The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Aryaman Spinners Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1301/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4011 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .............. ....APPELLANT CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD VS. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ...........................RESPONDENT HP HOUSE, OPP. TOWN HALL, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD-380007 [PAN : AABCA 8482 G] APPEARANCES BY: RAJDEEP SINGH, FOR THE APPELLANT ARTI N SHAH, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 10.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09.10.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 6 TH FEBRUARY 2014 UPHOLDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE PENALTY OF RS.20.39 LACS LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CORRESPONDING QUANTUM ADDITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 43B IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE SHORT QUESTION THAT WE ARE THUS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IS WHETHER OR NOT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUG NED PENALTY OF RS.20,39,809/-. 4. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF M ANUFACTURING AND TRADING THE COTTON YARN. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, DISCLOSING LOSS OF RS.2,25,52,367/-, ON 31.10.2004. IN THE COURSE OF E NSUING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ANNEXURE TO AUDITORS REPORT STATES ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 2 OF 6 THAT THERE IS DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO FINAN CIAL INSTITUTIONS AND THAT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS SEEN THAT UNPAID INTEREST TO G UJARAT INDUSTRIAL CORP AS ON 31.03.2004 IS RS.1,22,61,286 WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS.56, 85,881 IN RESPECT OF YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.56,85,881, EVEN THOUGH IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE I MPRESSION THAT IT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN SOMETHING W HICH WAS NOT CORRECT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE AND DID NOT CHALLENGE IT IN FURTHER APPEAL. THE MATTER DID NOT END THERE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO IMPOSED CONCEALMENT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- DISALLOWANCE U/S.43B:- THE ANNEXURE TO THE AUDITORS' REPORT STATES THAT TH ERE IS DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. FROM THE BALANCE SH EET, IT IS SEEN THAT UNPAID INTEREST TO GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AS ON 31 .3.2004 IS RS.1,22,61,286/-, WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS.56,85,881/- IN RESPEC T OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, VIDE LETTER DTD.7.8.200 5 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INC OME U/S.43-B OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAID UNPAID INTER EST OF RS.56,85,881/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME U/S.43B OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ISSUE. THIS INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AG REED TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS AFTER UNPAID INTEREST NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO OFFER THE SAME. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT IN THE PRE SENT ORDER CLEAR FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE INACCURACY, ERROR AND FALSITY OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THUS, THE PRESENT ORDER IS VERY-MUCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF A.M. S HAH VS. CIT (DISCUSSED ABOVE) THAT 'EVERY FIGURE IN THE RETURN WHICH IS SET OPPOS ITE TO THE ITEM OF INCOME IS A PARTICULAR INCOME, WHETHER THE FIGURE IS ONE WHICH IS STATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ANYTHING ELSE THAT APPEARS IN THE RETURN OR THE DOC UMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT OR WHETHER IT IS SOMETHING DERIVED FROM OTHER FIGURES ELSEWHERE STATED IN SUCH RETURN OR DOCUMENTS. FALSE RESULT MAY BE PRODUCED B Y THE FALSITY OF ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSTITUENT ITEMS IN THE RETURN. THE WORDS ' INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WOULD COVER FALSITY IN THE FINAL FIGURE AS ALSO THE CONST ITUENT ELEMENTS OR ITEMS. THEY SIMPLY WOULD MEAN INACCURATE IN SOME SPECIFIC OR DE FINITE RESPECT WHETHER IN THE CONSTITUENT OR SUBORDINATE ITEMS OF INCOME OR THE E ND RESULT'. IT IS CLEAR AND ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, AS DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. FURTHER, IN THE DECISION OF DHARAMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS (NOTED ABOVE) IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT 'MENS REA' OR DELIBERATE ATTEMPT I S NOT ESSENTIAL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY IS LE VIABLE. ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 3 OF 6 IN LIGHT OF DISCUSSION HELD IN PARA ABOVE, NONE OF THE CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. HAD THE ASSESSEE'S CASE NOT BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN BENEFITED BY FILLING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE TOOK CHANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. HAD THE REVENUE NOT DET ECTED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ENJOYED THE FRUITS OF FILING INACCURATE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND W OULD HAVE CAUSED LOSS TO THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED IN PARA 3 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM AND AS PER DECISION OF HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCT (P) LTD. (NOTED ABOVE) THE LIABILITY OF PENALTY ARISES. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS I AM SATISFIED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, LEVY A MINIMUM PENALTY @ 100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON ACCOUNT OF FILING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME, WHICH WORKS OUT OF RS. 20,39,809/- AGAINST THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 61,19,429/- ON THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A), IN A VERY WELL REASONED ORDER, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING REASONING:- 4.2 IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED W.R.T. THE DISALL OWANCE U/S 43B OF UNPAID INTEREST TO GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION OF RS. 5 6,85,881/-. APPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING LOSS OF RS.2,25,52,367/- . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 15-12-2006 U/S 143(3) DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B WAS MADE . NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. AS SEEN FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, A.O. OBSERVED THAT IN THE ANNEXURE TO AUDIT REPORT IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTI ONS; AS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THE UNPAID INTEREST TO GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL COR PORATION AS ON 31-03-2004 WAS RS.1,22,61,286/- WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST OF RS. 56, 85,881/- PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED I N RESPONSE TO THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE; THEREFORE THE SAID SUM WAS ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME U/S 43B AND THEREFORE PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4.3 THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. A.R. ARE THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD ADMITTED LOSS OF OVER RS. 2.25 CRORES; EVEN AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE U /S 43B THE LOSS DETERMINED WAS OVER RS. 1.68 CRORES; THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE INTEREST PAYABLE TO GIG WERE DULY DECLARED IN CLAUSE 21B OF ANNEXURE-IV TO THE AUDIT REPORT; HOWEVER, DUE TO INADVERTENT HUMAN ERROR IT WAS NOT ADDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME; APPELLANT COMPANY'S BUSINESS WAS CLOSED DOWN SUBSEQ UENTLY; ACCUMULATED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES UPTO A.Y.2007-08 WERE OF RS. 3.36 CRORES; THUS THERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE AND THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY WA S NOT WARRANTED. 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. ALL THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS REGARDING THE NON-PAYMENT OF INTEREST WERE DISCLOSE D IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. AS ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 4 OF 6 SEEN FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THIS DEFAULT WAS NOTICED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF TAX AUDIT REPORT. APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO HA VE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED INCOME. AS CONTE NDED BY THE LD. A.R. THE INADVERTENT MISTAKE WAS BONAFIDE. AS SEEN FROM THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 24-07- 2006 OF BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTR UCTION [BIFR], ITS FINAL OPINION AS TO WINDING UP OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY WAS DIREC TED TO BE FORWARDED TO THE HIGH COURT FOR FURTHER ACTION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 11 SCC 316, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEVY O F PENALTY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IS CANCELLED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 8. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE DETAILS ABOUT UNPAID INTE REST TO THE GIC WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULATED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.3.36 CRORES AND, IN THE CURRENT YEAR ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A LOSS OF RS .2.25 CRORES WHICH WAS CLAIMED FOR A CARRY FORWARD. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED DOWN THE BUSINESS AND THE MATTER WAS BEFORE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIA L RECONSTRUCTION (BIFR). IN THE LIGHT OF THESE BACKGROUND FACTS, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING MISSED ADDING BACK THE INADMISSIBLE INTEREST DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF A BON AFIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE CANNOT BE REJECTED AS IMPROBABLE. IT IS MORE OF A S ILLY MISTAKE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE JUDICIAL APP ROACH TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND GUIDANCE FROM HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT LTD VS. CIT [(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC)] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 17. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE RATHER PECULIAR AND SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. THE ASSESSEE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A REPUTED FIRM AND HAS GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A 'SILLY' MISTAKE AND, INDEED THIS HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BOTH BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT 18. THE FACT THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT THE ASSESS EE MADE A COMPUTATION ERROR IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. APART FROM THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT NOTICE THE ERROR, IT WAS NOT EVEN NOTICED EVEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THAT SENSE, EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN OVERLOOKING THE CONTENTS OF THE T AX AUDIT REPORT. 19. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST TH AT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALSO NO QU ESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS T O US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 5 OF 6 IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE CALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E BEEN CAREFUL CANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUC H AS THE PRESENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSED IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AN D HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. 9. WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE, ONE HAS TO SEE IS WHETHER THE EXPLANATION IS AN EXPLANATION ACCEPTABLE TO A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY AND THAT WHILE AN ASSESSEE IS NOT TO PROVE THE EXP LANATION TO THE HILT POSITIVELY BUT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, MATERIALS MUST BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT WHAT HE SAYS IS REASONABLY VALID [CIT V. NATHULAL AGARWALA AND SON S (1983) 153 ITR 292 (PATNA FULL BENCH) APPROVED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC)]. VIEWED THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE OF MISTAKE AND QUANTUM OF ACCUMULATED AND CURRENT LOSSES, SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION. 10. IN THE LIGHT THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE THE WELL REASONED CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 9 TH OCTOBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 9 TH OCTOBER, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 1301/AHD/2014 DCIT V/S. ARYAMAN SPINNERS PVT LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAGE 6 OF 6 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .....ORDER PREPARED AS PER 7 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM, WHICH ARE ATTACHED....08.10.2018 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: .. 08.10.2018 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 09.10.2018... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .09.10.2018. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . 09.10.2018. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......