M/s. Raman Educational Society, Ghaziabad V. JCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3296/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0055 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPIL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGGARWAL ADVS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

1 3296/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 3296/DEL/2 015 (A.Y 2010-11) RAMAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY E-8, KAVI NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA GHAZIABAD AAAAR1010N (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-2 GHAZIABAD (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADVS RESPONDENT BY SH. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR. DR. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 02/03/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A) , MUZAFFARNAGAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- '1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REJ ECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11& 12. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DELETING THE O BSERVATION OF LD. AO ON THE DATE OF HEARING 08.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.12.2018 2 3296/DEL/2015 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 13(3). 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. L,10,58,279/-AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT AS SESSING THE LOSS SHOWN IN INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MOD IFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED WITH REGISTRA R OF SOCIETIES, UTTAR PRADESH AND RENEWAL WAS GRANTED ON 25.09.2008 FOR T HE PERIOD FROM 25.07.2008 TO FIVE YEARS. THE SOCIETY WAS GRANTED R EGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE THEN CIT, M EERUT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2001. IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 06.07.2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STAT UTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 15.09.2011 WAS ISSUED AND PROPERLY SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. FURTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WI TH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 17.04.2012 WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO THESE NOTICES CA/AR ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED NEC ESSARY DETAILS/EXPLANATION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CASH BO OK, LEDGER BILLS AND CASH FEE RECEIPTS (VOUCHER) WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT SRI M. P. GARG, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY HAS TAKEN AND REPAID UNSECU RED LOANS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THE REFORE, VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 15.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAY NOT BE REJECTED BY APPLYING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 22.03.2013. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS 3 3296/DEL/2015 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE RELIED AND ACCORDING LY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A RE NOT RELIABLE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING BENEFIT TO THE RELATIVES C ANNOT BE RULED OUT, BENEFIT U/S 11 & 12 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSE AND SAME I S DENIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE STATUS OF AOP ON IN COME OF RS. 1,10,58,279/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 1, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECT ING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY AND DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEES SOCIETY AS NOT RELIABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTRY OF RECEIPT MA DE IN THE LEDGER DID NOT TALLY DATE WISE WITH THE DATES AS ENTERED ON THE RECEIPTS AND ALSO THAT POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING ALLEGED BENEFITS TO RELATIVES CANNOT BE R ULED OUT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DULY EXPLA INED ABOUT WHY SUCH MISMATCH HAS OCCURRED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SOME S TUDENTS SEEKING HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION HAS DEPOSITED THEIR HOSTEL FEES IN AD VANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DID NOT MISS THE HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION AS THE H OSTEL ROOMS WERE LIMITED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO HEAVY RUSH OF ADMISSIO N IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ACADEMIC SESSION, THE STUDENTS HAD DEPOSITED THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNT OF ACADEMIC FEES WITH THE CASHIER, WHICH COULD NOT BE PUT INTO A PROPER ACCOUNTS CHANNEL DUE TO THE LACK OF IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THE PART OF ACCOUNTS CLERK WHO WAS UNDER HEAVY PRESSURE OF WORK AND ALSO THE ADEQU ATE STAFF WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE COLLEGE AT THAT TIME. IT WAS EXPLA INED THAT IN SOME CASES THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS OF ACADEMIC FEES NOTED AGAINST E ACH STUDENT WAS LEFT BY THE 4 3296/DEL/2015 STUDENT/PARENTS WITH THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TO ENS URE THE ADMISSION IN THE COLLEGE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HOSTEL F EES RECEIVED HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO CASH BOOK ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT ONLY BUT RECEIPTS FOR THE SAME HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON LATER DATES AFTER FINALIZATION OF AVAILABILITY OF HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AC ADEMIC FEES DEPOSITED BY STUDENTS IN BEGINNING OF THE SESSION COULD NOT BE E NTERED IN CASH BOOK ON THE SAME DATE BECAUSE OF PRESSURE OF WORK, INADEQUATE S TAFF AND CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE REASONS. BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ENTERED IN CASH BOOK ON A LATER DATE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SOME CAS E ACADEMIC FEES WERE LEFT BY STUDENTS/PARENTS/GUARDIAN ETC. WITH THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THEIR ADMISSION IN THE COLLEGE BUT RECEIPTS FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED ON LATER DATES DUE TO REASONS MENTIONED IN 2 POINT. AS PER REPLIES DATED 07.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 05.03.2013 FILED BEFORE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED YEAR WISE AND STUDENT WISE DETAI L OF ACADEMY FEES AND HOSTEL FEES RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO YEAR WISE DETAIL OF ACADEMIC SECURITY, HOSTEL SECURITY, ADVANCE FEE RECEIVED FRO M STUDENTS AND THE LIABILITY FOR MESS FEE WHICH IS TO BE INCURRED ON STUDENTS IN NEXT FINANCIAL OF THE CURRENT SESSION. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT PROPER COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT AND DATE WISE DETAILS OF FEES RECEIV ED BY THE STUDENTS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED THEN ALSO HOW COULD THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 COULD BE DENIED WHICH COULD BE DENIED IF CONDITIONS OF THOSE SECTIO NS ARE VIOLATED. THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT EITHER BY ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AS PER REPLIES DATED 07.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 5 3296/DEL/2015 05.03.2013 FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED YEAR WISE AND STUDENT WISE DETAIL OF ACADEMY FEES AND HOSTEL FEES RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO YEAR WISE DETAIL OF ACADEMIC SECURITY, HOS TEL SECURITY, ADVANCE FEE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS AND THE LIABILITY FOR MESS F EE WHICH IS TO BE INCURRED ON STUDENTS IN NEXT FINANCIAL OF THE CURRENT SESSION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT AND DATE WISE DETAILS OF FEES RECEIVED BY THE STUDENTS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS NOT AT ALL VERIFI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE CIT(A). THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT EV EN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED THEN AL SO HOW COULD THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 COULD BE DENIED WHICH COULD BE DENI ED IF CONDITIONS OF THOSE SECTIONS ARE VIOLATED. THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT EITHER BY ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE D ENYING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 DID NOT MENTION ANY CONDITIONS PR ESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT WERE VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT RIGHT IN REJECTING TH E BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE STATUTE WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT VIOLATE ANY CONDITIONS PR ESCRIBED U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 8. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SOCIETYS CLAIM THAT THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BENEFIT TO ANY TRUSTEE OR ANY OF ITS RELATIVES AS P RESCRIBED U/S 13 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITOR, NAMELY SH. MP GARG, SMT. PUSHPA GARG, SH. SWEEKAR GARG AND SH. AB HAS GARG HAD ADVANCED FINANCIAL AID TO THE TRUST AND NOWHERE IN THE LAW, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE RELATIVES OF THE TRUSTEES ARE BARRED FROM EXTEN DING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOWARDS TRUST. THERE IS NO REASON BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO LOOK THE WHOLE TRANSACTION UPSIDE DOWN AS ALL THE PARTIES HAVE DUL Y CONFIRMED THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THEM, THEIR IDENTITY AND AS WELL AS THE IR CREDITWORTHINESS AND 6 3296/DEL/2015 GENUINENESS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT POSSIBILITY OF SOME BENEFIT HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES IS SURMISE RESORTED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RATHER, IT IS RELATIVES WHO HAVE EXTENDED BENEFIT TO THE SO CIETY WHICH WAS WRONGLY UNDERSTOOD BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN OPPOSITE MANNER. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE EVIDENCES SUCH AS REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESS ING OFFICER DATED 22.03.2013 AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE ISSUED ON 15.03.2 013 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE AND ALSO SUBMITTING THAT DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN A/C NO. 2647201000275 WITH CANARA BANK IN THE NAME OF SOCIETY AND THEREFORE AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER BALANCE SHOW N IN CONFIRMATION AND AS PER BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT MATCHING. THE LD. AR REL IED UPON THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR AY 2010-11 OF THE PARTIES, T HE CONFIRMATION FROM SAID PARTIES, THE BANK STATEMENTS OF SAID PARTIES SHOWIN G THE TRANSACTIONS MADE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINES S AND GENUINENESS OF ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN PROVED THEREFORE, OBSERVATION M ADE TO THIS EFFECT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE QUASHED. 9. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BENEFIT TO ANY TRUSTEE OR ANY OF ITS RELATIVES AS P RESCRIBED U/S 13 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE CREDITORS ADVANCED FINANCIAL AID TO THE TRUST AND THERE IS NO BAR IN THE LAW THAT THE RELATIVES OF THE TRUSTEES CANNOT EXTEND FINANCIAL A SSISTANCE TOWARDS TRUST. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ALL THE PARTIES HAVE DULY CONFIR MED THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THEM, THEIR IDENTITY AS WELL AS THEIR CREDITWORT HINESS AND GENUINENESS WERE ALSO PROVED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE TRA NSACTIONS RECORDED IN A/C NO. 2647201000275 WITH CANARA BANK IN THE NAME OF S OCIETY WHICH IS A CLEAR LAPSE ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE 7 3296/DEL/2015 ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE ON RECORD THE ACTUAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE THEM. HENCE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 11. THE LD. AR, AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 3 SUBMITTE D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,58,279/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2011-12 DATED 15.02.2017. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT TH AT IN PAST YEARS THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE DETAI LS/EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DEPREC IATION IS ALLOWABLE AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN CASE OF TINY TOTS EDUCA TION SOCIETY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DENIED YE T INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED HAVING REGARD TO COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 168 ITD 183 (JP) 388 ITR 605 (RAJ) 152 ITD 637 (COCHIN) 43 CCH 310 (MUM) 402 ITR 441 (SC) 12. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE WDV OF VARI OUS ASSETS IS ZERO BEING VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS ALREADY TAKEN AS APPLICATIO N OF INCOME. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN PAST YEARS THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDEN T FROM THE DETAILS/EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT 8 3296/DEL/2015 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HO NBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN AND GUJRATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION 402 ITR 441 HAS DECIDED IDENTICAL ISSUE WHETHER DEPRECIATION COULD BE DENIE D TO ASSESSEE, AS EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF ASSETS HAS TO BE TREA TED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE DETAILS/EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN CASE OF RAJASTHAN AND GUJR ATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA). NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO. 3 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 14. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEM BER, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 12/12/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 3296/DEL/2015 DATE OF DICTATION 08 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 09 .10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS .1 2 .2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT .1 2 .2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .1 2 .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