BMTC, BENGALURU V. Addl.D.I.T., BENGALURU

ITA 779/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3901 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI SHRI PRADEEP KUMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Cost of acquisition; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 32; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA NO. 779 / BANG/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10) 2. ITA NO.532/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) AND 3. ITA NO.5 99 /BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. PAN:AAACB 9672 Q VS. APPELLANT 1. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTIONS), RANGE 17, BENGALURU. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1), BENGALURU. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1), BENGALURU. RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.1536/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) (BY REVENUE) *** A SSESSEE BY : SHRI ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE. RE VENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING: 13 /0 8 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: /0 8 /2019 O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NO.799/BANG/2013 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/3/2013 OF THE CIT(A)-V, BENGALURU, R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 17 2. ITA NOS.532/BANG/2014 AND 599/BANG/2014 ARE AP PEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/2/2013 OF THE C IT(A)-V, BENGALURU, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.1536/BA NG/2016 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/6 /2016 OF THE CIT(A)-14, LTU, BENGALURU, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11. THIS APPEAL ARISES OUT OF ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO EARLIER ORDERS OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ALL THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES AND WERE HEARD TOGETHER. WE DEEM IT CONVENIENT TO PASS A COMMON O RDER. 3. THE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DECISION AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.779/BANG/2013 & ITA NO.532/BANG/2014 IS AS TO WH ETHER THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 ['THE ACT' FOR SHORT] AN D THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE AFORESAID ISSUE HAS T O BE ADJUDICATED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CO RPORATION FORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WITH THE SPEC IFIC PURPOSE OF PROVIDING GENERAL PUBLIC A SECURE AND ECONOMICAL AN D PROGRESSIVE TRANSPORT SERVICES AS SPECIFIED U/S 18 OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1950 [RTC ACT FOR SHORT]. THE ENTIRE EQUITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS OWNED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATIO N U/S 12A OF THE ACT ON 22/12/2000. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE BENEFITS O F EXEMPTION UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS EXISTIN G FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS DEFINED IN SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT HAS ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 17 BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2010 W.E.F. 01.04.2009 (I.E., W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10). IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ADVANCEMEN T OF ANY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH IS ONE OF THE PURPOSE S MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S.2(15) OF THE A CT. AS STATED EARLIER, THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS GIVEN IN SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, W.E.F. 1.4.20 09. BY THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT, A PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED TO THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2(15)CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE P OOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, [PRESERVATION OF ENVIRON MENT (INCLUDING WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PR ESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTO RIC INTEREST,] AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY: PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, I F IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY] ON 8/11/2011, THE DIT(EXEMPTION) PASSED ORDER CANCE LLING REGISTRATION W.E.F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES WERE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THERE FORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12 A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE DIT(EXEMPTION) DATED 8/11/2011 AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.39/BANG/2012 ORDER DATED 20/2/2015 QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE DIT(EXEMPTION) AND RESTORE D REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO CO NFIRMED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.301 OF 2015 ORDER DATED 12.2.2016 ANSWERING ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 20 10-11 WHICH ARE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 17 IN DISPUTE IN THESE APPEALS WERE INITIATED PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. SO ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) WERE PASSED WHICH EARLIER TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTO RING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AO FIRSTLY REFERRED TO THE FACT OF CANCELLATION OF REG ISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BY ORDER DATED 8/11/2011 AND ALSO CAME TO CONCL USION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE O F BUSINESS AND WAS, THEREFORE, NOT EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) IT WAS PROVIDING LUXURY BUSES FULLY AIR-CONDITIONED ON HIRE FOR EXCURSION, WEDDING, PILGRIMAGE ETC., TO GENERAL PUB LIC AND CHARGES FOR SUCH LETTING ARE COLLECTED ON COMMERCIA L BASIS. II) THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING ADVERTISEMENTS ON BUSUS AND CHARGING SUBSTANTIAL FEES. III) THE NON-OPERATING REVENUE WAS LESS THAN NON-TRAFFIC REVENUE. IV) IN ALL BUS DEPOTS IN THE CITY OF BENGALURU COMMERCI AL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ABOVE BUS TERMINUS AND LET OU T ON COMMERCIAL BASIS TO SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THESE ARE THE PRIMARY REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE AO FO R COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXISTING FOR C HARITABLE PURPOSE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DE DUCTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO. HENCE, THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACTS IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS THEY PRE VAILED IN 2009-10. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN ON IDENTI CAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WILL NOT RENDER THE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 17 ASSESSEE AS NOT EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE MAIN DECISIONS CITED WERE THE FOLLOWING: (I) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVT.BOARD VS. DIT I TA NO.661/BANG/2014 ORDER DATED 20.4.2016. (II) BANGAL ORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ADDL.CIT ITA NO.1104/BANG/2017 ORDER DATED 22.3.2019. (III) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS. DGIT(EXEMPTION) (371 ITR 333)(DEL). 6. LD. DR, HOWEVER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE PANAJI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA VS. CIT (2013) 34 TAXMAN.COM 210 (PANAJI-TRIB.) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT ORGANIZING AND HOSTING OF INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL AND BUILDING MULTIPLEXE S, AUDITORIUM ETC., AND DERIVING INCOME FROM SPONSORING AND ADMINISTRAT IVE CHARGES FOR CONDUCTING FILM FESTIVAL AMOUNTS TO TRADE OR COMMER CE AND IS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (356 ITR 360)(AP) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES SOCIETY WAS CARRYING ON FUNCTIONS OF CERTIFICATION OF SEEDS AGENCY UNDER SEEDS ACT, 1966. THE SEED GROWERS ENTERED INTO CO NTRACT WITH THE SOCIETY FOR CERTIFICATION OF SEEDS BEFORE THEY WERE SOLD IN THE MARKET. THE PETITIONER COLLECTED FEE FOR PROVIDING CERTIFIC ATION. THE PETITIONER CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT. RELI ANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUBHARAM TRUST VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) (2010)126 ITD 33 (ITAT, ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 17 BENG.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BUILDING KALYANMANT APA AND DERIVING RENT FROM LETTING OUT OF THE SAME WILL BE THE NATUR E OF TRADING ACTIVITIES AND HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. TH ESE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT STAT UTORY CORPORATION SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID DECISIONS WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASS ISTANCE TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THE ASSESSEE IS FORMED UNDER THE RTC ACT, 1950 TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM TO THE PUBLIC. IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THIS PURPOSE IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE I.E., ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY . THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CAME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS ON THE B ASIS OF SOURCE OF REVENUE DERIVED FROM RENTING OF SPACE AND ADVERTISE MENTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY PRI VATE PROFIT EARNED FROM THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE BENGALURU BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE INDUSTRIAL AREA D EVL.CORPN.(SUPRA), HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF C HARITABLE ORGANIZATION HAS TO BE EXAMINED BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION REGARDING APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(1 5) OF THE ACT. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS. DGIT(EXEMPTI ON) (371 ITR 333)(DEL). THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION (SUPRA) WERE THAT THE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 17 ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE ENJOYED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPT ION U/S.10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT. SEC.10(23C)(IV) PROVIDES ANY INCOME REC EIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER FUND OR INSTITUTION E STABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHICH MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PR ESCRIBED AUTHORITY, HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTS OF THE FUND OR INSTITUTION AND ITS IMPORTANCE THROUGHOUT INDIA OR THROUGHOUT ANY STATE OR STATES, SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. TH E PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WITHDREW THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE CONSEQUENT TO THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE AC T, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING RENTAL INCOME FROM LETTIN G OUT SPACE FOR RENT DURING TRADE FAIRS AND EXHIBITIONS, WAS DERIVING IN COME FROM SALE OF TICKETS AND INCOME FROM FOOD AND BEVERAGE OUTLETS. THE SAID WITHDRAWAL WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD TO GO INTO THE QUE STION AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. THE H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING VERY IMPORTANT PR INCIPLES AS TO HOW THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE INTER PRETED: (I) THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2009 HAS TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART HAS REFERE NCE TO THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE SECOND PART HAS REFERENCE TO ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATI ON TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. BOTH THESE PARTS A RE FURTHER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE ACTIVITIE S SO CARRIED OUT ARE FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OR USE OR APPLICATION OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF, BY