ACIT, Noida V. M/s Noida Power Compnay Ltd., Greater Noida

ITA 3919/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4497 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHMITA BASU
• Assessee Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Question of law; Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10) ACIT CIRCLE 2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, A-2D, SECTOR-24, NOIDA VS. NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BLOCK-H, ALPHA-II, GREATER NOIDA PAN NO: AAACN4984D APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) REVENUE BY : MS. SUSHMITA BASU, CA DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2019 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE BY WHICH THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO FOR SHORT) HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)[CIT(A) FOR SHORT], NOIDA VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 12.03.2015 PERTAINING TO 2004 -05, 2005-06 AND 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PART IES THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, ACCORDINGLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAI SED IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL FOR READY REFERENCE, THE GROUN DS FROM ITA NO. 3917/DEL/2015 IS REPRODUCED HERE: 1. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS-I) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS BY DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 46,00,00,000/ - AS THE SAME WAS LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS WRONGL Y CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITHOUT DEBITING FROM PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 2. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS-I) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE POWER PURCHASE PRICE WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE AS ITS LIABILITY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. 3. THAT THE CIT(APPEALS-L) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. PAGE 2 OF 6 QUANTUM OF APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS DECID ED IN FAVOUR DEPARTMENT BY CIT(A) AND ITAT FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 TO 2003-04 & 2 007-08. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD, ALTER AND AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE HEARING. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS-L) BEING ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE/CANCELLED AND ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN GREATER NOIDA AREA. THE SHORT ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS WHE REIN DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD POWER PURCHASE PRICE HAS BEEN DENIED. THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ONLY THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITHOUT DEBITING IT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE CLA IM WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ADDITIONAL POWER PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO INCREASE IN DEMAND. THE RATE APPLIED IN THE INVOICE WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS NOT A MARGINAL COST AS AGREED UPON BUT HIGHER T HAN THE MARGINAL COST. IT WAS THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS WHICH WAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION AND DISALLOWED. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUS TAINED RIGHT UP TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL(ITAT FOR SHORT), IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS WHICH LED TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT(A), NOIDA IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDERS IN 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. ON A PERUSAL OF T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUN DS RAISED ITSELF IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTUM THAT AD DITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN EACH OF THE YEARS IS A FACTOR CONSIDERED AND FOL LOWED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WAS PO INTED OUT BY THE PARTIES WHEREAS LD. CIT(DR) RELIED UPON THE PENALTY ORDERS. THE LD. AR, APART FROM RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 05.09.2016 IN 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR (COPY AVAILABLE AT PAGES 102-105 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO. 149/DEL/2014 (COPY AVAILABLE AT PAGES 106-108 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ALSO RELIED UPON THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR NO. 25 OF 2015 DATED 31.12.20 15. ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. PAGE 3 OF 6 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN 200 7-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO. 1569/DEL/2013 WHILE ADJUDICATING AS AN IDENTICA L ISSUE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 OF CIT(A) , NOIDA CONSIDERED THE FACTS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 3. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE ARE THAT APPELLANT IS A COM PANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN GREATER NOIDA AREA. FOR AB OVE ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 17 6961703/- AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF RS. 60065825/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, RETURN WAS R EVISED ON 31.03.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 176581620/- AND BOOK PROFIT O F RS. 60068535/-. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN ADDITION OF RS. 261406249 /- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF POWER PURCHASE PRICE, NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT , CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EXPENDITURE IN RETURN OF INCOME SHOW ING IT IN COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. LD ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SAME HOLDIN G THAT IT IS NEITHER AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY NOR PROVIDED FOR IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AFTER DISALLOWANCE THE ASSESSED INCOME IN NORMAL COMPUTATION WAS RS. 84824 629/- AND BOOK PROFIT REMAIN UNCHANGED. AGAINST ABOVE ADDITION ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER . AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT . VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2012 IN ITA NO. 999/DEL/2011 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED HONB LE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WHO WHILE ADMITTING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PASSED A N INTERIM ORDER ON 19.07.2012 AND 25/7/2012. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AD MITTED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE QUESTION OF LAW THAT WHETHER THE LI ABILITY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASED PRICE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 261406 249/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY BILL BY U PPCL AND THE PURCHASE PRICE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE APPEL LANT AT RATES WORKED OUT BY UPERC IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN AY 2007-08. MEANW HILE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON THIS AMOUNT VIDE ORDER DA TED 29.03.2012 OF RS. 8.80 CRORES HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 261406289/- BY MAKING A FALSE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHICH WAS APPARENTLY, PATENTLY, AND CLEARLY NOT ALLOWABLE. AG GRIEVED BY THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CAS E OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD AND FURTHER HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWA NCE IS A PURELY LEGAL AND DEBATABLE ISSUE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED B Y TRIBUNAL AND IN EARLIER YEARS WHEN THE ADDITION IS UPHELD . AO HIMSELF HAVE DROPP ED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) FOR AY 2003-04. THEREFORE, BY ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A ) REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. PAGE 4 OF 6 4.1. IT IS SEEN THAT BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH THE RES PECTIVE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES WERE AS UNDER: 4. