DCIT(E), New Delhi V. Dr. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust, New Delhi

ITA 4132/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0251 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIMA NEB
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law; Capital expenditure
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI B BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDH A RY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 41 32 / DEL/201 5 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 ] THE DY .C.I.T VS. DR. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST CIRCLE 1 (1) PANDAV NAGAR, NARAINA ROAD NEW DELHI NEAR SHADIPUR DEPOT, NEW DELHI PAN : AA ATD 8903 D [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 .0 9 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 0 .0 9 .2018 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIREN MEHTA , C A REVENUE BY : MS. ASIMA NEB , SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E XEMPTIONS ) - 40 , NEW DELHI DATED 22 . 04 .201 5 PERTAINING TO A.Y 20 11 - 12 . 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS TWO - FOLD FIRSTLY, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE AMOUNT INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF ASSETS IN EARLIER YEAR AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. SECONDLY, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION S 70, 71, 72, 73 AND 74 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT]. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY WAS RUNNING A HOSPITAL IN THE NAME OF DR. R.L. KHERA HO SPITAL IN PANDAV NAGAR IN NARAINA IN NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1.32 CRORES , WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THIS IS A DOUBLE DEDUCTION AS THE ENTIRE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON THE PURC HASE OF CAPITAL ASSET IS TREAT E D AS APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11(1) OF THE ACT AND FULL DEDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS ALLOWED VIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. INDRAPRASTHA CANCER 3 SOCIETY IN ITA NO S . 240, 348, 406, 463 & 464/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2014, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECATION. 5. BEFORE US, THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS. 6. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS DISPUTE IS NOW WELL SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 3 PUNE VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION REPORTED IN 300 CTR 1. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT READ AS UNDER: FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURTS, IT CAN BE DISCERNED THAT THE HIGH COURTS HAVE PRIMARILY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMEN T OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (IBPS) [(2003) 131 TAXMAN 386 (BOMBAY)]. IN THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT PREDICATED ON DOUBLE BENEFIT WAS TURNED DOWN IN THE FOLLO WING MANNER: 4 3. AS STATED ABOVE, THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT IS: WHETHER DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS, THE COST OF WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 IN THE PAST YEARS? IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. MUNISUVRAT JAIN 1994 TAX LAW REPORTER, 1084 THE FACTS WERE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST. IT WAS REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. IT WAS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE DER IVED INCOME FROM THE TEMPLE PROPERTY WHICH WAS A TRUST PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1977 - 78, 1978 - 79 AND 1979 - 80, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING @2% AND THEY ALSO CLAIMED DEPREC IATION ON FURNITURE @ 5%. THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE BEFORE THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION WAS : WHETHER DEPRECIATION COULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE, AS EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS HAD BEEN TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITI ON? IT WAS HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAKES PROVISION IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FROM THE PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATIO N OF INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, SECTION 28 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DEALS WITH CHARGEABILITY OF INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND SECTION 29 PROVIDES THAT INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AHLL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 30 TO SECTION 43C. THAT, SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY OWNED 5 BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT FURTHER PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION SUBJECT TO SECTION 34. IN THAT MATTER ALSO, A SIMILAR ARGUMENT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, NAMELY, THAT DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ONLY UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND NOT UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES. THE COURT REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT. IT WAS HELD THAT NORMAL DEPRECIATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 32 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT WAS THE ONLY SECTION GRANTING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS HELD THAT INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST DERIVED FORM BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY AND FURNITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED IN NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER AL THOUGH THE TRUST MAY NOT BE CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS AND THE ASSETS IN RESPECT WHEREOF DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED MAY NOT BE BUSINESS ASSETS. IN ALL SUCH CASES, SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDING FOR DEPRECIATION FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 11 ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AFTER PROVIDING FOR ALLOWANCE FOR NORMAL DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION THEREOF FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUST. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESATATED JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH CURT, WE ANSWER QUESTION NO. 1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. 6 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT [SUPRA] WE DECLINE TO I NTERFERE. GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 8. IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE IS CONCERNED RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES, THOUGH THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUSHPAWAT I SINGHANIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR LIVER, RENAL & DIGESTIVE DISEASES 29 SOT 316, BUT WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF RAGHUVA NSHI CHARITABLE TRUST 197 TAXMAN 170 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW: A) WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORWARD DEFICIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND TO SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS? B) WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF THE LOSSES AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR IGNORING THAT THE DETERMINAT ION OF INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 11 TO 13 IS A SEPARATE 7 CODE AND DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER - VI OF THE ACT? C) WHETHER ADJUSTMENT OF DEFICIT (EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME) OF CURRENT YEAR AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT? 9. