Handytankers K/S agent of F.B. Maersk Tankers C/o Atlantic Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Sikka V. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, (International Taxation), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 91/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4281 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FROM E-COURT AT AHMEDAB AD) [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND RAJPAL YADAV JM] ITA NO. 756/RJT/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S ...........APPELLAN T [AS FOREIGN COMMERCIAL MANAGER / AGENT OF PRINCIPAL FREIGHT BENEFICIARY, MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (MTSPL)] AGENT: ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.12, PANCHVATI COLONY, SIKKA-361 140 [PAN: AADFL 6763 E] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) .......RESPONDENT RAJKOT, GUJARAT ITA NO. 276/RJT/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S ...........APPELLAN T [AS FOREIGN COMMERCIAL MANAGER / AGENT OF PRINCIPAL FREIGHT BENEFICIARY, MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (MTSPL)] AGENT: INTEROCEAN SHIPPING (I) PVT. LTD., 301-MILESTONE, P.N. MARG, PACHWATI, OPP. TRIVENI APARTMENTS, JAMNAGAR-361 002 [PAN: AADFL 6763 E] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) .......RESPONDENT RAJKOT, GUJARAT ITA NO. 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 HANDYTANKERS K/S ...........APPELLANT [AS FOREIGN COMMERCIAL MANAGER / AGENT OF PRINCIPAL FREIGHT BENEFICIARY, MAERSK TANKERS A/S] AGENT: ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.12, PANCHVATI COLONY, SIKKA-361140 [PAN: AAQCS 7210 M] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TA XATION).......RESPONDENT RAJKOT, GUJARAT ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 10 APPEARANCES BY PORUS KAKA, SR. ADVOCATE, ALONGWITH MANISH KANTH, FOR THE APPELLANT JITENDER KUMAR, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL : 10.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THIS ORDER: 09.08.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. ONE OF THE COMMON GRIEVANCES RAISED IN ALL THES E APPEALS IS THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN PASSING A FINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT FIRST IS SUING A DRAFT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND MERITS TO BE QUASHED. 2. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY ACCEPT THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE OF LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S VS. INC OME TAX OFFICER [(2015) 63 TAXMANN.COM 42 (RAJKOT TRIB.)], WHEREIN WE HAVE OBS ERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 5. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO FIRST CONSIDER IS WHETHER AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) CAN BE SAID TO BE AN 'ASSESSMENT ORD ER' BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT OF SERVING A DRAFT ORDER ON THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY IN RE SPECT OF AN 'ASSESSMENT ORDER'. SECTION 144C(1) CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO 'FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREAF TER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DRAFT ORDER) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE' AND THUS GIVE AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE OPTION OF APPROACHING THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL BEFORE THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED. UNLESS, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSE D UNDER SECTION 172(4) CAN BE TREATED AS AN 'ASSESSMENT ORDER', THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 144C CANNOT COME INTO PLAY. 6. THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. IN THE CASE OF EMIRATES SHIPPING LINE FZE V. ASSTT.DIT [2012] 349 ITR 493/211 TAXMAN 82/2 3 TAXMANN.COM 400 (DELHI) , HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO ADJUDIC ATE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 172(4) CAN BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBJECTING A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT TO RE OPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THEIR LORDSHIP S OBSERVED HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OPTION TO SEEK REGULAR ASSESSMENT O F INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(3), AND THAT 'IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CA SE OR IN CASES IN WHERE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IS MADE UNDER SECTION 172(4) OF THE ACT'. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT 'SECTION 147 DOES NOT REFER TO AN ASSESSMENT O RDER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OR (3)' WHICH IS THE SAME POSITION SO FAR AS SECTION 144C I S CONCERNED. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THAT SECTION 172(4) ASSESSES TH E INCOME, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF INCOME WHICH CAN BE FOLLO WED BY A, WHAT IS TERMED AS 'REGULAR' ASSESSMENT OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(3) . AS THE PRIVY COUNCIL POINTED OUT IN THE CASE OF SETH BADRIDAS DAGA V. CIT [1949] 17 ITR 209 , THE WORD ASSESS AND ASSESSMENT REFER PRIMARILY TO THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME. THEREFORE AN ORDER ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 10 COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME IS ESSENTIALLY AN ASSE SSMENT ORDER. WHETHER IT IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT OR AN AD HOC OR SUMMARY ASSESSME NT, IT IS AN ASSESSMENT NEVERTHELESS, AND, THEREFORE, ANY ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 172(4) IS ALSO AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONCE WE HOLD SO, IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE ON LEARNED COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED QUA AN AGENT AND QUA AN ASSESSMENT YEAR, RATHER THAN QUA A VESSE L, IT IS DE FACTO AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3). AS WE HOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO BE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS ALSO USEFUL TO TAKE NOTE OF, AS WAS TA KEN BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EMIRATES SHIPPING LINE FZE (SUPRA), THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AS GLITTRE V. CIT [1997] 225 I TR 739/91 TAXMAN 286 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT: '6. THE SCHEME OF S. 172 OF THE ACT APPEARS TO BE T HIS : S. 172(1) OF THE ACT GIVES A RIGHT TO THE ITO TO LEVY AND RECOVER TAX IN THE CASE OF ANY SHIP BELONGING TO A NON-RESIDENT, IN A SUMMARY MANNER (AD HOC ASSE SSMENT) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE A CT. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SAME. NORMALLY, THIS WILL BE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE YEAR. BUT, UNDER S. 172(7) OF THE ACT A RIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE TO CLAIM BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE DATE OF DEPARTURE OF THE SHIP FROM THE INDIAN PORT FALLS, THAT AN ASS ESSMENT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IN A REGULAR MANNER BE MADE. THUS A RIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO OPT FOR A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ALTHOUGH A 'ROUGH AND READY' OR A 'SUMMARY ASSESSMENT' HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER S. 172(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS A VALUABLE RIGHT. IF THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE RIGHT CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER S. 172(7) OF THE ACT, THE ITO IS BOUND TO MAKE AN ASSE SSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TAX PA YABLE ON THE BASIS THEREOF 'SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT' AND ANY PAYMENT MADE UNDER THE SECTION (EARLIER) 'SHALL BE TREATED AS A PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF THE TAX' LEVIABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YE AR AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUM SO PAID AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX FOUND PAYABLE BY HIM ON SUCH ASSESSMENT, SHALL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OR REFUND ED TO HIM. THE 'AD HOC' ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S. 172(4) OF THE ACT IS SUPER SEDED AND A 'REGULAR ASSESSMENT' IS MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T. IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS ONLY PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO HOLD THAT ALL 'THE PROVIS IONS' OF THE ACT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE TAX LIABILITY INCLUDING THE AN CILLARY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS PERTAINING TO IT ARE NECESSAR ILY ATTRACTED.' 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WHILE IT WOULD INDEED SEEM THAT AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS A N ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COR OLLARIES TO THIS CONCLUSION. TO APPRECIATE THESE DIFFICULTIES, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCHEME OF REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP, IN SHORT) AS SET OUT IN SECTION 144(1). FOR READY REFERENCE, THIS SECTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. 144C. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTAND ING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FORWA RD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED T O AS THE DRAFT ORDER) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFT ER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 10 (2) ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASS ESSEE SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE DRAFT ORDER, (A) FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATIONS TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER; OR (B) FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH , (I) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL; AND (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAFT ORDER, IF (A) THE ASSESSEE INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION; OR (B) NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIF IED IN SUB- SECTION (2). (4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING AN YTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 OR SECTION 153B, PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDE R SUB-SECTION (3) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH, (A) THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED; OR (B) THE PERIOD OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (2) EXPIRES. (5) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL, IN A CASE W HERE ANY OBJECTION IS RECEIVED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIO NS, AS IT THINKS FIT, FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. (6) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL ISSUE THE DI RECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (5), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING, NAMEL Y: (A) DRAFT ORDER; (B) OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; (C) EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE; (D) REPORT, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VALUATION OFFICER OR TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY; (E) RECORDS RELATING TO THE DRAFT ORDER; (F) EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY, OR CAUSED TO BE COLLECTED BY , IT; AND (G) RESULT OF ANY ENQUIRY MADE BY, OR CAUSED TO BE MADE BY, IT. (7) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY, BEFORE ISSUIN G ANY DIRECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (5), (A) MAKE SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRY, AS IT THINKS FIT; OR (B) CAUSE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY TO BE MADE BY ANY INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 10 AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO IT. (8) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL MAY CONFIRM, REDUC E OR ENHANCE THE VARIATIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDER SO, HOWEVER, THAT IT SH ALL NOT SET ASIDE ANY PROPOSED VARIATION OR ISSUE ANY DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY AND PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREB Y DECLARED THAT THE POWER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL TO ENHANCE THE VARIATI ON SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED THE POWER TO CONSIDE R ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE DRAFT OR DER, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS RAISED OR NOT BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSES SEE. (9) IF THE MEMBERS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL DIFFER IN OPINION ON ANY POINT, THE POINT SHALL BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS. (10) EVERY DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTI ON PANEL SHALL BE BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (11) NO DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) SHALL BE IS SUED UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, RESPECTIVELY. (12) NO DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) SHALL BE IS SUED AFTER NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DRAFT ORDER IS FO RWARDED TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. (13) UPON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SU B-SECTION (5), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS, C OMPLETE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 O R SECTION 153B, THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONT H IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTION IS RECEIVED. (14) THE BOARD MAY MAKE RULES FOR THE PURPOSES OF T HE EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOS AL OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. (15) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) 'DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL' MEANS A COLLEGIUM COMPRI SING OF THREE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMISSIONERS OF INCOM E- TAX CONSTITUTED BY THE BOARD FOR THIS PURPOSE; (B) 'ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE' MEANS, (I) ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE VARIATION REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) ARISES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92CA; AND (II) ANY FOREIGN COMPANY.' 8. IF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF REFERENCE TO THE DRP ARE TO BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 172(4), IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144(1), IT IS ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 10 INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIRST FORWA RD A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) TO THE ASSESSEE, AND IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 144C(2)(B) OR WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR RAISING SUCH OBJECTIONS EXPIRES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN GO AHEAD TO PASS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PROPOSED. WHILE, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 144C(4) AND 144C(15), THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS GETS SUITABLY EXTENDED FOR THIS EXERCISE SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER SECT IONS 143, 144, 147, 148 AND 153A ETC. ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO SUCH ENABLING PROVISION FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER BECOME S EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE INDEED OPTS FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DRP BECAUSE IN SUCH A CASE, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS WORKABLE, THE LIMITATI ON PERIOD FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO SUITABLY GET EXTENDED FOR T AKING CARE OF THE PERIOD OF TIME TAKEN BY THE DRP IN ADJUDICATING UPON THE OBJECTION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GI VE EFFECT TO SUCH DIRECTIONS BUT THEN THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE STATUTE FOR SO EXTENDI NG THE LIMITATION PERIOD SO FAR AS THE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 172(4) ARE CONCERNED. THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS SET OUT IN SECTION 172(4A) WHICH PROVIDES THAT, 'NO ORDER ASSESSING THE INCOME AND DETERMINING THE SUM OF TAX PAYABLE T HEREON SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FRO M THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) IS FURNISHED '. WHILE UNDER SECTION 144C(15), NOTWITHSTANDING TIME LIMIT SET OUT IN SECTIONS 153 AND 153B, THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP CAN BE PASSED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED, THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION UNDER WHICH SUCH TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 172(4A) CAN BE RELAXE D. WHEN THE DRP ITSELF IS ALLOWED A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE TIME ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO PASS ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4A) IS NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE VESSEL VOYAGE RETURN, I.E. RETURN UNDER SECTION 172(3), IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN ALL THESE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE GIVEN LITERAL INTERPRETATION, SUCH A TIME LIMIT, IN THE CASE OF DRP REFERENCE BEING ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IS WHOLLY UNWORKABLE. TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, IF A VESSEL VOYAGE RETURN IS RECEIVED ON 30TH MARCH OF AN YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE JUST ON E DAY TO FURNISH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) TO THE ASSESS EE, AND NOT EVEN A DAY TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP AS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 144C(8). THE REASON IS THIS. IN RESPECT OF VOYAGE VESSEL RETURNS RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH OF AN YEAR, UNDER SECTION 172(4A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO NECESSARILY PASS THE ORDER WITHIN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR AND UNLESS HE FORWARDS THE DR AFT ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN MARCH ITSELF, THE DRP CANNOT BE UND ER A STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS ON OR BEFORE THE END OF DECEMBER THAT YE AR. SIMILARLY, WHEN A VVR IS RECEIVED AT THE CLOSING OF THE WORKING HOURS OF THE LAST WORKING DAY OF MARCH OF AN YEAR, NO ASSESSMENT CAN AT ALL BE DONE IN THE CASE OF AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE. THESE RESULTS ARE CLEARLY INCONGRUOUS AND PATENTLY ABSURD . 9. THAT TAKES US TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT SHOULD THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES LIKE THIS TRIBUNAL TO DO WHEN FACED WITH SUCH A SITUATION. WE FIND GUIDANCE FROM HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HIND USTAN BULK CARRIERS [2003] 259 ITR 449/126 TAXMAN 321 , WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THAT, 'A CONSTRUCTION WHIC H REDUCES THE STATUTE TO A FUTILITY HAS TO BE AVOIDED' AND TH AT 'A STATUTE OR ANY ENACTING PROVISION THEREIN MUST BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO MAKE IT EFFECTIV E AND OPERATIVE ON THE PRINCIPLE EXPRESSED IN MAXIM UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT I.E., A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PUT UPON WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, SO AS TO UP HOLD THEM, IF POSSIBLE, AND CARRY INTO EFFECT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. [SEE BROO M'S LEGAL MAXIMS (10TH EDITION), P. 361, CRAIES ON STATUTES (7TH EDITION) P. 95 AND MAX WELL ON STATUTES (11TH EDITION) P. ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 7 OF 10 221.]' UNLESS THE RELAXATION ON THE PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS READ AS INCLUDING THE RELAXATION ON THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AND THE REFERENCES TO SECTION 15 3 AND 153B AS ILLUSTRATIVE RATHER THAN EXHAUSTIVE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C CAN NOT BE TREATED AS INCLUDING ALL THE CASES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AND NOT MERELY FOR ASSE SSMENT ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 143(3) AND 153A. THE INTERPRETATION THAT RELAXATION IN TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS ONLY UNDER SECTIONS 143(3) AND 153A AS THE INTENTION OF SECTION 144C WAS ONLY TO COVER THE ASSESSMENTS UNDE R SECTIONS 143 AND 153A WILL ALSO BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS EVIDEN T FROM THE NOTES ON CLAUSES TO THE FINANCE BILL 2009 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C WERE INTENDED FOR THE FOREIGN COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF MATTERS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING, AND NOT MERELY FOR T HE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR 153A- WHICH APPEARS TO BE WHOLLY IRRELEVA NT IN THIS CONTEXT. THESE NOTES ON CLAUSES, AT PAGE 63 OF THE DOCUMENT (HTTP://WWW.IND IABUDGET.NIC.IN/UB2009- 10/FB/BILL10.PDF), STATE AS FOLLOWS: CLAUSE 55 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO INSERT A NEW SECTION 144C IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT RELATING TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. THE SUBJECTS OF TRANSFER PRICING AUDIT AND THE TAXA TION OF FOREIGN COMPANY ARE AT NASCENT STAGE IN INDIA. OFTEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER S AND TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS TEND TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE VIEW. THE CORR ECTION OF SUCH VIEWS TAKES VERY LONG TIME WITH THE EXISTING APPELLATE STRUCTUR E. WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDE SPEEDY DISPOSAL, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE INCOME -TAX ACT SO AS TO CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM WITHIN THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 144C HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE I NSERTED SO AS TO PROVIDE INTER ALIA THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL AS AN ALTER NATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM. 10. THERE IS THUS NO MEETING GROUND BETWEEN IMPLEME NTING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BE COURTS ABOVE, WHICH IS ALSO IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACTS FROM 'NOTES ON CLAU SES', AND THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION TO THE PROVISION REGARDING RELAXATION TO THE TIME L IMITS SET OUT IN SECTIONS 153 AND 153B. THE CHOICE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS BETWEEN INTERP RETING THE CONNOTATIONS OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BL E COURTS ABOVE, IN FURTHERING THE SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT, IN INTRODUCING SECTION 144C, AND THUS READING THE REFERENCES TO SECTION 153 AND 153B, AS APPEARIN G IN SECTION 144C(4) AND 144C(15), AS ILLUSTRATIVE RATHER THAN EXHAUSTIVE, A ND BETWEEN INTERPRETING THE CONNOTATIONS OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE COURTS ABOVE, IN CONSTRUING THE SCHEME OF SECTION 144C CON TRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT, IN INSERTING SECTION 144C, A ND, AND IN THUS READING THE REFERENCES TO SECTIONS 153 AND SECTION 153B, AS APP EARING IN SECTION 144C(4) AND 144C(15), AS EXHAUSTIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCU SSIONS, IN OUR HUMBLE AND LIMITED UNDERSTANDING, THE WAY FORWARD IS THAT WHILE UPHOLD ING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE FIRST FORWARDED HIM A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) BEFORE PASSIN G THE IMPUGNED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4), WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE REFERENCES TO SECTIONS 153 AND 153B, APPEARING IN SECTION 144C(4) AND 144 C(15), AS ILLUSTRATIVE RATHER THAN EXHAUSTIVE AND IN EFFECT, THUS, A REFERENCE TO SECTION 172(4A) IS TO BE READ INTO THESE PROVISIONS AS WELL. WE DO FEEL THAT THIS KIND OF A LITIGATION BEFORE JUDICIAL BODIES, I.E. WHETHER OR NOT AN ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR APP ROACHING THE DRP IN RESPECT OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4), COULD BE EASILY PREVENT ED BY MORE THOUGHTFULLY DRAFTING THE RELEVANT PROVISION. EITHER IT COULD BE MADE CLE AR, IN THE STATURE ITSELF, THAT THE OPTION OF DRP IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUCH AS ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 8 OF 10 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR 153A OR THE RELAXATION ON T IME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE ORDERS, WHICH COULD BE CARRIED BEFORE THE DRP, COULD BE MOR E GENERAL RATHER THAN CONFINED TO TIME LIMIT FOR SPECIFIC TYPE OF ORDERS AS IN SEC TION 153 OR 153B. OF COURSE, TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 172(4A) BEING SET OUT IN SECTION 153 ITSELF COULD ALSO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE. IT CAN NEVER BE TOO LATE FOR THE TAX ADM INISTRATION TO TAKE A CALL IN THIS RESPECT AND TAKE A CLEAR CUT STAND ON THE MATTER. B E THAT AS IT MAY, ONCE WE HOLD THAT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS ALSO COVERED BY TH E SCHEME OF SECTION 144C, THE NEXT QUESTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED BY US I S WHETHER IN A SITUATION IN WHICH AN ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FORWARDED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL STAND QUASHED OR WHETHER THE MATTER WILL HAVE TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAKING THE MATTER FURTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF SECTION 144C. LEARNED COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIO N IS THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS ALSO NO LONGER RES INTEGRA INASMUCH AS HO N'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, FOLLOWING HON'BLE AP HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE C ASE OF ZURAI CEMENT LTD. V. ACIT (UNREPORTED JUDGMENT DATED 21ST FEBRUARY 2013 IN WP NO. 5557 OF 2012) AND IN THE CASE OF VIJAY TELEVISION (P.) LTD. V. DRP [2014] 36 9 ITR 113/225 TAXMAN 35/46 TAXMANN.COM 100 (MAD.) HAS HELD THAT SUCH AN ORDER WILL BE 'NULL AND VOID '. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL, IN THE CASE OF CAPSUGEL HEALTHCARE LTD. V. ASSTT.CIT [2014] 50 TAXMANN.COM 324/152 ITD 142 (DELHI- TRIB.) AND VICE VERSA ALSO HOLDS SO. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITS THAT IF, IN THE WISDOM OF THE T RIBUNAL, THIS MATTER IS TO BE HELD TO BE COVERED BY THE SCHEME OF SECTION 144C, THE MATTE R CAN BEST BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FOLLOWING THAT PA TH. 11. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN ALL THE PRECEDENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN WHICH ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETER MINATION UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) WAS DONE, WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE. THESE ARE THE CASES IN WHICH THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION TO SECTION 1 44C AND THE ONLY ISSUE WAS AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE SCHEM E OF SECTION 144C, THOUGH ADMITTEDLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WAS NOT ADHERED TO. THE CASE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT INASMUCH TH E VERY APPLICATION OF THE SCHEME OF SECTION 144C HAS BEEN DISPUTED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS NOT AN ASS ESSMENT ORDER AT ALL. WHILE WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THIS LINE OF REASONING, WE CANNOT BE OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE HAD A BONA FIDE BELIEF T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C WILL NOT APPLY TO THE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 172 (4). AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WHILE THE SCHEME OF THE ACT DOES INDICATE THAT AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 172(4) IS COVERED BY THE SCHEME OF SECTION 144C, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C(4) AND 144C(15) DONOT INDICATE CORR ESPONDING REFERENCES. THERE IS, THUS, CLEARLY AN ELEMENT OF WHOLLY AVOIDABLE AMBIGU ITY IN THE PHRASEOLOGY EMPLOYED IN SECTION 144C, WHICH IS IN SHARP CONTRAST WITH TH E FACT SITUATION BEING DEALT WITH IN THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED BEFORE US. THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF DISPUTE BEFORE US IS NOT AS TO WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF NOT ISSUING A DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEN IT WAS ADMITTEDLY REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED ON THE FACTS OF A CASE, BUT WHETHER SUCH A DRAFT ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE. IN SUCH A SITUATION AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS BEING QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT, IN OU R CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT WE HOLD THAT DRAFT ORDER WAS R EQUIRED TO BE ISSUED IN THIS CASE, AND, FOR ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FOLLOWI NG THE PATH ENVISAGED IN SECTION 144C RATHER THAN PROCEEDING TO PASS THE FINAL ORDER STRAIGHTAWAY UNDER SECTION 172(4), REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER WILL ALSO RESULT IN A SITUATION THAT ALM OST ALL THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS UNDER SECTION 172(4) WILL END UP BEING REDUCED TO A NULLITY IN THE ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 9 OF 10 EYES OF LAW. AS WE HOLD SO, WE MAY ADD THAT, AS A L OWER JUDICIAL FORUM, EXPRESSING A VIEW CONTRARY TO THE VIEWS OF HON'BLE COURTS ABOVE, IS SIMPLY UNTHINKABLE IN JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR US, AND, GOING A STEP FURTHER, WE ARE E XTREMELY RELUCTANT EVEN IN TAKING ANY VIEW WHICH MAY CAN EVEN REMOTELY BE PERCEIVED T O BE AT VARIANCE WITH THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HON'BLE COURTS ABOVE. HOWEVER, IN OUR LIMITED BUT SINCERE UNDERSTANDING, THE VARIATIONS IN MATERIAL FACTS IS ON SUCH FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS THAT A DIFFERENT APPROACH WAS WARRANTED ON THESE FACTS INA SMUCH AS THE TWO CATEGORY OF SITUATIONS, I.E. THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C ARE ADMITTEDLY APPLICABLE BUT THE AO HAS NOT FORWARDED THE DRAFT O RDER AND THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE IS BONA FIDE DISPUTE ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS NOT FORWARDED THE DRAFT ORDER , CANNOT BE EQUATED. WE MAY ADD, AT THE COST OF REPETITION, THAT THE POINT OF D ISPUTE BEING WHETHER OR NOT THE COURSE OF ACTION 144C WAS PERMISSIBLE, A DECISION IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY BEING GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE ALLOWED TO TRAVERSE THAT PATH. 3. LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOW EVER, ARGUED AT LENGTH ON MERITS OF THESE CASES AS SEPARATE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS ARE ALSO RAISED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER BE DECIDED ON MERITS. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO DOUBLE NON TAXATION AND THE SCHEME OF THE INDIA SINGAPORE DTAA, WHICH HAVE NEIT HER BEEN EXAMINED AT THE STAGE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE IS IN A POSITION TO OFFER MUCH ASSISTANCE ON THE SAME IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCUSSION S THEREON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, BEARING I N MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF THE LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THESE M ATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRAMING FRESH ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 172(4). THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S (SUPRA) WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THESE CASES AS WELL, AND WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER IN REMANDED PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WILL ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LR2 MANAGEMENT K/S (SUPRA) DECISION, TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT, ON MERITS. WHILE WE APPRECIATE ERUDITE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL , PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO DOUBLE NON TAXATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT OUR DE ALING WITH SUCH FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS DIRECTLY AT THIS STAGE WILL DEPRIVE THIS ADJUDICATI ON OF THE PROPER DEPARTMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WILL, HOWEVER, BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL THESE ISSUES IN THE REMANDED PROCEEDINGS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE MATTER ST ANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) DATED THE 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018 **BT ITA NOS. 756 OF 2014, 276 OF 2015 & 91/RJT/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: .......ORDER PREPARED AS PER 2 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ARE ATTACH ED HEREWITH....09.08.18 .............. 2. DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER: .... 09.08.18 ................. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: ..... 09.08.18 ....................... . 4. DT. ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT:. 09.08.18 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: . . 10.08.18 .. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ..... 7. THE DT. ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASTT. REGISTR AR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: .................. ....... 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ................. ........