M/s. Shine Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 637/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5127 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Gift; Business income
• Section: 37; 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO. 637/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S.SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 308-310, DWARKESH COMPLEX SUN PHARMA ROAD, ATLADARA, VADODARA-390 020 / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE(2)(1)(1) BARODA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAECS 2660 M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.P. SRIVASTAVA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 07/01/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/02/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)2, VADODARA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CAB/(A)-2 /278/15-16 DATED 12/01/2017 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U NDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE ACT') DATED 21/03/2016 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013- 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE AMOUN TING TO RS.18,16,120/- WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES LIKE D ISTRIBUTING GIFTS, PROVIDING HOSPITALITY TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED RS.18,16,120/- BY REASONI NG THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,16,120/- WAS INCURRED TOWARDS T HE PURCHASE OF LAPTOP, MOBILE, WATCHES, AC MACHINES, T READMILL MACHINES ETC WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF GIFTS FOR DO CTORS AND PRACTITIONERS, AND AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00 ,000/- IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING INCURRED ON THE LODGING, BOARDING AND TRAVELLING OF THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS INVOKED AND CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-2 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIED A ND THEREFORE BE DELETED. 2. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE EM PLOYEES CONTRIBUTION PAYMENTS TOWARDS ESIC BEFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT AND HENCE MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS.4,11,378/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UPHELD THE DECISION OF T HE AO. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIED A ND THEREFORE BE DELETED. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR RS. 18,16,120/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE GIFT GIVEN TO THE DOC TORS AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PHARMAC EUTICAL FORMULATIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION HAS CLAIMED ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 3 - SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,58 ,01,210/- ONLY. THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES STAND AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) BOOKS AND PERIODICALS 6015785 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES 575642 TRAVELLING EXPS 30536540 PRINTING AND STATIONERY 31669873 SALES PROMOTION EXPS 125099386 CENTRAL EXCISE ON SAMPLE SALES 1903986 TOTAL 195801210 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE SALES PRO MOTION EXPENSES INCLUDE THE GIFT, FREEBIES, AND ARTICLES TO THE DOC TORS AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION TO T HE ASSESSEE AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 DATED 01/08/2012 AND THE C IRCULAR ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA BEARING NO.6.8.1 DATED 10/12/2009. 5. ON A QUESTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES IN CONTRAVENTION TO T HE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. 5.1. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS C UT-THROAT COMPETITION AMONG THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, THEREFORE TO IN CREASE THE SALES, IT ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 4 - USES TO PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVE TO THE CHEMISTS/MEDI CAL STORES. THESE INCENTIVES INCLUDE PEN, PAD, PAPER-WEIGHT, FLOWER P OTS, VOUCHERS, ANNUAL CALENDARS, ETC. WHICH WERE PRINTED WITH THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY. 5.2. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS 527 MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES (MRS). EACH MR IS SUPERVISING APP ROXIMATELY 170 MEDICAL SHOPS/CHEMIST SHOPS. THUS, IN EFFECT, THER E WERE AROUND 90000 CHEMISTS/MEDICAL STORES TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS SE LLING ITS PRODUCTS. AS SUCH, THESE INCENTIVES WERE PROVIDED TO THE CHEM ISTS/MEDICAL STORES WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF ANY DOCTOR/MEDICAL PRACT ITIONER. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE CIRCULA R ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND MCI. 5.3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PROMOTIN G ITS PRODUCT BY GIVING AN INCENTIVE TO THE CHEMISTS/MEDICAL STORES BY WAY OF PROVIDING SHOPPING BAGS, BPL SOLAR EMERGENCY LIGHT, MULTI-CHO ICE CAR HOLDER, MAXIM HOLDER, LAP-TOP BAG, ETC. THEREFORE, THESE E XPENSES ARE CATEGORIZED AS SALES PROMOTION WHICH BOOSTS THE SAL ES OF THE PRODUCT. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, ANY BENEFIT HAS BEEN EXTEND ED TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. 5.4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THER E ARE CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCH ASE OF LAPTOPS, WRIST WATCHES, MOBILE PHONES, AND CAMERA, ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,16,620/- WHICH WERE LIKE THE GIFTS TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PR ACTITIONERS. THESE GIFTS ITEMS CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS SALES PROMOTION EXPE NSES. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 5 - SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. 5.5. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FURNISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS DEPICTING THE BENEFITS IN MONETAR Y/NON-MONETARY BENEFIT EXTENDED TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONE RS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT D ETAILS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES TO JUSTIFY THAT THE D OCTORS AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS DID NOT INCUR THESE EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.5,00,000/- FOR BENEFIT EXTENDED TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTIT IONERS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF CBDT CIRCULAR/MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ROPOSED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- WHICH WAS AGREED BY T HE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESS EE. 5.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18,16,120/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO TH E LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE C IRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT DATED 01/08/2012 WHICH IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATUR E. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES BEFORE T HE DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THE CIRCULAR. ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 6 - 6.1. THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH OUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS MADE THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 6.2. THE CIRCULARS ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME TAX AU THORITIES, BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6.3. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT SIMILAR KIND OF DISALLOWANCES WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE DULY ADMITTED THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 5,00,000/- DURING THE HEARING. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD.AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING F ROM PAGES 1 TO 25 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO BENEFIT EXTENDED TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. ALL THESE EXPENSES ON THE GIFT ITEMS WERE INCURRED TO PROVIDE THE BENEFIT TO THE MEDICAL STOR ES AND CHEMIST SHOPS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REPRESENT LESS THAN 1 % OF THE TOTAL SALES ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 7 - PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HA S MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO COUNTS AS DISCUSSED BELOW. I. THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE PURCHASE OF LAPTOPS, W RIST WATCHES, MOBILE PHONES, AND CAMERAS, ETC. RS.13,16, 120/- WAS TREATED AS GIFTS GIVEN TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACT ITIONERS BY THE AO, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE ITEMS WE RE GIVEN TO THE DEALERS. BUT THE AO DISBELIEVED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO F URNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO F URNISH ANY SCHEME UNDER WHICH THESE ITEMS WERE GIVEN TO THE DE ALERS. II. THERE WAS NO DETAIL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EVIDE NCING THAT THE GIFT ITEMS WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE DOCTORS/ MEDIC AL PRACTITIONERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS OF THE ACTUAL RECIPIENT OF THE GIFT ARTICLE, THE AO MADE AN AD-HOC DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 5 LACS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGREED. 10.1. THE LD. CIT-A SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE AO. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE GIFTS, FREEBIES AND AN Y OTHER BENEFIT TO THE DOCTORS ARE PROHIBITED AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 37 OF THE ACT. THERE IS ALSO A CIRCULAR BEARING NUMBER 5/2012 (F.NO.225/ 142/2012-ITA.II) DATED 1 ST AUGUST 2012 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHICH PROHIBITS SUC H GIFTS OF THE DOCTORS. ACCORDING TO THE CIRCULAR, THE DEDUCTI ON TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENSES WILL NOT BE ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 8 - AVAILABLE. THE HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ALSO UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE CIRCULAR IN THE CASE OF CONFEDERATI ON OF INDIA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY (SSI) VS. CBDT REPORTED IN 353 ITR 388 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: SHRI VISHAL MOHAN, ADVOCATE, ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TIONER CONTENDS THAT THE CIRCULAR GOES BEYOND THE SECTION ITSELF. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS SUBMISSION. THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) M AKES IT CLEAR THAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PUR POSE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE SUM AND SUBS TANCE OF THE CIRCULARS ALSO THE SAME. IN CASE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES ARE NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING THE CIRCULAR THEN THE REMEDY LIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEALS UNDER THE INCOM E-TAX ACT BUT THE CIRCULAR WHICH IS TOTALLY IN LINE WITH SECTION 37(1 ) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. IN FACT PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE CIRCULAR QUOTED HEREINABOVE ITSELF CLARIFIES THAT THE VALUE OF THE FREEBIES ENJOYED BY THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER IS ALSO TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DEPENDING ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. THEREF ORE, IF THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THE EXPENDIT URE IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL TH EN IT MAY LEGITIMATELY CLAIM A DEDUCTION, BUT IT IS FOR THE A SSESSEE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENSE IS NOT IN VIOLAT ION OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL REGULATIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE. 10.2. DURING THE HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AGITATED FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSU ED BY THE CBDT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE REMAINS NO CONF USION THAT ANY EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXTEND THE BENE FIT TO THE DOCTORS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION BY THE EXPLANATION OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT THE AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. 10.3. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT THESE BENEFITS WERE GIVEN TO THE MEDICAL STORE/CHEMIST SH OPS. AS PER THE ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 9 - ASSESSEE, THERE WERE NO BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONER. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORD ER OF THE AO, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY PIECES OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE DEALERS HAVE NOT PASSE D ON THESE FREEBIES TO THE DOCTORS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO. 10.4. EVEN BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO BENEFIT EXT ENDED TO THE DOCTORS/MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS OUT OF THE PURCHASES OF LAPTOPS, WRIST WATCHES, MOBILE PHONES, CAMERAS, ETC. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB THE FINDIN G OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10.5. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY ADMITTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON AN AD- HOC BASIS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE ACTUA L RECIPIENT OF THESE GIFT ARTICLES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED TRAVELING EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE TRAVELING OF THE ME DICAL REPRESENTATIVES. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS EVIDENCING THAT THERE WAS NO BENEFIT EXTENDED TO THE DOCTORS /MEDIC AL PRACTITIONERS OUT OF SUCH TRAVELING EXPENSES. THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON AN AD-HOC BASIS. IN THIS REGARD, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT THE DOCTORS WERE NOT THE ACTUAL RECIPIENT OF THESE GIFT ARTICLES. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE AO HA D NO ALTERNATIVE ITA NO.637/AHD/2017 SHINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 2013-14 - 10 - EXCEPT TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS. THUS WE ARE INCLINED NOT TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/02/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, VADODARA 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12.1.2019 (DICTATION PAD 17- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.1.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.1.2.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1.2.19 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER