Smt. Sangita R.Desai, Vapi V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-3, Vapi

CO 237/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9229 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , !' # $% $% $% $% &, # BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN %./ IN I.T.A.NO.2243/AHD/2012) ( ) *) ) *) ) *) ) *) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SMT.SANGITA R.DESAI NEHRU STREET VAPI 396 191 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 VAPI #+ !' %./,- %./ PAN/GIR NO. : AJSPD 2609 R ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. DEV, SR.DR . / ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 13/12/2013 01* / ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/01/2014 !2 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS CROSS-OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20/07/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF C ROSS-OBJECTION:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REOPENING CASE OF ASSESSEE U/S.147. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,93,274/- OUT O F TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.8,55,860/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT ABOVE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY G ROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO.1, THEREFORE THE S AME IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.3,93,274/- OUT OF RS.8,55,860/- ON ACCOUNT OF LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY SHOWING A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1 961 ((HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTI CE, THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ASSESS ED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.16,25,715/- AGAINST CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.7 ,69,858/- AS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, RESTRICTED T HE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,93,274/-. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REV ENUE FILED APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS RESPECTIVELY. THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LAW TAX EFFECT VIDE ORDER DATED 23/11 /2012. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT L D.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE VALUATION AS ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNME NT APPROVED VALUER M/S.PAREKH & ASSOCIATES. HE SUBMITTED THAT COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - ADOPTED BY THE AO @ RS.43/- PER SQ.MTRS. ON THE BAS IS OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB-REGISTRAR DAMAN. HE SUBMITTED THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER HAD VALUED @ RS.108 PER SQ.MTRS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUER IS A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER WHO IS EXPERT IN THE FIELD, THEREFORE HIS REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRO NOUNCEMENTS:- 1. CIT VS. ASHVEN DALTA, REPORTED AT (2013) 37 TA XMAN.COM 261 (HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH) 2. SHRI RAJENDRA H.SETH VS. ACIT ITA NO.1495/AHD/2007, FOR AY 2003-04, DTD.1 1.11.2011 3. SMT.PRAMILA M.DESAI, HUF VS. DCIT ITA NO.04/AHD/2012, AY 2008-09, DTD.21.09.20 12 4. ACIT VS. SMT.HIRABEN GOVINDBHAI PATEL, ITA NO.137/AHD/2009, FOR AY 2007-08 DATE D 17.05.2013 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT VALUATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE ADOPTED AS A SALE INSTANCE TAKEN BY THE VALUER, PERTAINS TO THE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR 1981. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE-LAWS AS RE LIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASH VEN DALTA(SUPRA), THE HONBLE ANDRA PRADESH HIGH CONFIRMED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER ON THE BASIS THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE VALUER WAS MORE S CIENTIFIC. HE SUBMITTED IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT SO. THE VALUER HI MSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE INSTANCES OF SALES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS NO T AVAILABLE FOR RECENT SALES. THE VALUER HAS TAKEN THE SALE INSTANCE OF THE YEAR 1988. CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE I N DETAIL VIDE PARA 6.6, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 6.6. DECISION : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE CASE. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LAR. THE ISSUE HERE NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS W HAT SHOULD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF HE INHERITED AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01.04.1981? THE AO ADOPTED FMV AT RS.43/- (33 + 55/2) PER SQ.M TRS. WHEREAS THE LAR MADE A CASE FOR THE FMV TO BE RS.108/- OR AT LE AST RS.106/- PER SQ.MTRS. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WAS BASED ON THE I NFORMATION COLLECTED FROM SUB-REGISTRAR, DAMAN VIDE LETTER DATED 15.09.2 010. IN THE SAID LETTER, THE SUB-REGISTRAR STATED THAT THE SALES STA TISTICS RATE WAS BETWEEN RS.33/- TO RS.55/- PER SQ.MTR. FOR LAND IN THE YE AR 1981. THE AO AVERAGED OUT AND APPLIED RS.43/- AS FMV AS ON 01.04 .1981. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANTS ASCERTAIN FOR ADOPTING FMV AT RS.108/- OR AT LEAST RS.106/- PER SQ.MTRS. WAS ALSO BASED ON T HE CERTIFICATES DATED 22.01.2007 AND 16.01.2008 FROM SUB-REGISTRAR, DAMAN . THE LAR SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS BY SUBMITTING INDEPENDENT V ALUERS REPORT, THE LAR SUBMITTED A SALE AGREEMENT IN THE YEAR 1988 AND THE PROPERTY SURVEY NO.65/3-D SITUATED AT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AT RIG ANWADA, WITHIN THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT JURISDICTION OF DABHEL, TALUKA OF DAMAN. THE FMV DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR IN THIS SALE DEED W AS RS.99/- PER SQ.MTR. IN THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LAR ABOVE, V ARIOUS ALTERNATIVE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO IMPRESS FOR THE RATE SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. THE RATE CERTIFIED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR WIDELY VARIES. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE AO, THE CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED BY THE LAR WAS N OT PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT BUT FOR A THIRD PARTY CALLED DHANPALBHAI J.RANKA. THERE WAS NO CONSISTENCY IN THE REPORT OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR. WHEREAS, THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY DHANPALBHAI J.RANKA FOR THE YEAR 2007 & 2008 WHERE THE RATE INDICATED WAS RS.165/- PER SQ.MTR. BUT THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE AO IN THE YEAR 2010 FROM THE SAME S UB-REGISTRAR INDICATING PREVAILING RATE AT RS.33/- TO 55/- IN 19 81. HOWEVER, THE LAR SUBMITTED OTHER ALTERNATIVE I.E. A SALE DEED OF 198 8 AND VALUATION REPORT FROM AN INDEPENDENT VALUER. THE RATE PER SQ .MTR. INDICATED IN THE SALES DEED IN THE YEAR 1988 WAS RS.99/- AND THE RATE AS PER VALUERS REPORT WAS RS.105/- FOR THE YEAR 1981. TH E LAR ALSO OFFERED CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE O F RS.43/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT OF RS.165/- ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH COMES TO RS.104/- (RS.43/- + RS.165/2) AND IS CLOSER TO THE VALUE OF RS.108/- DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER PAREK H & ASSOCIATES MAY BE ADOPTED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF VARIOUS ALTERN ATIVE PUT FORTH BY THE LAR, IT IS CERTAIN THAT IF THE RATE IN 1988 WAS RS.99/- PER SQ.MTR. IN THAT CASE THE RATE IN 1981 CANNOT BE RS.165/- PER S Q.MTR. AS REPORTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR TO DHANPALBHAI J.RANKA. THERE FORE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ALTERNATIVES AGAINST THE FINDIN G OF THE AO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A MERIT IN REWORKING OF F MV OF THE LAND IN 1981. THE AO HEAVILY RELIED ON THE CERTIFICATE FRO M THE SUB-REGISTRAR TO ADOPT THE AVERAGE RATE AT RS.43/- PER SQ.MTR. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE LAR OFFERED MANY ALTERNATIVES TO AUGMENT HIS CASE. DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES , SUFFER FROM SUBJECTIVITY. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, IN MY OPINION, A MIDDLE PATH H AS TO BE FOUND FOR COMPUTING FMV OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN 1981. THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO AT RS.43/- WHEREAS, THE LARS CLAIM AFTER AG GREGATING ALL 3 POSSIBLE OPTION WAS RS.108/- PER SQ.MTR. THEREFORE , IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FMV IN 1981 WORKED OUT IS THE AVERAGE OF (RS.43/- + 108/-)/2 = RS.75.50 PER SQ.MTR. (SAY RS.76/-). THIS RATE IS VERY CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL RATE RS.99/- OFFICIALLY AVAILABLE ON RECORDS FOR THE YEAR 1988. IN OTHER WORDS, BACKWARD CALCULATION OF RATE FROM 1988 TO 1981, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.23/- FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS. CON SIDERING THE EXISTING ECONOMIC SITUATION AT THAT TIME I.E. BETWEEN 1981 T O 1988, AN INCREASE OF RS.23/- IS JUSTIFIABLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE FMV FOR THE YEAR 1981 AT RS.76/- PER SQ.MTR. A CCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6.1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS AS RELIED U PON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTION THAT ONLY THE VALUATION REPORT HAS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROV ED VALUER OF THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHVEN DALTA (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH C ONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE EMAN ATING FROM THE SUB- REGISTRARS OFFICE CANNOT BE ADOPTED UNLESS IT IS S CIENTIFICALLY ARRIVED AT. IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA H.SETH, PROP. VS. ACIT(SUPR A), THE HONBLE ITAT CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.1495/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2003-04, ORDER DATED 11/11/2011, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEES VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981 IS SUPPORTED BY VALUATION BY A TECHNICA L PERSON I.E. REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER AND CONTRARY TO THAT NO SUCH MA TERIAL OR DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF OTHER GENERAL ENQUIRIES THE VALUATION DECLARED BY THE REG ISTERED VALUER CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED. THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE DISTIN GUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA H.S ETH, IT IS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF A REGISTERED VALUER AND HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT VALUATION WITHOUT OBTAINING VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CONCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE VALUATION. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE AR E DISTINGUISHABLE. THE OTHER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE CASE OF SMT.PRAMILA M.DESAI, HUF VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.04/AHD/2012(SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL H AS RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE DVO HAD TAKEN FOUR DIFFERENT SALE INSTANCE S. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SALE INSTANCE HAS TAKEN BY THE DVO PERTAI NS TO THE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR 1981. THEREFORE, THIS DECIS ION ALSO WOULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. NOW, COMING TO THE ANOTHER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT.ACIT VS. SMT.HIRABEN GOVINDHBAI PATEL IN ITA NO.137/AHD/ 2009(SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS WITH REGARD TO TENANCY RIGHT. IT IS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ALSO DISTINGUI SHABLE. MOREOVER, IN THAT CASE, NO CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HENCE THIS CASE IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE. CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - 6.2. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THI S ISSUE IN DETAIL, HE HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AT RS.76/- PER SQ.METER. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS RATE IS VERY CLOSE TO RS.99/- OFFICIALLY AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR THE YEAR 1988. WHILE ADOPTING THIS RATE, LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT THE SALE INSTANCE TAKEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER FOR THE YEA R 1988. WE FIND THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE SALE IN STANCE AVAILABLE IN THE YEAR 1988 IN NEARLY AREA AND ADOPTED RS.99/- PER SQ .METER AND BY WAY OF COMPARATIVE SALES, THE VALUER HAS ADOPTED RS.65/- P ER SQ.METER. AN ANOTHER BASIS WAS TAKEN BY DVO WAS TAKING THE RATE OF ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE YEAR 1994 AND COMPUTE D THE VALUE @ 105/- PER SQ.METER. SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW HAVE DISREGARDED THE BASIS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT APPRO VED VALUER. THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER HAS TAKEN THREE VALUATIO N RATES; (1) ON THE BASIS OF SALE INSTANCE IN THE YEAR 1988 VALUING IT AT RS.65/- PER SQ.METER, (2) ON THE BASIS OF THE ACQUISITION BY GOVERNMENT A UTHORITIES IN THE YEAR 1984, VALUING IT AT RS.104.70/- PER SQ.METER AND (3 ) THE LAND RATE GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 1982 AND ADOPTED THE SAM E AT RS.108/- PER SQ.MTER. 6.3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INSISTED TO AD OPT THE RATE AT RS.108/- PER SQ.METER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION AS THE VALUER HAS HIMSELF ADOPTED THREE MODES OF COMPUTATI ON OF VALUATION AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED BETWEEN THE HIGHEST AND T HE LOWEST, THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A), WHICH IS CO NO.237/AHD/2012 ( IN ITA NO.2243/AHD/201 2) SMT. SANGITA R.DESAI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. THIS GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION IS HEREBY REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( ) ( &) !' # # ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/01 /2014 5.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !2 / 67 8!7* !2 / 67 8!7* !2 / 67 8!7* !2 / 67 8!7*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +9 / THE APPELLANT 2. 6:+9 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %% ; / CONCERNED CIT 4. ;() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 7&< 6 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <) =. / GUARD FILE. !2 !2 !2 !2 / BY ORDER, :7 6 //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / %, %, %, %, ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 7/1/14 (DICTATION-PAD 13-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.1.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.17.1.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17.1.14 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