VIRTUE OF A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, INCOME IS GENERATED BY ANY OF THE TWO SETS OF ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO ABOVE, TH E NATURE OF USE OF SUCH INCOME OR APPLICATION OR RETE NTION ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 17 OF SUCH INCOME IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUING THE ACTIVITIES AS CHARITABLE OR NOT. (II) IF AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON AND IT GENERATES INCOME, THE FACT THAT SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES , WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND THE ACTIVITY WOUL D NONETHELESS NOT BE REGARDED AS BEING CARRIED ON FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISO, THEN IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT THIS FACT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON DETERMINING THE NATUR E OF THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE PETITIONER. BUT, IN DECIDING WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY IS IN THE NATURE OF T RADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF PROFIT MAKING OR NOT. SIMILA RLY, WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY IS ONE OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THE ELEMENT OF PROFIT MAKING IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. (III) THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES' HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF INCOME, BECAUSE, IT IS ONLY WHEN THERE IS INCOME THE QUESTI ON OF NOT INCLUDING THAT INCOME IN THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD ARISE. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE AN INSTITUTION, WH ICH OTHERWISE IS ESTABLISHED FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, RECEIVES INCOME WOULD NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS A CHARIT ABLE INSTITUTION. WHETHER THAT INSTITUTION, WHICH IS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, WILL GET THE EXEMPTION WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION AND ITS IMPORTANC E THROUGHOUT INDIA OR THROUGHOUT ANY STATE OR STATES. (IV) MERELY, BECAUSE AN INSTITUTION DERIVES INCOME OUT OF ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE COMMERCIAL, THAT DOES, IN A NY WAY, AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE INSTITUTION AS A CHAR ITABLE INSTITUTION IF IT OTHERWISE QUALIFIES FOR SUCH A CH ARACTER. (V) MERELY BECAUSE A FEE OR SOME OTHER CONSIDERATION IS COLLECTED OR RECEIVED BY AN INSTITUTION, IT WOULD N OT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR A CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE. IF THE DOMINANT ACTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTIO N WAS NOT BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE, THEN ANY SUCH INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY ACTIVITY WOULD ALSO NOT FAL L WITHIN THE CATEGORIES OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IF T HE DRIVING FORCE IS NOT THE DESIRE TO EARN PROFITS BUT TO DO CHARITY, THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT IN THE FIRST PROV ISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT WOULD NOT APPLY. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 17 (VI) IF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION WERE TO BE GIVEN TO THE SAID PROVISO, THEN IT WOULD RISK BEING HIT BY ARTICLE 14 (THE EQUALITY CLAUSE ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION). COURTS SHOULD ALWAYS ENDEAVOUR TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A PROVISION A ND, IN DOING SO, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION MAY HAVE TO BE READ DOWN, AS POINTED OUT ABOVE. (VII) SECTION 2(15) IS ONLY A DEFINITION CLAUSE. SECTION 2 BEGINS WITH THE WORDS, IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CON TEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES. THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURP OSE' APPEARING IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT HAS TO B E SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IV). WHEN TH E EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE', AS DEFINED IN SECT ION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT, IS READ IN THE CONTEXT OF SE CTION 10(23C)(IV) OF THE SAID ACT, WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP THE STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' BY THE REVENUE. (VIII) THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE', AS DEFI NED IN SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE CONSTRUED LITERALLY AND IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT WOULD BE T HAT IT CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FROM THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THAT EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVI TY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. IN BOTH THE ACTIVITIES, IN THE NATUR E OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THE DOMINANT AND THE PRIME OBJECTIVE HAS TO BE SEEN. IF THE DOMINANT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE OF THE INSTITUTION, WHICH CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IS PROFIT MAKI NG, WHETHER ITS ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTLY IN THE NATURE O F TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR INDIRECTLY IN THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM IT S OBJECT TO BE A 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE'. ON THE FLIP SI DE, WHERE AN INSTITUTION IS NOT DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY A D ESIRE OR MOTIVE TO EARN PROFITS, BUT TO DO CHARITY THROUG H THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, IT CANNOT BUT BE REGARDED AS AN INSTITUTION ESTABLISHE D FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). 8. KEEPING IN MIND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN AS ABO VE, LET US EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A STATUT ORY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE RTC ACT, 1950. IT IS NOT DRI VEN B PROFIT MOTIVE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 10 OF 17 BUT IS FOR PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TO M EMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THE STATE GOVERNMENT FIXES FARES FOR TRAVEL BY PUBL IC. BUSES PLY IN AREAS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. SE C.18 OF THE RTC ACT, 1950 LAYS DOWN DUTIES OF THE CORPORATION WHICH IS T O PROVIDE, SECURE AND PROMOTE EFFICIENT, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL AND PRO PERLY COORDINATED SYSTEM OF ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICES IN THE STATE OF K ARNATAKA. SEC.22 OF THE RTC ACT, 1950 LAYS DOWN THAT THE CORPORATION SH OULD ACT ON BUSINESS PRINCIPLES IN THE SENSE IT HAS TO RECOVER THE COST OF SERVICES RENDERED TO THE PUBLIC WHICH MEANS THAT IT CANNOT P ROVIDE SERVICE FREE OF COST. SEC.30 OF THE RTC ACT, 1950 PROVIDES HOW PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE DISPOSED AND IT LAYS DOWN THAT THE SAME SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR ROAD DEVELOPMENT. THE NON TRAFFIC RE VENUE OF THE CORPORATION IS RS.234,65,02,000/- IN AY 2010-11 AND A SUM OF RS.2,58,76,489/- ALONE IS ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE. 9. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF T HE RTC ACT, 1950 WHICH WE HAVE SET OUT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE OR DER THAT THE DOMINANT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROFIT M AKING. PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARI TABLE PURPOSES. THE STREAM OF TRAFFIC REVENUE AND NON TRAFFIC REVENUE B Y ITSELF WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXIST FOR PR OFIT. 10. KEEPING IN MIND THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE KIDA ACT, AND PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE AFORES AID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA PROMO TION ORGANIZATION (SUPRA), IN OUR VIEW, WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY DESIRE OR MOTIVE TO EARN PROFITS BUT T O DO CHARITY THROUGH ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT IS THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC.11 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS NOT DISPU TED THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT, EXCEPT THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO TO SEC.2(15) OF THE ACT. I N VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSIONS THAT THE SAID PROVISO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 11 OF 17 ASSESSEE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS ENT ITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC.11 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSI ON ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL BECOME ACADEMIC AND REQUIRE NO CONSIDERATION. 11. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS CONCERNED, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND IN VIEW OF TH E CONCLUSION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE ENTI TLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SEC.11 OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER ISSUES WOULD BEC OME ACADEMIC AND REQUIRE NO CONSIDERATION. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCOR DINGLY. 12. AS FAR AS ITA 599/BANG/2014 WHICH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2010-11, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO GRANT OF DE PRECIATION. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE ASSESSEE EXISTS FOR A CHARITA BLE PURPOSE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2010-11, THE AO NOTICED FROM THE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, T HAT DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON ASSETS, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE S AID ASSETS HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TOWA RDS APPLICATION OF FUNDS TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ALLOWED AS SUCH. ACCORDING TO THE AO, ALLOWING SUCH A CLAIM WOULD AMOUNT TO AL LOWING DOUBLE DEDUCTION. ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ESCORTS LIMITED & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA 199 ITR 43 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHEN DEDUCTION U/S 35(2)(IV) IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCIENT IFIC RESEARCH, NO DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 32 ON THE SAME ASSET. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 12 OF 17 THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HON'BLE HIGH COURT O F KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF ALL SAINTS CHURCH, 148 ITR 786 (KAR) AND SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF ST. ANN, 146 ITR 28 (KAR) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT WHERE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF DEPRECIABLE ASSET IS CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, ALLOW ING DEPRECIATION ON THE VERY SAME CAPITAL ASSET WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO DOU BLE ALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE AS IT WAS RENDERED ON A DIFF ERENT SET OF FACTS. THE AO HOWEVER, HELD THAT ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N WHEN THE COST HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOVERED BY WAY OF EXEMPTION AS A PPLICATION OF INCOME AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION AND DOUBLE BENEF IT ON THE SAME ASSET. THE AO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE OF H ON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF DDIT(E) V. LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS, 348 ITR 344 (KER) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF A DEPRECIABLE ASSET WHEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF DEPRECIABLE A SSET WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AMOUNT S TO DOUBLE DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE A LLOWED. THE AO ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A), DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVA NT GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GROUND NO.1 (I) TO (IV) I N ALL THE APPEALS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 13 OF 17 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR, WHO R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE AO. IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE ITAT BANGALORE BEN CH IN THE CASE OF DDIT(E) V. CUTCHI MEMON UNION (2013) 60 SOT 260 BAN GALORE ITAT , WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THIS T RIBUNAL. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION A ND THE AO DENIED DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF ACQU IRING THE RELEVANT CAPITAL ASSET, COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CONSIDERED A S APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ITS ACQUISITION. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION WOULD AMOUNT TO ALLOWING DOUB LE DEDUCTION AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) . THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IF DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED AS A NECESSARY DEDUCTION FOR COMPUTI NG INCOME OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, THEN THERE IS NO WAY TO PR ESERVE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST FOR DERIVING THE INCOME AS IT I S NOTHING BUT A DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY THROUGH WEAR, DET ERIORATION, OR OBSOLESCENCE. SINCE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECT ION 11(1) HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER, THE AMO UNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED IN THE BOOKS IS DEDUCTIBLE WHI LE COMPUTING SUCH INCOME. IT WAS SO HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF ST. ANNE 146 ITR 28 (KAR). IT WAS HELD IN CIT VS. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , FOLLOWING CIT VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 THAT DEPRECIATION CAN BE CLAIMED BY A CHARITABLE INSTITU TION IN DETERMINING PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS APPLIED FOR THE PUR POSE OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS. CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION WILL NOT AMOUNT TO DOUBLE BENEFIT. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. 199 ITR 43 (SC) HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AND DISTINGUISHED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 14 OF 17 21. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI, 330 ITR 16 (P&H) . THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING SEVERAL DECISI ONS ON THAT ISSUE AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) , CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON CAPITAL ASSETS ON THE INCOME OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF FUN DS WHICH HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUSTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH A CASE OF TWO DEDUCT IONS UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ONE U/S. 32 FOR DE PRECIATION AND THE OTHER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF A CAPITAL NA TURE INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH U/S. 35(1)(IV) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT THEREAFTER HELD THAT A TRUST CLAIMING DEPRECI ATION CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH A CLAIM FOR DOUBLE DEDUCTION. THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF ANNE, 146 ITR 28 (KAR), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT U/S. 11(1) OF THE ACT, INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN NORM AL COMMERCIAL MANNER AND THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DE BITED IN THE BOOKS IS DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING SUCH INCOME . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION ON THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 22. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. 16. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R AJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA, (2018) 89 TAX MANN.COM 127(SC) HAS SINCE CONFIRMED THE VIEW THAT DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION EVEN WHEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE DEPRECIABLE ASSET HAS BEEN TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YE AR OF ITS ACQUISITION. WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT THE LEGAL POSITION HAS SINCE B EEN AMENDED BY A PROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 20 14 W.E.F. 1.4.2015 BY INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 15 OF 17 (6) IN THIS SECTION WHERE ANY INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION, THEN, FOR SUCH PURPOSES THE INCOME SHALL BE DETERMINED WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET, ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THIS SECTION IN THE SAM E OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR. 17. AS ALREADY STATED, THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT IS PROS PECTIVE AND WILL APPLY ONLY FROM A.Y. 2015-16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DISMISSED. THERE IS NO ME RIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 18. AS FAR AS ITA NO.1536/BANG/2016 IS CONCERNED, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 19. IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION ON THE PRELIMINAR Y ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR AY 2009-10 & 2010-11, OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CO NSIDERATION. AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF SEC.11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND RE-COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 16 OF 17 20. IN THE RESULT, ITA NOS.532/BANG/2014 AND 779 /BANG/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.599/BANG/2014 IS DISMISSED A ND ITA NO.1536/BANG/2016 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2019 . SD/- SD/- S S - SD/ - ( JASON P BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT PLACE : BENGALURU DATED : 21/08/2019 SRINIVASULU/VMS, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE ITA NOS.779/BANG/2013, 532 & 599/BANG/2014 & 1536/B ANG/2016 PAGE 17 OF 17 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER .