Shree Niladree Udyog, Puri V. ITO, Bhubaneswar

ITA 535/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 53522114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SABAT B K MOHAPATRA ARS
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , HONB LE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) SHRE E NILADREE UDYOG, HOTEL SHREE HARI, NEW MARINE DRIVE ROAD, SWARGA DWAR, PURI. PAN: ABFFS 0167 C - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OF FICER, WARD 2(3), BHUBANESWAR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI A.K.SABAT/B.K.MOHAPATRA,ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, DR / DA TE OF HEARING: 16.07.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.07.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DT.3.10.2011 PRIMARILY O N TWO ISSUES ONE BEING DENIAL OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB AMOUNTING TO 45,92,548 AND THE SECOND ISSUE BEING ADOPTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE AS - 7 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS A CONTRACTOR WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSEL F NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REALTOR CONSTRUCTING BUILDING FLATS , DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. 2. THE FACTS AS BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE A SSESSE E IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE, DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (D EV ELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE/ FLATS AND SALE THEREOF) AND DEV ELOPMENT OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 2 CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY F OLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING METHOD RECO GNIZING INCOME O N SALE SALE/COMPLETION OF FLATS /HOUSES W HEREIN THE REVENUE/SALE IS RECOGNIZED UPON THE HOUSING PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND THE TITLE OF THE GOODS AND ALL RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED. THE INCOMPLETE PORTION OF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AS CONSTRUCTION W ORK - IN - P ROGRESS AN D THE PROJECT WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED BUT NOT SOLD IS DISCLOSED AS INVENTORY HELD FOR SALE. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE ABOVE METHOD FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION CONSISTENTLY AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS) 9 AS PER GUIDANCE NOTE FOR RECOGNITION OF REVENUE B Y REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA IN 2006. D URING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., 2008 - 09 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED THE INCOME OF 86,00,000 ON DEVELOPED LAND SOLD OF NILADREE ENCLSE - 2 AND 7,01,78,242 ON NILADREE ENCLAVE(HOUSING PROJECT) IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SALE OF LAND, HOUSE/FLATS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THE TITLE OF THE GOODS AND ALL RISKS AND REWARDS OF OWNERSHIP WAS TRANSFERRED, SHOWING WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS UNDER : NAME OF HOUS ING PROJECT OPENING WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 1.4.2007 CLOSING WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2008 I. NILADREE ENCLAVE - 1 7,69,95,450 2,96,10,896 II. NILADREEE PROJECT - 1 NIL. 66,26,488 III. NILADREE PROJECT - 2 NIL. 5,65,702 IV. NILADREE P ROJECT - 3 NIL. 14,32,526 A DEDUCTION OF RS.45,92,547 U /S.80IB( 10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF N ILA DREE ENCLAVE - I HOUSE/ FLATS SOLD DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND ACCORDINGLY FILED RETURN U/S.139(L) OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF 5,90,999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.12.2010 I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 3 APPLIED ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7 (AS - 7) AND TAKEN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT AS INCREASE IN WORK - IN - PROGRESS DURING THE YEAR 2007 - 08, I. NILADREE ENCLAVE - 1 2,95,94,396 II. NILADREEE PROJECT - 1 66,26,488 III. NILADREE PROJECT - 2 5,65,702 IV. NILADREE PROJECT - 3 4,32,526 TOTAL 3,82,19,112 A ND ESTIMATED INCOME @6.84% ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF 3,82,19,112 AT 26,75,338 AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED 45,92,548 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB IN R ESPECT OF THE NILADREE ENCLAVE - 1 HOUSE/FLATS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGITATING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB ALONG WITH THE PROPORTIONATE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE PURPORTED WORK - IN - PROGRESS HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR OUGHT TO HAVE RENDERED INCOME BY MAINTAINING THE ACCOUNTS VIDE AS - 7 OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT S OF INDIA. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS BRIEF ORDER HAS CONFIRMED BOTH WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS AS IF THE ASSESSEE WAS A BUILDING CONTRACTOR WHEN THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE SALES OF THE FLATS WHI CH IS CONSTRUCTED HOLDING WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS AGAINST SALES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE PROFIT MARGIN IN THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS WHICH INCOME, IF ANY, HAS ALREADY BEEN RENDERED TO TAX ON THE BA SIS OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AS - 9. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 4 DEDUCTION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION INSOFAR AS THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT COULD BE TAKEN OF THE DATE OF WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT WAS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 4. INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT WHICH PROJECT DETAILS ARE UNDISPUTED AS MENTIONED EARLIER. A LOCAL AUTHORITY NOT GRANTING T HE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DENIAL FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB INSOFAR AS HE AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT APPLYING FOR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AND THE RECEIPT THEREOF WILL BE A PROCEDURAL DELAY AND THEREFORE A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION AS AND WHEN THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS OBTAINED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY INSOFAR AS THE GROSS INCOME WHICH PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN RENDERED TO T AX BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY. A SUITABLE DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BE DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN THE PROCEDURAL DELAY IN OBTAININ G THE CERTIFICATE CRYSTALLI ZES THE CLAIM U/S.80IB. 4.1. ON THE OTHER ISSUE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,75,338 MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON ESTIMATE BY ADOPTING AS 7, IS ON MIS APPRECIATION OF/CONTRARY TO FACTS, EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY, I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 5 ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. THE REJECTION OF ACCOUNTING METHOD / PRACTICE REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING INCOME FROM THE INCOMPLETE HOUSING PROJECT ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN WORK - IN - PROGRESS IS ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED, WRONG, ERRONEOUS, BAD ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE. HE CONTENDED THAT AS - 7 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN APPLYING THE SAME. HE ALTERNATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING CHANGED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BY ADOPTING A PERCENTAGE ON THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN WORK - IN - PROGRESS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) WHEREIN THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX ON SALE/COMPLETION OF FLATS/HOUSES, AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PURPOSE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK INDICATING AS TO HOW A PARALLEL COMPUTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DERIVING INCOME OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS FOR THE DIFFERENT AYS WOULD LEAD TO SET ON AND SET OFF THE INCOME WHEN THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS IS ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL EXP ENDITURE INCURRED CERTIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING INSTALLMENT FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF THE FLATS. AS - 7 AS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS ON THE BASIS OF BILLS RAISED ON THE TAX DEDUCT ED AT SOURCE WHO PAY THE BILLS RAISED ON THEM AND NOT BECAUSE THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT IT COULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO TAKE A FIXED PERCENTAGE AS DEEMED INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOU T IDENTIFYING THE EXPENDITURE AGAINST WHICH THE CUSTOMERS WOULD BE OBLIGED TO PAY THE INSTALLMENTS AGAINST THE FLATS BOOKED IN A PARTICULAR PROJECT. HE PRAYED THAT THIS ADDITION IS PURELY A I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 6 HYPOTHETICAL INCOME WHICH INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED OTHERWI SE RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY. HE PRAYED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAVING NO RELEVANCE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT - DR HA D NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB AS AND WHEN THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IS SANC TIONED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT WHEN THE PROJECT WAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS. 5.1. HOWEVER, ON THE SECOND ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO ADOPT A PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING NOT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTPONING PAYMENT OF TAX INSOFAR AS IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE MARGIN OF PROFIT WAS IN THE V ALUATION OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS WAS THE ONE WAY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DISCRETIONARY. THEREFORE, ADOPTION OF AS - 7 WAS NOT THE PRIME CONSIDERATION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS HE NOTED THAT CLAIMING OF DE DUCTION U/S.80IB WOULD END INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE THE CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE RIGHT THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS SUCH THAT THE PROFIT IN THE INCOMPLETE PROJECTS HAD TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE BASIS OF PERC ENTAGE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT I.E., INCREASE IN THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS DURING THE I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS COMPUTING THE INCOME ON WORK - IN - PROGRESS. SHE FULLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HER PART OF SUBMISSIONS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO IT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF OBTAINING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN VIEW OF THE FACT WHEN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON OR AFTER 1.4.2004 WAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION EITHER ON THE BASIS OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OR ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE COMPLET ION METHOD FOR DERIVING INCOME WHEN IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE TERM THE INCOME CANNOT BE DERIVED UNLESS THE PURCHASERS OF FLATS HAVE BEEN GIVEN CLEARANCE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THEREFORE, THE PRAYER OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEDED TO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION AS AND WHEN THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE PROJECT COMPLETION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FOR THE INCOME FOR THE PROJECT WHICH CLAIM IS B EING MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE AYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB. THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS DIRECTED ABOVE. I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 8 6.1. HOWEVER, CONTINUING OUR FINDING THAT THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS BEING CONSIDERED FOR TAXAT ION AT A RATE WHICH IS ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF FLATS INDICATING THE MARGIN OF PROFIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY EXERCISE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE PROJECTS ARE UNDERTAKEN FOR WHICH CERTAIN APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT U/S.80IB FOR ALL THE P ROJECTS. THE PROJECTS, WHICH COMPLETED AS AND WHEN APPROVAL IS SOUGHT HAS TO BE RENDERED INCOME CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WHICH COMPUTATION CANNOT BE FAULTED. THIS INDICATES THAT THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS HELD AS AN ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY REDUCED T HE INCOME FOR THAT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PROJECT REMAINING INCOMPLETE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO TAX @6.84% ON 3.82 CRORES DOES NOT BEAR ANY CORRECTNESS TO THE FACT THAT THE INCOME AS ARISEN TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON INCOMPLETE PROJECTS WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECTS WERE SOLD FOR MORE THAN THE VERY TURNOVE R FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT COULD NOT BE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE LESS TAX ON MORE INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO CORRECT HIMSELF FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHOSE TURNOVER EXCEEDS MO RE THAN 3.82 CRORES WHEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD RETURN THE LOSS THEREOF ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFINED HIMSELF TO ADOPTION OF AS - 7 AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ACTUALLY ADDRESS ING THE ISSUE IN THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED, ADVANCE RECEIVED, INCOME ON PERCENTAGE ON THE ADVANCE TO BE CONSIDERED AND LOSS BUT NOT THE LEAST THAT THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS IS A CLOSING STOCK WHEN THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 9 ALLOWED CANNOT BE R EDUCED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS TO FIND PROFIT THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISTURBED EARNING OF INCOME FOR DENIAL OF DEDUCTION/S.80IB WHEN THE VERY INCOME WHICH IS TO BE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TAXABLE IS AN INCOME FROM WHICH DEDUCTION U /S.80IB WILL BE ALLOWED. FINDING NO MERIT IN THE BRINGING TO TAX THE PERCENTAGE OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONFIRMATION THEREOF BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 26,75,338 IN THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEAR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. S D/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 20.07.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : SHREE NILADREE UDYOG, HOTEL SHREE HAR I, NEW MARINE DRIVE ROAD, SWARGA DWAR, PURI 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), BHUBANESWAR. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2011 10 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE S R. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18.07.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.07.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE S R. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.07.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DE SPATCH OF THE ORDER ..