Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 396/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4421 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NAMITA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 92F

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 369/DEL/2 016 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT CIRCLE-27(2), ROOM NO. 408, 4 TH FLOOR, D-BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE DELHI (APPELLANT) VS WOLTERS KLUWER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 1221, DEVIKA TOWER-6 NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI AAACW6190J (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 396/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2011-12) WOLTERS KLUWER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 1221, DEVIKA TOWER-6 NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI AAACW6190J (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE-27(2) C.R. BUILDING NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. MUKESH BUTANI, SH. SHREYASH SHAH, SH. H. K. CHOUDHARY, CIT DRS RESPONDENT BY MRS. NAMITA PANDEY, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/11/2015 PASSED U/S 143(3 )/144C/92CA (4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- DATE OF HEARING 12.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.02.2019 2 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 I.T.A. NO. 369/DEL/2016 (REVENUES APPEAL) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DRP-2 ERRED IN DIRECTING AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AS PER OBSE RVATIONS MADE BY DRP IN THE ORDER WHICH RESULTING IN REDUCING THE ADDITION TO RS.26,07,240/- IN PLACE OF ORIGINAL RECOMMENDED ALP OF RS.54,82,095/- FOR T HE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH I TS ASSOCIATE/PARENT ENTERPRISE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE DRP-II ERRED IN DIRECTING TPO TO EXCLUDE BELOW MENTIONED COMPANIES FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES :- (VIII) APTICO LTD. (IX) CDSL VENTURES LTD. (X) TSR DARASHAW LTD. (XI) KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DRP-2 ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,63,796/- MADE BY AO ON TR EATING THE EXPENDITURE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE DRP-2 ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.5,22,922/- MADE BY AO ON TR EATING THE EXPENDITURE OF WEBSITE DESIGNING CHARGES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE OR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME B EFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. I.T.A. NO. 396/DEL/2016 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2015 (RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 02, 2015) PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(4) OF THE ACT, PAS SED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE -27 (2), C R B UILDING, NEW DELHI (AO) FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY). 3 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T FOR THE RELEVANT AY AT INR 31,272,280 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF INR 28 ,665,037. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP') / AO / TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER (TPO) ERRED IN PROVIDING A PARTIAL RELIEF OF INR 2,874,855 AGAI NST THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF INR 5,482,095 PROPOSED BY THE TPO IN RESPECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO BUSINESS SUPP ORT SERVICES THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACTS AN D IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO WHILE RE-DETERMINING ARMS LENGTH PRICE WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES H AVE ERRED IN (A) NOT FULLY APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS MODEL, FUNCTIONAL, ASSET AND RISK ANALYSIS, (B) NOT ACCEPTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT READ WITH THE RULES AND (C) MAKING SEVERAL OBSE RVATIONS / FINDINGS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND CONTRARY TO FACTS OF THE CASE. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO HAVE ERRED, IN ARBITRARILY REJECTING CERTAIN FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE COMPANIES IDENTIFIED BY THE APPELLANT ON A SUBJECTI VE / ARBITRARY BASIS, INTER ALIA, USING UNREASONABLE COMPARABILITY CRITERION. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO HAVE ERRED IN ARBITRARILY SELECTING CERTAIN C OMPARABLE COMPANIES BASED ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF FUNCTIONAL, ASSET AND RISK PROFILE. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N INCORRECTLY COMPUTING THE OPERATING MARGINS OF THE PROPOSED COMPARABLE COMPAN IES. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP /AO / 4 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 TPO ERRED IN REJECTING/ MODIFYING THE SEARCH PROCES S AND FILTERS ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENCHMARKING ITS I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF RENDERING BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC A DJUSTMENTS, AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 10B(1)(E)(III) OF THE RULES, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN RISK PROFILE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO HAVE ERRED BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10B(4) OF THE RULES AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHICH PERMIT THE USAGE OF MULTIPLE YEAR DATA OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATI ON OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 92F OF THE ACT. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP / AO / TPO ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT THE BENE FIT OF (+/-) 5% RANGE AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE AC T. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE A.O HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING RIGHTS AND TO PRINT/REPRINT, THROUGH THIR D PARTY PRINTERS, BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND JOURNALS FOR DISTRIBUTION IN INDIA AND EXPORT THEREOF, IMPORT OF BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND JOURNALS AND DISTRIBUTING TH E SAME IN INDIA AND RENDERING MARKETING AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES TO G ROUP COMPANY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.11.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,86,65,037/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DE TAILS OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES OF RS. 1,80,09,606/- ALONG WIT H SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE CALLED. A REFERENCE U/S 92CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS MADE TO THE 5 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 TPO. THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PROPOSED A DDITION OF RS. 54,82,095 BEING SHORTFALL ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA OF THE ACT. A D RAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 17.03.2015. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED OB JECTION BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2015, ISSUED CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONA L GROUNDS OF OBJECTION AND THE DRP VIDE DIRECTION DATED 05.11.2015 DIRECTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE NA TURE OF THE EXPENSES AND IN CASE THE PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES REFERRED TO BY THE A SSESSEE ARE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 35DD, THEN ALLOW THE CHARGES PAID FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WEBSITE AND TOWARDS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 S USTAINED ONLY ADDITION OF RS. 26,07,240/- TOWARDS THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUST MENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARMS LENGTH PRICING OF ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION WITH ITS AES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE FILED PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE CONTESTED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALREADY DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR A.Y. 2010-11 BEING ITA NO. 1700/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 06.07.2018. AS REGARD S REVENUES APPEAL, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THE CHART IN RESPECT OF COMPARABLE S WHICH HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED AND WHICH COMPARABLES HAVE TO BE INCLUDED AND THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP RIGHTLY EXCLUDED COMPARABLES SUCH AS APITCO LIMITED, CDSL VENTURES LIMITED, KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING LIMITED AND TSR DARASHW LIMITED WHICH ARE CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL, BECAUSE THESE COMPANIES ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. AS REGA RDS TO GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 6. AS REGARDS, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CONCERNED RELAT ING TO EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION OF THE COMPARABLES, THE LD. AR FURTHER MA DE SUBMISSION THAT GLOBAL 6 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED ALSO HAS TO BE EXCL UDED AS THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY PROVIDES PROCUREMENT RELATED SERVICES. THE COMPANYS CONSULTANCY SERVICES INCLUDE PREPARING AND REVIEWING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATION OF COSTS, SELECTION OF VENDORS, INSPECTION AND EXPEDIT ING, QUALITY CONTROL AND TIME MANAGEMENT AND ALL CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN PROCUREMENT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE COMPANY HAS CONTRACTS WITH THE WORLD BANK, WHEREIN THE COMPANY WILL CONDUCT PROCUREMENT POST REVIEW OF OVER 50 MAJOR WORLD BANK FUNDED PROJECTS IN INDIA. THESE SE RVICES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSES SEE IN THE MARKET SUPPORT SEGMENT. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ADIDAS TECHNICAL SERVICES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 1233 /DEL/2015). THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BVG INDIA LIMITED AND OFFICE CARE SE RVICES LIMITED THESE TWO COMPARABLES HAVE TO BE INCLUDED AS THEY BOTH PASSES SERVICE INCOME FILTER WITH THRESHOLD OF 50% AND IN-FACT, THE TPO WRONGLY OBSER VED THAT THESE COMPANIES EARNS 60.31% AND 99.97% OF ITS INCOME FROM SERVICES . 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TPO/AO. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CONC ERNED, THE DRP HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED BVG INDIA LTD. AND OFFICE CARE SERVICES LT D. AS THE COMPANY HAS FAILED THE SERVICE INCOME FILTER. AS REGARDS THE EX CLUSION OF GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS CO MPARABLE IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE AS IT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE RANGE OF PROCUREMENT ADVISORY SERVICES AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AS REGARDS REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED ALL THE COMPARABLES CONTESTED BY THE REVE NUE ARE ALREADY EXCLUDED IN CASE OF ADIDAS TECHNICAL SERVICES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 DIRECTED THE T PO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE COO RDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ADIDAS TECHNICAL SERVICES (P.) LTD. AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE 7 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE COMP ANYS PROFILE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO REMAINS THE SAME TO THAT OF EARLIER A.Y. 2010-11. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT FOR EACH OF THE COMPARABLES AND ITS FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ALONG WITH FAR ANALYSIS FROM THE RECORDS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE DRP HAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED THESE COMPARABLES. THU S, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. HENCE, GR OUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, THE DRP HAS R IGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES AND IN CASE THE PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 35DD, THEN A LLOW THE CHARGES PAID FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WEBSITE AND TOWARDS LEGAL AND PROFES SIONAL FEES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. THUS, GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED. THEREFORE , APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. AS REGARDS TO ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ISSUE OF E XCLUSION OF GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED AND THE ISSUE OF IN CLUSION OF BVG INDIA LIMITED AND OFFICE CARE SERVICES LIMITED, BOTH THES E ASPECT HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE TPO AS THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE SET OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE TPO/AO TO VERIFY. THUS, MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE TPO/AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN RESPECT OF THE CO RRECT APPLICABILITY OF THE FILTERS, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2 010-11 HELD AS UNDER: 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT F ILTER OF REJECTING COMPANIES WHOSE MANUFACTURING/TRADING INCOME IS GREATER THAN 50% ARE REQUIRED TO BE REJECTED IS IN FACT BROADER ONE LEADING TO THE BROA DER SET OF POTENTIAL COMPARABLES. MOREOVER, TPO IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR H AS ACCEPTED TAXPAYERS 8 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 FILTER OF REJECTING COMPANIES WHOSE MANUFACTURING/T RADING INCOME IS GREATER THAN 50% IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR A.Y. 2012-13, P ARTICULARLY WHEN THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE IN ITS BUSINE SS MODEL. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE TPO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER PRO VIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY APPLYING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. THUS, THE ISSUE OF APPLYING CORRECT FILTER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SAME. THEREFORE, WE ARE ALSO REMAN DING THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/AO AND DIRECTING THE TPO/AO TO BE DECIDED A FRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY. 11. IN RESULT, APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 369/DEL/2016 FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 396/DEL/2016 FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 15/02/2019 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NOS. 369 & 396/DEL/2016 DATE OF DICTATION 13 .12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13 .12.2018 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 5 .02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 5 .02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 .02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK