The Graduates Co-operative Society Limited , Shivamogga V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Shivamogga

ITA 2787/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8921 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARUPPUSWAMY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Condonation of delay
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.2787 TO 2792/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 PAN NO.AACAT2025P VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT.SOUMYA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.KARUPPUSWAMY, ADDL.CIT, DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .12.2018 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.2787/BANG/2018 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 19.7.2017 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DAVANGERE, RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NOS. 2788 TO 2792 ARE ALSO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST 5 ORDERS ALL DATED 10.4.2015 OF CIT(A)-DAVANGERE, REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2014-15. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 383 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL B EING ITA NO.2787/BANG/2018 AND DELAY OF 402 DAYS IN FILING T HE OTHER 5 APPEALS. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS DU E TO THE FOLLOWING ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 2 CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE IS A CREDIT CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMB ERS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO DISALLOWED THE ASSESS EES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (ACT) AND TREATED INTEREST EARNED ON DEPOSITS WITH VARIOUS BANKS AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREBY DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DE DUCTION ON INTEREST INCOME U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND ALSO DISALLOWED EXPENSES WHICH RESULTED IN ENHACED PROFITS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) ALLOWED DEDUCT ION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT BUT DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION ON INTEREST INC OME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE ENHANCED PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FO R WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED. 3. THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DUE TO ADVISE OF THE E RSTWHILE COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A) THAT NO FURTHER APPEAL NEED BE FILED. IT APPEARS THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE APPOINTED HAREESH & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AS STATUTORY A UDITORS OF THE SOCIETY FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-18 AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE IR AUDIT THEY CAME ACROSS THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) WHICH ARE IMPUGNED IN THESE AP PEALS AND ADVISED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEFS CLAIMED BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED AND THAT FURTHER APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED BEF ORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT). THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS WITH A REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON FACTS AS STATED ABOVE. 4. THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVI T AFFIRMING THE FACTS AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH-3 ABOVE. PARTNER OF THE STATUT ORY AUDITORS APPOINTED FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-18, HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT A FFIRMING THE FACTS AS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH-3 ABOVE. ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 3 5. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRA YED THAT THE NON- FILING OF THE APPEAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND THE RESULTANT DELAY AROSE OUT OF BONAFIDE REASONS. THE DELAY WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF A NY GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF ITS RIGHTS OR GROSS INACTIO N ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AS STATED ABOVE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT NON-ADMISSION OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WO ULD RESULT IN AN OTHERWISE MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT ON A MERE TECHNICALITY. NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE BY ALLOWIN G THE APPEAL TO BE ADMITTED AND PROCEEDED WITH ON MERITS MORE SO WHEN THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IF THIS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS N OT ALLOWED, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE PUT TO GREAT HARDSHIP AND IRREPARABLE INJU RY AND ON THE OTHER HAND NO HARDSHIP OR INJURY WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE RESPON DENT IF THIS APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IS ALLOWED. RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND A CQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS 118 ITR 507. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA KRISHNA RAI VS. ALLAHABAD BANK & OTHE RS [2000] 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 733 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMI TED (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE UNREPORTED DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS. ISRO SATELLITE CENTER, IN ITA NO. 532 OF 2008 AND OTHER BATCH OF APPEAL ORDER DATED 28/10/2011 HAS CONDONED THE DELAY OF 5 YEARS IN FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT[A]. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAKUNTALA HEGDE, LEGA L HEIR OF MR. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO. 2785/BANG/20 04 ORDER DATED ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 4 25/04/2006 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBU NAL HAS CONDONED THE DELAY OF 1,331 DAYS I.E., 3 YEARS, 8 MONTHS AND 22 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS INORD INATE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED AND THAT SUBSEQUENT PROFESSIONAL ADVISE CANNOT BE A VALID GROUND FOR NOT FILING APPEAL IN TIME. 8. I HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET, I OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, I N THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI (SUPRA) , HAS EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLES THAT NEED TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREV AIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING THE APPEAL LATE. THE COURT HAS A LSO EXPLAINED THAT EVERY DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. IN THE CASE OF SHAKUNTALA HEGDE, L/R OF R.K. HEGDE V. ACIT, ITA NO.2785/BANG/2004 FOR THE A.Y. 1993-94 , THE TRIBUNAL CONDONED THE DELAY OF ABOUT 1331 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL W HEREIN THE PLEA OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL DUE TO ADVICE GIVEN BY A NEW COUNSEL WAS ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE, ITA NO. 532/2008 DATED 28.10.2011 HAS CONDONED THE DELAY OF FIVE YEARS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THEM WHICH WAS EXPLAI NED DUE TO DELAY IN GETTING LEGAL ADVICE FROM ITS LEGAL ADVISORS AND GETTING AP PROVAL FROM DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND PMO. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE HON BLE COURT FOUND THAT THE VERY LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-EXISTENT AND THEREFORE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. KEEPING IN MIND THE AFORES AID PRINCIPLES, I SHALL CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT C ASE. ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 5 9. ADMITTEDLY, THE DELAY WAS DUE TO ADVICE GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AN D CIT(A) NOT TO FILE APPEAL AND ON ADVICE FROM A PROFESSIONAL FROM A NEW STATUTORY AUDITOR APPOINTED FOR FY 2017-18, TO FILE APPEALS, THE APPE ALS WERE FILED. I FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN SUCH MATTERS THE ADVICE OF THE PROFESSIONAL WOULD BE THE POINT O F TIME AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD BEGIN TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF EXHAU STING ALL LEGAL REMEDIES. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT BY CONDONATION OF DELAY TH ERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AS LEGITIMATE TAXES PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW ALONE WOULD BE COLLECTED. I THEREFORE ACCEPT THE REASON GIVEN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS ACC ORDINGLY CONDONED. 10. AS FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAI SED IN APPEALS RELATING TO AY 2009-10 TO 2012-13 ARE CONCERNED, THE COMMON ISS UE IS WITH REGARD TO TREATING INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON DEPOSITS WITH B ANKS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION CALMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON THAT THE INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WAS INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON DEPOSITS AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., 83 TAXMANN.COM 140 INTEREST INCOME HAD TO BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT INCOME DER IVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 11. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARN ED AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO 230 TAXMAN 309 (KARN) WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T HE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 6 SALES SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF TEMPORARY PARKING OF OWN SURPLUS FUNDS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIR ED IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCI T VS. TOTGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. 395 ITR 611 (KARN.). 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT RE LIED BY THE LEARNED DR. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE DECISION CITED BY THE LEARNED DR WAS THAT THE HONB LE COURT WAS CONSIDERING A CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-2008 TO 20 11- 2012. IN CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED WAS AY 1991 -92 TO 1999-2000. THE NATURE OF INTEREST INCOME FOR ALL THE AYS WAS I DENTICAL. THE BONE OF CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2007-08 TO 2011-12 WAS THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2) OF THE ACT IS CLAIMED BY THE R ESPONDENT ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS THE CLAIM IN AY 1991-92 TO 1999-2000. THE REASO N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN AY 2007-08 TO 2011-12 INVESTME NTS AND DEPOSITS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE T OTGAR'S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA), WERE SHIFTED FROM SCHEDU LE BANKS TO CO-OPERATIVE BANK. U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, INCOME BY WAY OF I NTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTME NTS WITH ANY OTHER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE W HOLE OF SUCH INTEREST OR DIVIDEND INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THA T CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS ESSENTIALLY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE DE DUCTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SEC.80P(2) OF THE ACT. THE HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE T OTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT INTEREST EARNED FROM SCHEDULE BANK OR CO- OPERATIVE BANK IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(2)(D)OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 7 INTEREST INCOME. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OUT OF WHICH INVESTMENTS WERE MADE REMAINED THE SAME IN AY 2007- 08 TO 2011-12 AND IN AY 1991-92 TO 1999-2000 DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT. THEREFORE WHETHER THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WERE ASSESSEES OWN FUN DS OR OUT OF LIABILITY WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE DECISION CITED BY THE LEARNED DR. TO THIS EXTENT T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUMUKUR MERCHAN TS SOUHARDA CO- OPERATIVE LTD. (SUPRA) STILL HOLDS GOOD. HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR A FRESH DECIS ION AFTER EXAMING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPR A) AND OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TUMUKU R MERCHNTS SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LTD. (SUPRA). 13. THE AO WILL AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND FILING APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE, IF DESIRED, BY THE ASS ESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 14. THE OTHER COMMON ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDER ATION IN AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON DEDUCTION ON ENHANCED PROFITS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ASSUMING DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES IS JUSTIFIED, THE ADDITION MADE CONSEQUENT TO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WILL GO TO INCREASE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE AL LOWED ON SUCH ENHANCED PROFITS. 15. IN THIS REGARD, THE DL. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF TWO HIGH COURTS VIZ., HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (2010) 194 TAX MAN 192 (BOM) AND ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 8 HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO V. KEWAL CONSTRUCTION, 354 ITR 13 (GUJ) . IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T, IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT GOES TO ENHANCE THE PROFITS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON SUCH INCREASED PRO FIT. THIS POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN NOW CONFIRMED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.37/2016 DATED 02.11.2016 WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOW S:- 3.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED THE SETTLED POSITION THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER SECTIONS 32, 40(A)(IA), 40A(3), 43B, ETC. OF THE AC T AND OTHER SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCES, RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AGAINST WHICH THE CHAPTER VI-A DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED, RESULT IN ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, AND THAT DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS ADMISSIBLE ON THE PROFITS SO ENHANCED BY THE DISALLOWANCE. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED WHICH WILL GO TO ENHANCE THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2012-13 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHILE AP PEAL FOR AY 2013-14 & 2014- 15 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DECEMBER, 2018 . SD/- (N.V VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDNET BANGALORE DATED : 21/12/2018 VMS ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 9 COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NOS.2787 - 2792/B/1 8 10 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. 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. ..