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [SUPRA] READ AS UNDER: 6. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE TRIBUNAL ) THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. WE HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK JAIN MANDAL (SUPRA). IT COULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED AND ANSWERED IN THE SAID CASE WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE RAISED I N THE PRESENT APPEALS. THIS QUESTION WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION CONTAINED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT IS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 8 '3. THE LEARNED DR SOUGHT TO RELY UPON THE FINDING OF AO. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS ANSWERED BY HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI PL OT SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK JAIN MANDAL (1995) 211 ITR 293 (GUJ), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF HE (SIC. THE) EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE EA RLIER YEAR AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED BY THE TRUST IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO APPLYING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND WILL HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT.' NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN CITED. FROM THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO BAR IN COMPUTING INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER ALLOWING SET OFF OF EXCESS AMOUNT SPENT ON OBJECT OF TRUST, AS THIS ALSO AMOUNTS TO APPLICATION OF INCOME. THUS, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A).' 7. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, WAS THAT THE AFORESAID CASE DOES NOT DECIDE THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. SHE SUBMITT ED THAT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS NO LIMITATION IN SECTION 11 , WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR 9 CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES ONLY IN T HE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS ARISEN. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WAS A WRONG PREMISE AND CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESSION OF PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 11(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION AND SECTION 11(1)(C) CATEGORICALLY SUGGESTS TO THE CONTRARY, VIZ., THE INCOME HAS TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAS ARISEN. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN GREATER DETAIL AND RELYING UPON THE CIRCULAR NO. 100 DATED 24.01.1973 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHARANA OF MEWAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION [164 ITR 439 (RAJ.)]. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT AT THIS STATE THAT THE AFORESAID VIEW OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEE N CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY OTHER HIGH COURTS IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: (I) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING [264 ITR 110 (BOM.)]; (II) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SIDDARAMANNA CHARIT IES TRUST [96 ITR 275 (MYS); AND (III) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MATRISEVA TRUST [242 ITR 20 (MAD.)]. 10 8. IT WOULD BE FRUITFUL TO REFER TO THE DISCUSSIONS CONTAINED IN INSTITUTE OF BANKING (SUPRA), P ER. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA, WHICH IS ADVANCED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE TO REPEL THE SAME IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 'NOW COMING TO QUESTION NO.3, THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS: WHETHER EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE IN T HE EARLIER YEARS CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND WHETHER SUCH ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES? IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT EXPENDITURE INC URRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE MET OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THAT UTILIZATION OF SUCH INCOME FOR MEETING THE EXPENDITURE OF EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW CARRY FORWARD OF THE EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SURPLUS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT TIN THE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST, THEIR INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER SELF - CONTAINED CODE ME NTIONED IN SECTION 11 TO SECTION 13 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT AND THAT THE INCOME OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST WAS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS' UNDER SECTION 28 IN WHICH THE PROVISION FOR CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES WAS RELEVANT. THAT, IN THE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST, THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE EXCESS OF EXPENDITUR E OF EARLIER YEARS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE 11 DEPARTMENT. INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY HAS ALSO GOT TO BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES ARE APPLIED THEN ADJUSTMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED BY THE TRUST IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WILL HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARIT ABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE HAVING REGARD TO THE BENEVOLENT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT WILL HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF TH E ACT. OUR VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK JAIN MANDAL [1995] 211 ITR 293. ACCORDINGLY, WE ANSWER QUESTION NO.3 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT.' 9. IT IS CLEAR FR OM THE ABOVE THAT AS MANY AS FIVE HIGH COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THE PROVISION IN AN IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR MANNER. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW ANY JUDGMENT WHERE ANY OTHER HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN CONTRARY VIEW. SINCE WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AFORESAID HIGH COURT, WE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 12 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI [SUPRA] WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO . 41 32/DEL/201 2 IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER IS PR ON O UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 .0 9 .2018. SD/ - SD/ - [ N.K. CHOUDH A RY ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 0 T H SEPTEMBER , 2018 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 13 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