American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 355/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8252 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; TDS
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 195; 144C; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI I-1 B ENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 355/DEL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12] AMERICAN EXPRESS (I) P. LTD., VS THE DY. C.I.T METROPOLITAN SAKET, 7TH FLOOR, CIRCLE-2(2) OFFICE BLOCK, DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN AAACA8163F [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 10.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.08.2020 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV SHRI S. CHAKRABARTY, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI ANUPAM KANT GARG, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 29.12.2015 FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT']. 2 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATE S TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, DISALLOWANCE OF RELOCATION EXPENSES U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND NON GRANTING OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. 3. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE SIDES WERE HEARD. CA SE RECORDS CAREFULLY PERUSED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT- COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN EX PRESS INTERNATIONAL INC. USA AND IS ENGAGED IN DATA MANAG EMENT, INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES FOR EXPORT TO VARIO US AMERICAN EXPRESS AFFILIATES WORLDWIDE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 794.70 CRORES WITH NET PROFIT OF RS. 150.71 CRORES. 6. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C A OF THE ACT, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES WAS REFERRED TO THE TPO FOR D ETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE 11 COMPARAB LE COMPANIES TO 3 DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REL ATING TO THE PROVISIONS OF IT ENABLES SERVICES WAS AT ARMS LENG TH. 7. HOWEVER, THE TPO CHOSE ONLY 3 COMPARABLES OUT OF 11 CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED FIVE MORE COMPARABLES AND FI NALLY CAME TO THE SELECTION OF 8 COMPARABLE COMPANIES AS UNDER: 1. ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD 2. ACROPETAL TECH LTD 3. E4E HEALTHCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT LTD 4. ACENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD 5. JINDAL INTELLICON LTD 6. E-CLERS SERVICES LTD 7. TCS E SERVE LTD 8. INFOSYS BPO LTD AND FINALLY COMPUTED ALP BY MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUST MENT OF RS. 1,03,08,58,566/-. 8. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP BU T THE OBJECTIONS WERE OF NO AVAIL. 4 9. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE DRP. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, PRAYED FOR EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS BPO AND TCS E SERVE LTD CLAIMING THAT THE SAME WERE EXCLUDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE FURTHER PRAYED FOR INCLUSION OF 1. R. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SEGMENTAL); 2. CG VAK SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD.; 3. INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD.; 4. INFOSYS LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE INCLUDED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE TP ADJUSTMENTS HAVE SUBSUMED THE INTEREST ON RECEIVABL ES AS WORKING CAPITAL AND, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADJUSTMENT IS RE QUIRED. 5 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1426/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 17.07.2019 HAS CONSIDERED THE EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS BPO AND TCS E SERVE LTD. THE RELEVANT FIND INGS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRA PHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BECAUSE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, INFOSYS BPO LIMITED, ACCENTIA TECHNO LOGIES LIMITED, TCS E-SERVE LIMITED AND TCS ESERVE INTERNA TIONAL LTD ARE NOT GOOD COMPARABLES AND ARE LIABLE TO BE E XCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES TO BENCHMARK THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION. 14. ON FINDING PARITY IN THE FACTS WITH THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO FOR EXCLUSION O F INFOSYS BPO AND TCS E SERVE LTD FROM THE FINALIST OF COMPARABLES. 6 15. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE INCLUSI ON OF R. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD; CG VAK SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD.; IN FORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND CALIBER POINT, THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAD CONSIDERED THE INCLUSION OF OTHER COMPA RABLES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: 31. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER AND ALSO THE FA CTS INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER. THE REJECTION OF THIS COMP ARABLE IS NOT ON THE GROUND OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF A DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. FACTS BEING SIMIL AR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO DIRECT THE LD. AO TO CONSIDER THE QUARTERLY RESULTS AND WORK OUT T HE PROPORTIONATE PROFIT MARGIN FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE RE MAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. TPO/AO FOR COMPLIANCE OF OUR DIRECTION. 32. IN RESPECT OF CG VAK SOFTWARE, OBSER VATIONS OF THE LD. TPO FOR REJECTING THIS COMPANY IS THAT UNDE R ITES SEGMENT, SALE WAS ONLY JUST RS.82.78 LAKHS AND ON T HAT GROUND THIS COMPANY WAS REJECTED. 32. ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INAPPROPRIATENESS OF TH E TURNOVER FILTER HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. TPO. LD. DRP ON A PERUSAL OF THE FINANCIALS FOUND THAT CG VA K SOFTWARE IS MAINLY INVOLVED INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPME NT AND EARNS MAJOR PORTION OF ITS REVENUE FROM THE SAME AN D THE 7 REVENUE FROM ITES/BPO IS ONLY 15% I.E. RS.83 LAKHS AND, THEREFORE, IT FAILS THE TURNOVER FILTER. 33. ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FI LTER SO LONG AS FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS COMPANY AND SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR CONTENTION OF THE REVE NUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR THE AY 2009-10 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL BY PLACING RELIANCE ON CHRYS CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (I) P. LTD. VS ACIT, IT A NO.6504/DEL/2013 REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT IF THE C OMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE, THE SAME CANNOT BE REJE CTED ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED LD. T PO TO INCLUDE CG VAK SOFTWARE AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. 34. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINANCIALS OF THIS CG VAK SOFTWARE. AT PAGE NO.21 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THI S COMPANY, THE INCOME FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRODU CT AND SERVICES IS SEPARATELY MENTIONED AND WAS ALSO AT PA GE 26, THE SEGMENT REVENUE AND SEGMENT RESULTS ARE ALSO PROVID ED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUN CTIONALLY DISSIMILAR, LD. TPO SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THESE FI GURES TO IDENTIFY WHETHER CG VAK SOFTWARE IS A SUITABLE COMP ARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT LD. TPO TO CONSIDER THIS ENTITY FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION. 8 35. THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES ARE M/S INFORMED TECHNO LOGIES LTD. AND M/S MICRO GENETICS SYSTEMS LTD. LD. TPO RE JECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES SALE S ARE BELOW RS. 5 CRORES.IN TUNE WITH OUR FINDINGS IN RES PECT OF M/S CG VAK SOFTWARE, WHILE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHRIS CAPI TAL (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT SO LONG AS A COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY S IMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE TURNOVER, IT CANNOT BE REJECTED. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT LD. TP O TO INCLUDE INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IN THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES. FURTHER, WE CONSIDER THE FACT THAT IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AND REJECTED THE TU RNOVER FILTER. 36. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF A VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 A ND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CHRIS CAPITAL (SUPRA) ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT LD. TPO TO CONSIDER THES E TWO COMPANIES AS GOOD COMPARABLES WITH THE ASSESSEE TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. 9 16. IN SO FAR AS THE INCLUSION OF CALIBER POINT IS CONCERNED, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER /TPO TO CONSIDER THE SAME IN LIGHT OF FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF OTHER COMPARABLES. 17. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE RELATES TO ADJUSTMENT IN RES PECT OF INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. 18. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 [SUPRA]. RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER: 37. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.14, THIS IS TO THE EFF ECT THAT THE INTEREST OF CREDIT PERIOD GRANTED BY THE COMPAN Y UNDER NORMAL TRADE PRACTICES WAS UNJUSTLY CHARGED, HAVING HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS GRANTED, THEN NO SEPA RATE ADJUSTMENT OR INTEREST RECEIVABLES IS REQUIRED. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR DECISION BY THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.765/2016 IN THE CASE OF KUSUM HEALTHCARE P. LTD. 19. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 10 20. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE [SUPRA]. THE RELEVA NT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER: 39. GROUND NO. 20 IS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR D EDUCTION UNDER 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AEGSC(STP) UNIT SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 O N THE GROUND THAT THE STP UNIT WAS SET UP AFTER SPLITTING UP ITS EXISTING BUSINESS OF FCE(EOU) UNIT. ON THIS ASPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10, T HE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AT LENGTH AND DIREC TED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 40. PARAGRAPH NOS. 33 & 34 OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2 018 IN ITA NO.1973/DEL/2014 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT,- 33. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A AMOUNTING TO RS.58,93,05,999/- IN RESPECT OF AEGSC (STP) UNIT. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 11 34. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IN AY 2 003-04, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALLOWIN G THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A. IN AY 2008-09, AGAIN IN REVENUE S APPEAL THIS TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 1 0A ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED A NEW UNIT. ONCE ALR EADY DEDUCTION U/S 10A ON THE SAME UNIT HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, NO DIFFER ENT VIEW CAN BE TAKEN FOR THE SAME UNIT ON SIMILAR SET OF FA CTS FOR DENYING THE DEDUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/ S 10A IN RESPECT OF THE SAID UNIT. 41. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 10A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 TO THE T UNE OF RS.49,93,98,378/- IN RESPECT OF AEGSC(STP) UNIT SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. 21. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 12 22. FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DRP OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF C ERTAIN AMOUNTS, SUCH AS, TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, FEE CHARGE OUT, RECEIP T OF SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AND RELOCATION EXPENSES. THE A SSESSING OFFICER/DRP WERE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH PAYMENTS REQ UIRED TDS IN TERMS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. DETAILS OF SUCH P AYMENTS RELATE TO RELOCATION CHARGES OF RS. 1,86,68,714/- WHICH WERE TREATED AS FTS/ROYALTY AS PER THE INDIA USA DTAA. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER/DRP WERE OF THE STRONG BELIEF THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF REL OCATION EXPENSES FOR SECONDED EMPLOYEES IS A PART AND PARCEL OF SAME SECONDMENT AGREEMENT AND TERMS AND SALARY AND SERVICE AGREEMEN TS ARE IN THE NATURE OF FTS AND ARE CHARGED TO TAX, BOTH U/S 9(1) (VII) AND UNDER ARTICLE 12(4) OF INDIA USA DTAA, THUS LIABLE TO TD S WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,68,714/- WAS MADE. 23. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEH EMENTLY STATED THAT RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CENTRI CA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT LTD 364 ITR 336 IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SUBSTANTIA L PORTION OF THIS REMUNERATION IS TOWARDS EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE EM PLOYEES TRAVELLING 13 ABROAD TO WHICH PRINCIPLES IN THE CASE CENTRICA DO NOT APPLY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT O N IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 24. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT MOST OF THE RELO CATION EXPENSES ARE IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAID TO EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO TRAVELLED ABROAD FOR BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THESE DETAILS NEED VERIFICATION. WE, ACCO RDINGLY, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERY DETAILS AND EXAMINE WHETHER THE PA YMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS OWN EMPLOYEES WHO TRAVE LLED ABROAD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 25. IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO GRANT OF TDS IS CONCERNED, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT OF TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 14 26. LEVY OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CHARGE THE SAME AS PER PROVISIONS OF LA W. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 355/DEL/2016 IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.08. 2020. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH AUGUST, 2020. VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ASST. REGISTRAR 4. CIT(A) ITAT, NEW DELHI 5. DR 15 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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