Teradata India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7890/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3877 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SHARMA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Application of stay; Wholly owned subsidiary; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 92B; 234B; 143(1); 143(2); 13; 22; 92CA

Judgement Text

1 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I-2 NEW DELHI SH. R. K. PANDA, ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JU DICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7890/ DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 TERADATA INDIA PVT. LTD. 301-302, 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER-4A, S- BLOCK, DLF CORPORATE PARK, DLF CITY PHASE III, GURUGRAM, HARYANA PAN : AACCT6715A (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) STAY APPLICATION N O. 955/DEL/2019 (IN ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 TERADATA INDIA PVT. LTD. 301-302, 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER-4A, S- BLOCK, DLF CORPORATE PARK, DLF CITY PHASE III, GURUGRAM, HARYANA PAN : AACCT6715A (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APP E L L ANT BY SH. AJIT KORDE , ADV. RESPONDENT BY MS. NIDHI SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08. 2019 PASSED U/S 144C(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED BY ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), GURGAON FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. DATE OF HEARING 22.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2019 2 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1 THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - TRANSFER PRICING OFFIC ER - 1(3), NEW DELHI (THE LEARNED TPO), THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), GURUGRAM (LEARNED AO) AND THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), GURUGRAM P URSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL -1, NEW DELH I (HONBLE DRP), ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID- AB-INITIO. 2 THE LEARNED AO FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED T PO AND THE HONBLE DRP HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE I N MAKING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,66,10,1151- ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST ON DELAYED RECEIVABLES. PART I - TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 3 THAT ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DRP/TPO/A O HAVE ERRED IN REJECTING THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE A PPELLANT BY CONDUCTING A FRESH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE IMPUGNED TRANSACT IONS. 4 THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE DRP/TPO/AO HAVE GROSS LY ERRED BY CHARGING INTEREST ON CREDIT PERIOD GRANTED BY THE C OMPANY UNDER NORMAL TRADE PRACTICES: I. BY IDENTIFYING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AS A SEPARA TE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION; II. BY RE-CHARACTERIZING THE NATURE OF OUTSTANDING REC EIVABLES AS LOAN ADVANCED TO ASSOCIATED ENTITIES (AES); III. BY DETERMINING THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRI CE (CUP) METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY C OMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION(S) THEREBY COMPROMISING TH E MOST FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT AND THE R ULES TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ; IV. BY APPLYING AN INTEREST RATE ON OUTSTANDING RE CEIVABLES AT LIBOR PLUS 400 BASIS POINTS. V. BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ACCOUNT RECEIVABLES A RISING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ARE CLOSELY LINKED TO THE MAIN TRANSACTION AND SHOULD BE BENCHMARKED, USING A COMBINED TRANSACTION APPROACH, BY MAKING A WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. VI. BY DISREGARDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN APPELLANTS 3 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 AND AY 2014-15. VII. BY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF KUSUM HEALTH CARE PRIVA TE LIMITED (ITA NO. 765/2016) BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. 5. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ONCE WORK ING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT IS GRANTED NO SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF OUT STANDING RECEIVABLES IS MAINTAINABLE. PART II- CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 6. THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS PASSED AN ORDER UNDE R SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) OF THE ACT WHICH SUFFERS FROM COMPUTATIONAL ERRORS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ERRED IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEMAND AND INTEREST PAYABLE AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT OF FOREIGN TA X CREDIT AMOUNTING TO INR 1,24,35,314. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF BASED ON THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. TERADATA INDIA WAS INCORPORATED ON 22 MAY 2007 A ND IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TERADATA BELGIUM HOLDINGS LLC, US WHICH IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TERADATA INTERNATIONAL INC., US . TERADATA CORPORATION, US HOLDS 100 PERCENT SHARES OF TERADATA INTERNATION AL INC, US. TERADATA INDIA IS THE LOCAL SALES AND DISTRIBUTION CENTRE IN INDIA OF TERADATA SOLUTIONS. TERADATA INDIA ALSO : 1) PROVIDES SOFTWA RE SERVICES; AND 2) HOSTS 4 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) GLOBAL CONSULTING CENTRE ('GCC') 'WHEREIN SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF IT ENABLED ARE PROVIDED TO OTHER NON-INDIAN TERADATA A SSOCIATED ENTITIES (*AES).FOR THE DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT, TERADATA INDI A IS ASSURED OF A TARGETED RETURN BY ITS AES AND FOR THE SOFTWARE SERVICES AND GCC SERVICES SEGMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REMUNERATED ON COST-PLUS BASIS WHER E ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RECOVERED ALONG WITH A MARK-UP FRO M THE AES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE OPERATES IN A RISK- MITIGATED ENVIRONM ENT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SAID SERVICES. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2015 DECLARING A TOTAL IN COME OF RS. 41,09,17,230. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 13 APRIL 2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. REFERENCE WAS MADE U/S 92CA OF THE ACT TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 MADE TOTAL ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 12,50,25,217/- . DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT, THE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ISSUED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE DRP. THE DRP ISSUED CERTAIN DIRECT ION TO THE TPO/ AO VIDE DIRECTION DATED 22.10.2018. THE ASSESSING OFFICER V IDE ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1,66,10,115 AS RE GARDS TO INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE CON TESTED HEREIN IS RELATED TO GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING CHARGING OF INTER EST ON CREDIT PERIOD GRANTED BY THE COMPANY UNDER NORMAL TRADE PRACTICES BY IDENTIFYING OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES AS A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND BY RE- CHARACTERIZING THE NATURE OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE S AS LOAN ADVANCED TO ASSOCIATED ENTITIES THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ASSESSEES OWN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15 BEARING ITA NO. 8054/DEL/20 18 ORDER DATED 5 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) 25.02.2019. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIVABLE IS RELA TED TO ITES SERVICE OR NOT SHOULD BE VERIFIED FIRST. THE LD. DR RELIED UPO N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED A LL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3 A RE GENERAL IN NATURE HENCE, DISMISSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 4, THE T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 HELD AS UNDER :- 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE L EARNED DRP DIRECTED TO GIVE WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON OUTSTANIDN NET RECEIVABLES BY APPLYING LIBOR + 400 BPS. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 87/DEL/2017 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2012-13 IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX VS. KUSUM HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 765/2016 VIDE J UDGMENT DATED 25 TH APRIL, 2017, HELD THAT NO SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVABLE IS REQUIRED WHEN WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTM ENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLES WHILE COMPAR ING THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE TNMM. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF TH E TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS ALONG WITH ORDER OF THE TPO, DRP & A.O. IN RES PECT OF FIRST ISSUE THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KUSUM HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS U NDER:- 10. THE COURT IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SUB MISSIONS. THE INCLUSION IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92B OF THE ACT OF THE EXPRESSION RECEIVABLES DOES NOT MEAN THAT DE HORS THE CONTEXT EVERY ITEM OF RECEIVABLES APPEARING IN THE ACCOUN TS OF AN ENTITY, WHICH MAY HAVE DEALINGS WITH FOREIGN AES WOULD AUTO MATICALLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THER E MAY BE A DELAY IN COLLECTION OF MONIES FOR SUPPLIES MADE, EVEN BEY OND THE AGREED 6 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) LIMIT, DUE TO A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS. IMPORTANTLY, THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE WORKING CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE STU DIED. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS TO BE A PROPER INQUIRY BY THE TPO BY ANALYZING THE STATISTICS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO DISCERN A PATTE RN WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT VIS--VIS THE RECEIVABLES FOR THE SUP PLIES MADE TO AN AE, THE ARRANGEMENT REFLECTS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTION INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE AE IN SOME WAY. 11. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE AO WAS ON JUST ON AY AND THE FIGURE OF RECEIVABLES IN RELATION TO THAT AY CAN HARDLY REFLECT A PATTERN THAT WOULD JUSTIFY A TPO CONCLUDI NG THAT THE FIGURE OF RECEIVABLES BEYOND 180 DAYS CONSTITUTES AN INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION BY ITSELF. WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALR EADY FACTORED IN THE IMPACT OF THE RECEIVABLES ON THE WORKING CAPITA L AND THEREBY ON ITS PRICING/PROFITABILITY VIS--VIS THAT OF ITS COM PARABLES, ANY FURTHER ADJUSTMENT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE OUTSTANDING REC EIVABLES WOULD HAVE DISTORTED THE PICTURE AND RE-CHARACTERIZED THE TRANSACTION. THIS WAS CLEARLY IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW AS EXPLAINED BY TH IS COURT IN CIT V. EKL APPLIANCES LTD. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (DELHI). THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALSO IDENTICAL T HEREFORE, SQUARELY COVERED BY THIS JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 4 & 5 ARE ALLOWED. 4.3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IN ITA NO. 7885/DEL /2017, ALSO THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 08 TH AUGUST, 2017, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., DE CIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DRP HAS ALSO ISSUED DIR ECTION IN ITS ORDER THAT THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER ANY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED/BEING F ILED BY THE 7 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE O RDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2012-2013 IN ITA.NO.87/DEL./2017 DATED 08 TH AUGUST, 2017. EVEN IF AN APPEAL WOULD HAVE BEEN PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT, IS NOT A GROUND TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN SET ASID E OR STAYED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED DRP COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER AND DELETE THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST RE CEIVABLES. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT ASSE SSMENT IS IDENTICAL. BESIDES, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR DOES NOT SUS TAIN AS THERE IS NO RECEIVABLES IN RELATION TO ITES SERVICES AS PER THE RECORDS. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE DRP WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETE THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTERES T RECEIVABLES THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 4 IS ALLOWED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 5 , THE SAME BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AS GROUND NO. 4 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 6 TO 9, THE SAME ARE CONSEQUENTIAL, HENCE ARE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON AT TH IS JUNCTURE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSE. THE STAY APPLICATION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS, THEREFORE, DISMISS ED. 8 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) 8. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D AND STAY APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 22/11/2019 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 (ITA NO. 7890/DEL/2019) (S.A. NO. 955/DE L/2019) DATE OF DICTATION 22/10 /2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22 / 10 /2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK