FOR PASSING OF ORDERS U/ S 201(1) HOLDING CI PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT 50.1... 50.2... 50.4 APPLICABILITY - THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2010 AND WIL L ACCORDINGLY APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11-12 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS.' 15. THIS IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN CIT V BHARAT HOTELS LTD (2016) 384 ITR 77 (KAR). RE LEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE DECISION ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 12 '... WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AMENDM ENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010, IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED TO BE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.' 15.1 HOWEVER, THE SAME DECISION HAS HELD THAT PRIOR TO SUCH AMENDMENT, AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201 SHOULD B E PASSED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR IN QUESTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FOUR Y EARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. EVEN THE FIRST NOTICE DATED 23/03/2016 ISSUED BY THE AO WAS BEYOND THE SAID LIMITATION PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. 16. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APP ELLANT THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COUR T OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES V. UNION O F INDIA & 1 (S.C.A NO 1623 OF 2015, S CA NO 2115 OF 2015 AN D S CA NO.4771 OF 2015) (SUPRA) & THE JURISDICTIONAL HO N'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V BHARAT HOTELS LTD (20 16) 384 ITR 77 (KAR) (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE APPELLANT AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF ORACLE INDIA (P.) LTD V. THE DCIT [2015 ] 63 TAXMANN.COM 24 & HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD V. CIT (TDS) (WRIT TAX NO.150 OF 2016]. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE APPEAL ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE ALLO WED. ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 10 OF 12 8. BEFORE US, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE INC OME TAX ACT HAS NOT PRESCRIBED ANY TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING ORDER U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF UTTAM NAMDEO MAHALE VS. VITHAL DEO & ORS (ORDER DATED 07 TH MAY 1997), THAT WHEN NO LIMITATION HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, THE ORDER FOR EVICTI ON CAN BE EXECUTED AT ANY TIME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ABOVE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF S OME OTHER ACT, THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION. ACCORDINGLY H E SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BAR RED BY LIMITATION. 9. THE LD A.R, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISI ON RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UTTAM NAMDE O MAHALE (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF BHARAT HOTELS LTD (SU PRA) IN PARAGRAPH 18 OF ITS ORDER AND HAS HELD THAT THE FAC TS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FA CTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. THEREAFTER, IN PARAGRAPH 24, THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WOULD BE FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY L D CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 10. HAVING HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS BARRED BY LIMITATION DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFER ENCE, AS THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON BLE ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 11 OF 12 JURISDICTIONAL KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 11. WITH REGARD TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, - THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION, IF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS IT WILL NOT SURVIVE, SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) IS HELD TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 6 TH MARCH, 2020. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.1687 /BANG/2019 CO 58/BANG/2019 PAGE 12 OF 12 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