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT AS THE DEDUCTION HAS B EEN CONCURRENTLY UPHELD IT IS NOT DEBATABLE AND THEREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD AO MAY BE UPHELD. HE RELIED VEHEMENTLY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD AR SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DEALI NG THE ISSUE ARE PLACED ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CLAI M OF THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IN AY 200 3-04, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DROPPED THE PENALTY ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE. 4.2. IT IS SEEN THAT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE RECORD, THE COORDINATE BENCH CONCLUDED THE ISSUE AFFIRMING THE CIT(A)S DECISION OF QUASHING THE PENALTY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS. THE ISSUE IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS. 261406249/- BEING POWER PURCHASE PRICE WHICH WAS NOT DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AS EXPENDITURE BUT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTA L INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR IS CONCURRENTLY REJECTED BY ALL THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UP TO THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT HAS ADMITTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2012 IN ITA NO. 68 OF 2009 WHEREIN FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ADMITTED:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DECLINING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL RATE OF POWER PURCHASE (I.E. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE AT WHICH THE BILLS WERE RAISED BY THE UP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD/ UP POWER CORPORA TION LTD. AND THE RATES AS DETERMINED/RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY ?. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT (ASSESSEE) FOR EXCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT RE-PAYABLE TO CUSTOMERS AS PER THE MINIMUM CONSUMPTION GUARANTEE SCHEME?. 7. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LIQU ID INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY IN ITA NO. 240 OF 2009 WHEREIN, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED AND SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS FRAMED BY HONBL E HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT IT SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE AND NO PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NAYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS 368 ITR 722 HAS ALSO HELD THAT WHERE HIGH COURT ADM ITTED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY WAS TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. PAGE 5 OF 6 COURT WE HOLD THAT WHEN THE ISSUE IS ADMITTED BY HO NBLE HIGH COURT AS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 261406249/- FOR POWER PURCHASE PRICE DIFFERENCE, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED. FURTHERMORE, IN PAST YEARS THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITSELF MAKES THE ISSUE DEBATABLE. FURTHER, IN AY 2003- 04 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DRO PPED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NAT URE OF ADDITION AND IN VIEW OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF SUCH ORDER DATED 12.03.2008 WAS PLACED ON THE RECORD AND SAME WAS NOT CONTRAVERTED BY REVENUE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSISTENT APPROACH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY REVEN UE IN THIS CASE FOR THIS YEAR TOO. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIA NCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD 322 ITR 158 HAS STATED THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT INVITE PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED FU LL FACTS ABOUT THE CLAIM MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED. FURTHER, DET AILED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE POWER PURCHASE PRICE WAS GIVEN IN NOTES TO ACCOUNTS IN SCHEDULE 16 OF ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS CLAIM. IT ALSO CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BONA FIED CLAIM BECAUSE OF THE PAST HISTORY OF SU CH CLAIM BEING ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT S WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 8.80 CRORES U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4.3. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID ISSUE AGAIN CAME F OR CONSIDERATION IN 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO. 149/DEL/2014 WHE REIN CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND IDENTICAL SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT( A)S ORDER WAS UPHELD HOLDING AS UNDER: 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.22.93 CRORE UNDER THE HEAD POWER PURCHASE PRICE . THIS DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ONLY THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH OUT DEBITING IT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SUCH DEDUCTION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ADDITIONAL POWER PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO INCREASE IN DEMAND . THE RATE APPLIED IN THE INVOICE WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING TH AT IT WAS NOT A MARGINAL COST AS AGREED UPON, BUT, HIGHER THAN THE MARGINAL COST. THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.22.93 CRORE WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION FOR THIS SUM AND ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY. THE LD. CIT( A) DELETED THE PENALTY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY UNDER IDENT ICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAS ALSO IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2007-08. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.09.2 016 (ITA NO.1569/DEL/2013), HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. A COPY OF SUCH ORDER HAS B EEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. ITA NOS:- 3917, 3918 & 3919/DEL/2015 NOIDA POWER COMPANY LTD. PAGE 6 OF 6 DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE F OR THIS YEAR VIS--VIS THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERE D AND DECIDED BY ITA NO.149/DEL/2014 3 THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETING THE PENALTY. 5. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE POSITION OF LAW REMAINS THE SAME AS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCHES IN 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEARS, ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY INFIRMITY HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE UPHELD AN D DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.02.2019. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14.02.2019 BIDHAN COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 12.02.19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.02.19 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING 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 WE BSITE 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 RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER